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.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise in support of my noble friend’s Motion A, and I will be as brief as I can. The Bill, as my noble friend said, is a landmark step in the Government’s commitment to renew the nation’s contract with those women and men in our Armed Forces, and I happily re-declare my own interest in this, as I have done at each stage of the Bill’s proceedings. It is good to see a manifesto commitment making such good progress towards the statute book.

I support the amendments in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the change in regulation-making power to define “relevant family members” from the negative to the affirmative procedure. We had some helpful and interesting discussions about that in Committee. This is not a Bill that is going to solve every problem that we have with the culture of our Armed Forces, but it does provide a route for individuals to raise concerns outside the chain of command with an independent champion, and it quite rightly extends to the UK as a whole.

I will just add one word about the Government’s amendment in lieu of Lords Amendments 2 and 3. As the House may be aware, the commission can already investigate, as my noble friend has said, any general welfare issue that it chooses. In effect, as the Minister said in another place only last week, the entire Bill is to an extent about whistleblowing, because it allows anyone to raise a matter outside the chain of command. The government amendment in lieu does, as I understand it, go further than the original Lords amendments and will ensure genuine protection in respect of reports prepared by the commissioner, preserving the anonymity of individuals who make complaints.

In a way, we are all on the same side on the purpose of this Bill, and I would be sorry if the House divided on it, even if an amendment is presented as an attractive Rolls-Royce. Finally, in the fast-changing world in which we find ourselves, with the very real threats that we now face, we are going to require a great deal of our Armed Forces, and I, for one, think this is the very least that they deserve with this Bill.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, having been in attendance for all the past stages of the Bill, I think there is no disagreement across the House, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, on wanting to get the best out of the Bill in ensuring that our service men and women have a voice and an ability to raise complaints on issues that go wrong within our Armed Forces. I was on every single Armed Forces Bill in the other place for nearly 20 years, and I said on Report that this is yet another attempt to ensure that we have an open and transparent, but also effective, means by which members of the Armed Forces can raise serious concerns. Sadly, other attempts have failed. Some of this will need amending once the Armed Forces commissioner is in place.

I support my noble friend’s Motion A. On the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, it is a little bit like the debate we had on Report. There is nothing in the Bill which stops an individual, family members or related parties raising a complaint with the commissioner. I would think it important to ensure that the commissioner, he or she, had the ability to look at those complaints that came forward.

The Bill also gives powers to the commissioner to do thematic inquiries, not just individual complaints. I am sure that when he or she is conducting them, there will be a call for evidence and people will come forward in that process. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said about the key point being anonymity for individuals, who have to be protected from any idea that if things are raised there is going to be an effect on them or their career. However, I think that the existing processes outlined in the Bill protect that. I welcome what is put forward in terms of whistleblowing, and I accept that we can dance on the head of a pin about definitions around it, but, as I said on Report, the important thing will be to ensure that we get the information out to members of our Armed Forces that this system exists and can be used.

When I started on this journey 20 years ago, there was huge resistance to any idea of anybody crossing the chain of command, so we have made progress. Sadly, I think that because of the scandals we have had, we have had to ensure that there is an ability to look at these things outside the chain of command.

I do not feel that there is any need for the amendments as put forward, but I do not think we are far apart here. We just want to ensure that this Bill gives an opportunity for service men and women to raise concerns when they affect them or as wider thematic issues. Will this be the end of it? Will we have found of the Ark of the Covenant in terms of whether the system is perfect? I am not sure we will; I think we will have to amend it, and possibly the Armed Forces commissioner, whoever he or she is, will want to amend the process as it beds in.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I extend our gratitude to the Minister and his team for the courtesy and time they have extended to discuss some of the issues that we raised at various stages of the Bill. In particular, it is appropriate at this time to welcome the role of the commissioner but also to note that one of the aims is to move on from the ombudsperson. At various stages of the Bill, we talked about different categories of service personnel who might have issues that the commissioner would look into. One set would be LGBT+ service personnel, and at this stage, I pay tribute to the late Lord Etherton for the work that he put in to reviewing the situation of LGBT service personnel in the past. We very much hope that the incoming Armed Forces commissioner, once this legislation passes, will not have to look at such difficult situations in the future. Again, I thank the Minister; I thank the Liberal Democrat Whip’s Office, including Mohamed-Ali Souidi, and wish the Bill well.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that it is in order to take 60 seconds to thank the Minister for the way he has conducted himself throughout the Bill. From the very beginning, it was clear that Members interested were invited to understand the nature of the Bill. I very much hope it will make a difference, but it is a very good Bill—and the fact that I grew to have a personal interest in it is neither here nor there. This is a very good step forward, and I wish it well.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

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

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

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the Bill and my noble friend the Minister’s amendments. We had an interesting discussion about the phrase “relevant family members” in Committee. I declared an interest at that stage. I retain an interest, certainly until 20 September.

In view of the comment made by the Minister on the content of Amendment 12, I would like to know whether, in proposed new subsection (3)(a), the reference to

“a person whose relationship with A is akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners”

covers someone engaged to a member of the Armed Forces, rather than a spouse or a civil partner at that time. I hope the Minister might tell me that, when it comes to the secondary legislation, that will be set out more explicitly than it is in Amendment 12.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I support Amendments 3 and 5 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for the way in which he has engaged with us on the Bill and, in particular listened well in the scrutiny stages.

These amendments are important because whistleblowing provides an important safety valve, especially for those who are vulnerable or whose experiences of poor behaviour from others make them vulnerable. Armed Forces chaplains regularly hear concerns in their pastoral work, but I am told that those bringing these concerns can often fear reporting them. A whistleblowing function would reduce that fear of making a complaint or fear of the impact on one’s future career, or enable a family member to have a voice they might not otherwise have.

As your Lordships have already heard, Amendment 3 keeps the function within the definition and boundaries of the Bill while not overstretching the commissioner. It should be noted that the German armed forces commissioner has a whistleblowing function within their role, and that German model has been upheld in your Lordships’ House as an example of good practice. If, as part of this Bill, we want to ensure a positive culture, positive attitudes and positive behaviours within the Armed Forces, these amendments will support that endeavour.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief, not least because the points made by my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill are ones with which agree.

When my noble friend the Minister replies to this debate—which is worth having, without a doubt, and raises serious issues—can he reassure the House, first, that the commissioner will have the powers she or he needs to investigate, whether in individual or thematic investigations? Secondly, can he confirm that the amendment we are considering, however well-intentioned, which it clearly is, does not in fact add anything to the powers the commissioner already has under the Bill? Thirdly, can he say something about the role of anonymity in relation to these matters? I think there is a common concern around the House that people should feel able to raise matters in that way.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome this Bill and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward to this point. I will speak in support of Amendments 3 and 5. I believe that there is a distinction between a complaint that an individual wants to see resolved and the challenging of something that is wrong in the system. It is the challenging of something someone perceives to be wrong in the system that is at the heart of whistleblowing.

In order not to risk engaging your Lordships’ House any longer, I would like to say that, as a former Chief of the General Staff, I support this. I believe it would strengthen the chain of command and strengthen the role of the commissioner, and I urge support for Amendments 3 and 5.

--- Later in debate ---

It is important to have this debate to put a marker down for this Government—as well as for future Governments—that if this is to work properly and be effective, it has to have the finance behind it to achieve what it needs to do. If it is done properly, it should lead to efficiencies, by not having the inquiries into scandals that we have had to undertake so far and by not giving out the compensation that we have had to pay to individuals who have suffered during their service to their country. I say to the Minister that this is again a probing amendment, but we need it on the record that, if the role of the commissioner is to work and be effective, it needs the finance behind it.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. When my noble friend Lord Beamish moved his amendment in Committee, I strongly supported it—and I support it again today. I am sure that Machiavelli would be pleased to know that his name still comes up in discussions centuries after his death.

When my noble friend the Minister introduced the Bill at Second Reading, he made the very good point that its purpose was to provide statutory authority for the new Armed Forces commissioner—it is a new role that we have not had before. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to convey the same sense of authority, this time on behalf of Parliament, because she or he will have been confirmed by the relevant committee—or committees —of either House.

My second point has nothing to do with this Bill. What my noble friend is suggesting is a very good point of principle on all such appointments. In the wider context of the relations between the Executive and the legislature, an amendment such as this strongly seeks to improve the authority of Parliament—not necessarily against the Executive, but, nevertheless, it would improve the importance and role of Parliament. Otherwise, what is the point of our being here if Parliament does not play a role?

I strongly support the amendment. It will not be pressed to a vote, and I do not know what my noble friend the Minister will say in reply, but I hope that he will convey an element of agreement with my noble friend Lord Beamish’s argument.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, seek to do what amendments that I tabled in Committee also sought to do, albeit rather less elegantly. My amendment on having parliamentary scrutiny for the Armed Forces commissioner was the source of considerable concern to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who said that it was far too detailed to put in the Bill. Therefore, I am extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, has decided to bring back this amendment, because it is important that we have a parliamentary role, and he has phrased that elegantly both in the formulation of his amendment and in what he has just said.

If we want to have an independent Armed Forces commissioner appointed by the Secretary of State, it would be appropriate that the way of appointing that person stands up to scrutiny—and both Houses of Parliament playing a role would be an effective way of doing that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that and what role His Majesty’s Government feel able to grant to Parliament in this regard.

On Amendment 14, the change of those minor words—from “may” to “must”—suggests something rather important. As with so much legislation, if you have not read the Bill, the change from “may” to “must” makes very little sense. But this is about adequate resourcing of the Armed Forces commissioner. It was pointed out earlier in today’s debate that we are already looking at considerably increasing the funding for the Armed Forces commissioner, compared with the current ombudsperson. If work needs to be done, it is vital that the role of the Armed Forces commissioner be adequately resourced, because if not, and the Armed Forces commissioner is unable fully to fulfil the job given to them, what message does that send to the Armed Forces and their families? If cases are brought and the Armed Forces commissioner does not have time to deal with the complaints or to undertake the reports needed, that will undermine the commissioner’s prestige and credibility.

If “may” cannot be converted to “must”, can the Minister explain to the House how funding will be provided and give us some guarantees that, in the longer term, the Armed Forces commissioner will be adequately resourced? As his noble friend Lord Beamish said, we might be happy that this Government will give adequate resources, but we are legislating not just for this Government but for future ones as well.