Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, there is always time for a new experience. Despite having been in your Lordships’ House for 10 and a half years, this is the first time that I have ever moved an amendment as the first amendment in Committee, which means that I do not have any experience of quite what I am supposed to do, other than to stand up and say that I am moving the amendment in my name.

I am very aware that, at various Committee stages of Bills, the movers of amendments seem to talk at great length. The bit that I do know is that I am not supposed to give another Second Reading speech—but I also noted before I arrived that it said that movers should not speak for more than 15 minutes, and I am moving the first amendment in two groups. For the benefit of everyone in Grand Committee this afternoon, noble Lords will all be extremely relieved to know that I do not plan to speak for more than 15 minutes in total, across all five groups, unless I am interrupted or heckled. We were all very clear at Second Reading that this is an important Bill and that we all broadly support it and wish it well. Any amendments that we bring forward are intended to improve it and not in any way to undermine it. It is very much in that spirit that the first amendment is proposed.

This amendment is in a little group all on its own, because it refers to the Armed Forces covenant. When the Armed Forces covenant has come up previously, it was very clear under the previous Government that there was a commitment to it and a desire that it should apply to businesses and maybe to schools, the health service or to other branches external to government—but the Government themselves and the MoD were not subject to the Armed Forces covenant. From these Benches, we always felt that that was a bit of a gap. In looking at this new role for the Armed Forces commissioner, it seems entirely appropriate that the person appointed should pay due attention to the Armed Forces covenant and that they should

“uphold and give due regard”

to it, in the wording of the amendment.

We also think that it would be helpful for the Armed Forces commissioner to monitor the Armed Forces covenant and how far the principles and commitments are being upheld. It is an important document and an important covenant, yet sometimes it seems to be honoured more in the breach than in the reality. Therefore, in that spirit, we want to ask His Majesty’s Government at least to think about the relationship between the Armed Forces commissioner and the covenant. With that, I beg to move.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said that this is the first time she has ever moved an amendment in Committee—

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The first amendment.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

In my case, it is the first time I have ever been at a Committee on a Bill on the Armed Forces. When I walked in the door and was handed the latest regulations and so on, for which we are all very grateful, I must admit that when I looked at some of the amendments, I wondered where the disagreements are going to lie. As someone who comes fresh to this, I should have to say briefly—I am going to be briefer than the noble Baroness—that I thought, “This seems like a reasonable amendment. What’s wrong with it?” So when my noble friend the Minister replies, I should be grateful to have explained what may be the objections to this amendment, because if there is something I do not understand about the relationship between the Armed Forces commissioner and the covenant, I should very much like to know.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords as always, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and I thank her for opening the Committee’s considerations of this Bill on a matter as important as the Armed Forces covenant. She has done a commendable job of reminding noble Lords of the three principles of the covenant; so I will not repeat them. However, I should like briefly to comment on some of the great work that has happened as a result of the covenant.

The Armed Forces Act 2021, which was taken through the House by my noble friend Lady Goldie—who sends her apologies for not being present in this Committee today; she is otherwise detained in the Chamber—imposed new duties on public bodies to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant. This means that housing organisations, health services, educational establishments and local authorities must all take action to ensure that service personnel are not disadvantaged. This has led to considerable improvements in service welfare.

For example, the Armed Forces community in west Norfolk raised concerns that there was insufficient dental service provision near the local base at RAF Marham. The views of families, supported by research from Healthwatch Norfolk into local health provision and user needs, were fed into the Norfolk health overview and scrutiny committee, ensuring the commissioning process reflected local and regional needs. This was all led and negotiated by the Norfolk Armed Forces covenant board, with partner organisations then collaborating to find a solution to meet those needs. NHS England worked closely with RAF Marham and the Defence Infrastructure Organisation to address the gap by opening the first NHS dental practice based on an MoD site. This is a direct positive consequence of the Armed Forces covenant.

The previous Government took significant steps, as I have mentioned, to incorporate the covenant into law. Given that it is somewhat axiomatic that the commissioner will already have due regard to the principles of the covenant, I should say, therefore, that the amendment does not seem quite necessary. I am glad, however, that the noble Baroness has moved it to highlight the positive impact of the covenant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I too am persuaded that Amendment 2 is not necessary, but, with an eye to what one might consider bringing forward on Report, could I take the opportunity to ask the Minister to reflect a little more widely than simply the recruitment process and go into some detail on recruit training? Recruit training will be covered by the Armed Forces commissioner, but it is as a blanket coverage just like everything else.

But we are only too well aware of the serious concerns that exist about the abuse of recruits undergoing training. This is a particularly serious problem that, in my view, needs to be looked at outwith the general subject of the treatment of people in the Armed Forces. Why do I say that? Recruit training is and must be a tough and stressful endeavour. It has to turn civilians into effective members of a military organisation. It has to forge new bonds of loyalty and duty, and that will never be an easy or gentle process. But, simply because of that, recruit training becomes a particularly potentially dangerous area, because recruits are particularly vulnerable. Anyone in charge of recruits who steps over the bounds can cause serious harm.

The abuse of recruits is not just wholly wrong legally and morally; it is also damaging to the image of the Armed Forces more widely, and indeed it could be damaging to recruiting. So it seems to me that this area deserves some particular and special attention. The Minister might like to reflect on whether something should be included in the Bill, or in the regulations that flow from it, that pays particular attention to this.

It is not, of course, because commanders do not care; they do care. We have had the very recent example of the Chief of the General Staff expressing his shame at some of the some of the recent cases. But we have seen these cases year after year, stretching back as far as any of us can remember. The care, concern and statements of commanders have not changed things. As the Minister will be aware from discussions we had at Second Reading, the critical thing in the Bill is what it will do to change things on the ground. Recruit training, it seems to me, is an area that deserves particular consideration. I wonder whether he might reflect on that and perhaps have some further discussions before we get to Report.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I intervene at this point to say that I am very grateful to follow the two noble Lords who have just spoken because I learned a great deal. On Amendment 2, I hope that, when the Minister comes to reply, he will be as precise as possible in indicating exactly when the Bill will take effect on people joining. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, referred to attestation: is that in fact the moment at which you go from being an applicant to being, as it were, a serving member of the Armed Forces—and hence the Bill applies?

Secondly, with respect to Amendment 10 and its reference to the regulations, which I got a copy of as I walked through the door, my noble friend the Minister made his declaration of interest again today, and I made one during the Second Reading debate—I will not bore the Committee with it again, except to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for his enthusiastic reply. Looking at the list of relevant family members, and bearing in mind my declared interest, am I right that someone who is engaged to a serving member of the Armed Forces does not come within the current definition of family members?

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a serving Army Reserve officer. I was not going to speak on this group, but the discussion so far has prompted me because, without wishing to prejudge the Committee too much, I am probably the one who went through the recruit process most recently—albeit six years ago. Things have probably changed for the better since then.

I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that recruit training needs to be vigorous and arduous, because you are turning civilians into soldiers, sailors and airmen. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Lancaster that applying service law, and benefits thereof, at the point at which someone becomes an applicant would be too early. But, to pick up on the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, yes, attestation is exactly that point.

I can speak only for the Army recruitment process. It is very good at training you and telling you where you need to be, at what time, and with what kit and equipment, and it is good at telling you what you are going to do. What this amendment perhaps points towards is that it could communicate better to recruits not only their obligations but their rights. The National Recruiting Centre holds everyone’s personal information. It could be as simple as an email from the Armed Forces, subbed by the Armed Forces commissioner, saying, “You have now attested. These are your obligations, rights and benefits”. That would take care of all of these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

They are getting married in September.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to the two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, to which I have added my name. We spent quite a lot of time during Second Reading and—I just checked—the first part of the Minister’s response from the Front Bench on the question of what difference this will make. I think all noble Lords who took part at Second Reading agreed that that is the essence. To that extent, Amendment 3 is quite important, because it goes to the heart of the question of what difference it will make.

The reason why the German system works the way it does is that the German armed forces commissioner is very clearly the servant of the Bundestag; he or she sits in the Bundestag alongside the clerks and, indeed, if the Bundestag wishes it to happen, it can request that the armed forces commissioner can participate actively in debates around the armed forces in the Chamber. So it is a very different model, and it really does make a difference, because it is markedly different from what we are suggesting.

This is the third attempt by us to try to get a form of ombudsman or Armed Forces commissioner to be more effective. We had the first one in 2008, the second iteration in 2016, and this is the third bite of the cherry to try to get it right. Clearly, if this is the third time we are doing it, it ain’t that simple. For all sorts of excellent reasons, the Armed Forces are a very particular culture and ecosystem, which they need to be to do what they do, but the flip side of having a really effective and disciplined military is that, for all sorts of reasons that it may not completely understand itself, it may be quite resistant to attempts that it sees as coming from outside—from people who do not really understand the culture and history and the things that are so important. The things that are not said are often more important than the things that are said.

The problem is that, at the moment, some of us feel that, while this is very well intended, it is very cautious indeed. For the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence to retain as much ownership and control of this as will inevitably be the case is unlikely to make the sort of step change that I think a lot of us were hoping and aspiring to believe this new role could actually make. I think that this needs to be looked at—it is a probing amendment—and I ask the Minister and his colleagues to look very carefully.

As part of my research for this proposal, I asked an individual who is actively involved in teaching in Shrivenham to take a poll after talking to a few people about this Bill. The first thing that this person found was that almost everybody spoken to in Shrivenham—this was last week—was not actually aware of this Bill. I do not know how well publicised this Bill is within the Armed Forces, but you would expect and hope that the flagship or leadership organisations of the Armed Forces would be aware of it and indeed might even perhaps been talking about it a bit. However, apparently this was not the case—but this was not a professional Sir John Curtice-type opinion poll but just somebody going around and talking to other people at Shrivenham.

The other experience that this individual had, after a brief explanation of what this role was going to be, was an almost immediate response from everybody; people felt that what they described as the “rigidity”, with a small “R”, of the armed services culture would find it pretty easy to resist the type of role that is being envisaged.

The bottom line is whether this is going to make a difference. It is important to be able to step back from this Bill and perhaps to take some more soundings from within the Armed Forces just to try to understand how likely they feel this will make a real difference. One senses that the onus of this Bill is coming primarily from the Ministry of Defence itself, and there is slightly less pull, if you like, from those parts within the Armed Forces and the extended family members that we were talking about. I am not sure how clearly their voices and experiences are being heard, because what we have at the moment clearly is not working.

I shall move quickly to Amendment 5 and term of office. The German term of office is five years. It can be renewed; it usually has not been renewed. Almost every time a new commissioner is appointed in Germany, it is an ex-Member of Parliament—usually an ex-member of the defence committee that is the equivalent of our Defence Select Committee. So they come with some live experience and with a network within Parliament that they are easily able to access; they can be quite influential behind the scenes. That system works well but, again, I come back to what we asked earlier: will this measure make a difference?

The aspiration is that this new role will make a discernible difference. In order for it to do that, clearly, it needs to do a lot of things differently to the way in which things have been done to date; and to find an effective way of doing things differently that works better. One will not get it right first time every time. It will be an iterative process: there will be successes, failures, brick walls and elephant traps. All sorts of things will be happening. Building up the types of resource and knowledge that will be required to gain momentum to carry this new role forward into the term of whoever follows the first commissioner will require giving the first commissioner the leeway and resources to make a difference.

I just feel that things are a bit timid at the moment. If we focus on the complexity of the task that we are asking this new function to do—in particular, if we try to think, “What should this look like 10 years from now? What do we hope would be happening? How would this be working?”—and know both where we want to get to and where we are now, we can then gauge the complexity of the task of getting from A to B. That might result in looking at some of these aspects in a slightly different, perhaps more beneficial, way.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 3, not because I agree with it but because I agree very strongly with it. When my noble friend the Minister introduced the Bill, I remember him saying—quite rightly—that one of the important aspects of this Bill is that it puts this commissioner on a statutory footing. He was referring to the fact that he wanted this new post to have the weight of statute behind her or him. I simply support Amendment 3—if I refer to it again, I shall say “very, very strongly”—because it would give this post the authority of Parliament, in addition to being in statute, which would be a very good thing.

I am interested in everything said by people who know far more than I do about the German system but, clearly, that is not particularly appropriate to a British political setting. Amendment 3, however, is absolutely perfectly suited to our political system. I know that, sadly, Governments do not tend to like amendments such as Amendment 3. If I were on the other side of the Room, I dare say my noble friend might have been arguing for Amendment 3. I understand that, in his current ministerial position, he may be guided by the officials behind him and say, “Well, it is too complicated”, but it is not complicated at all. It is a question of whether Parliament should be involved, which it should be. This is a major new post that we are creating. The process of confirming the appointment of whoever is put forward is something that Parliament should do. Incidentally, it is not just because Amendment 3 applies to this particular Bill; I would support Amendment 3 in every piece of legislation where this type of question arises.

That is all I have to say on this matter. I do hope that, when he replies, my noble friend the Minister will at least acknowledge the, I would say, widespread feeling that Parliament must be involved in the appointment of this person; and convey it internally to his colleagues in the Government who would be resistant to an amendment of this kind. When it comes to the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament, I try always to be on the side of Parliament.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in broad support of Amendments 3 and 4. Anything that strengthens the relationship between the Armed Forces and Parliament must be a good thing. I was taken by the commentary in the House of Commons around the similarities with the German system, although I was struck that, in reality, there do not seem to be many hooks in the Bill that reflect that, which is why I think we should look carefully at how we can reflect that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

When I saw Amendment 6 from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, I put my name down in addition to his because of what I am holding in my hand: a fact sheet that was given to us at the very helpful briefing given by the Minister at the Ministry of Defence. I will read from the fact sheet; I ask your Lordships to look for the word “may”, because I cannot find it. It says:

“Although funding for the Commissioner will be provided for from the MoD budget, the Bill contains several safeguards to ensure the Commissioner can operate independently of government”.


It says “will” instead of “may”; that is on the fact sheet. I say this to whoever prepared it; it may have been one of the gentlemen or ladies behind the Minister. A slip of the verb may have produced it, but it does say “will”.

We were talking in the previous group about allowing Parliament to have more ownership of, and more skin in the game with, this new role. Can I just suggest as an idea that, on an annual basis, the Defence Select Committee of another place has a session devoted to talking to the Armed Forces commissioner about the work that he or she is undertaking? In addition, I suggest that, on an annual basis, there should be a session held with the commissioner in camera specifically to discuss funding, resourcing and some of the issues that one may not necessarily wish to be aired in the public domain but which could be shared on a confidential basis with members of the Select Committee.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief. The Government set great store by the independence of the commissioner. We all agree that that is vital, yet this amendment is necessary because the possibility is left open that it will not be properly funded. I find that remarkable. As my noble friend said in moving his amendment, this would detract from the independence of the commissioner.

I do not see why the Government should be allowed to say that they are fully committed to this new post and to giving it the resources that it needs—this was on the fact sheet, which I also picked up; I should have brought it with me—while, at the same time, they will not guarantee this funding in the Bill, which will become an Act. That is all I have to say. I am afraid that I cannot quite imagine what my noble friend the Minister will say in response because this is so clearly something that will set in stone the importance of the work and independence of the commissioner.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I will be equally brief. I come at this from a slightly different angle. I confess that I equally support the principle that, whatever happens, this post must be funded; indeed, I asked some Parliamentary Questions about this before commencement. An Answer to a Question on 14 February with the reference number HL4758 said that, in 2023, the post of the ombudsman cost £1.8 million. It is anticipated that, after the changes, the annual cost will increase to between £4.5 million and £5.5 million—a tripling of the cost. Those costs are modest and, I think, reasonable, although I am concerned about inflation—as in, inflation of the number of complaints and costs. There will be a tripling in the cost of this post as a direct result of the Bill.

As I have mentioned before, the role of the ombudsman is just the tip of the iceberg. The unseen cost of service complaints at the bottom of the iceberg within the single services—we have already had an amendment suggesting that we would potentially increase eligibility, through the recruitment process, by at least 100,000—is enormous. There are no official figures on costs—well, there are such figures, but they are not in the public domain and I am certainly not going to put them there; the Minister may or may not wish to put them in the public domain in due course—but they are enormous. I am quite confident in saying that, over a 10-year period, they will exceed £100 million. That is a lot of money.

There is competition in defence for money. All I am saying at this point is that we need to find a balance here. It is absolutely right that this system is in place, that our service personnel have the ability to go through this process, and that it is fair and properly funded, but I put a plea in: at a time when there is enormous pressure on defence, we must find that balance when it comes to scarce resource.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, it is such a great honour and privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill and to be the first person in this Chamber to compliment her on her excellent maiden speech, which displayed such knowledge, based, as we know, on personal experience. As she herself has just told the House, she has had a long career in the trade union movement. She first became a teacher and was active in the NUT, and then she joined the TUC education department in 1978. Some 10 years later, she was appointed the first head of its equal rights department. In 2003, she was appointed to the post of assistant general secretary of the TUC and stayed in the TUC until she formally retired 10 years ago.

In her time as assistant general secretary, she served with distinction under the general secretaryships of my noble friend Lord Barber, who is, I am glad to say, in his place, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady. Of course, she served in the TUC at the same time as my noble friend Lord Monks. She was too modest in her speech to tell the House about the range of other appointments she has held. She was a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission. She is a commissioner on the Low Pay Commission, a board member of Transport for London, a trustee of the People’s History Museum, a director of Trade Union Fund Managers, an alternate member of the Takeover Panel and an honorary fellow of St Hugh’s College Oxford.

My noble friend Lady Carberry has long been a model for, and advocate of, positive trade unionism that adds value to the person, the organisation and the country. She has, over the years, earned respect across the trade union movement, with employers and with Ministers of whatever kind, Labour and Conservative. She is a great believer in partnership and, I am sure, she will bring those values to bear to the business of this House for many years to come.

I am speaking in support of the Bill, but I do so with some trepidation. I am conscious of the fact that many of those taking part in the debate have had enormous experience of the Armed Forces, including those who served in office, whereas I myself have had none. It is true that my dad was an RAF pilot; he got his wings just before the war ended. His older brother, my uncle Michael, was a fighter pilot who was killed just after D-Day. His father, my grandfather—the original Viscount Stansgate—served in the Second World War as an air commodore and saw active service in his 60s. Before that, he served in the First World War, before the RAF was even founded, flying missions in various theatres. By comparison, I come to this subject completely afresh, although I hope to make a brief and worthwhile contribution.

Before I come to the Bill, I must declare an interest. My noble friend the Minister, in introducing his speech, declared an interest, and I have an interest to declare that I would not have been able to declare even one week ago. I hope the House will understand when I say how happy I am that the interest I have to declare is that, on Saturday—four days ago—my daughter Emily announced her engagement to Group Captain James Doyle, who is a serving officer in the Royal Air Force. As the House will understand, I suddenly find myself with a real interest in this Bill, and I see it in a new light.

My noble friend has set out the nature of the Bill and some of the reasons for it. All Members will have been aware over the years of incidents and situations that have occurred in the Armed Forces that have given rise to grave concern and which have needed to be investigated. The proposed commissioner for the Armed Forces and their families is important, because it will provide an independent and impartial advocate to address concerns for their well-being, to ensure accountability and to improve the overall well-being of service members and their loved ones. I have compiled a list of seven reasons why I think the role is crucial.

First, it will help protect rights and well-being. Service members and their families, as others here know better than I, may face challenges related to pay, housing—mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord already—healthcare, mental health support or unfair treatment. Secondly, I hope it will provide confidential and impartial support, because it is possible that many military personnel fear retaliation for speaking up. The new, direct ways of contacting the commissioner will, I hope, provide a safe, confidential way to report grievances without fear of negative consequences. Thirdly, it should ensure fair treatment, because the commissioner will now have a statutory authority, under the Bill, to investigate cases of discrimination, harassment or mistreatment.

Fourthly, it will bridge the gap between the military and their families. Families of service members, as we have heard from the noble Baroness in her maiden speech, face unique challenges, such as frequent relocations and deployments, and that alone can be very disruptive. Fifthly, it will hold the leadership accountable. The commissioner will help ensure that military institutions uphold high standards of ethics, fairness and accountability.

Sixthly—I think this is a key component of the Bill—it is surely the case that, when service members and their families have access to and confidence in a fair resolution of their concerns, it reduces stress, increases morale, and leads to a more effective and committed military force, making it more likely to ensure that we retain the service personnel that we need and in which we have invested so much in training. Finally, it will enhance public trust in the military. I hope that it will reassure both the military community and the general public that their concerns are taken seriously and addressed properly.

Until I prepared for this debate, I had not fully realised the extent to which morale in the Armed Forces has declined and remained low. I am grateful for the House of Lords Library briefing, which Members will have seen. It draws explicit attention to the fact that

“concerns have been raised about various aspects of service life, including morale, pay and living conditions as well as the impact of cultural and behavioural issues”.

Of course, this is a manifesto Bill, and it is good to see that it has a degree of cross-party support. It passed through the other place in a bipartisan spirit, and I hope the same will be true today. It is not always the case with manifesto Bills, as we saw in this House but two days ago.

In the time I have left, I want to raise a number of questions that I think need to be addressed. Although my noble friend may say that some of them can be safely left to the secondary legislation, I hope he will be able to shed some light on some of them.

First, I understand that the commissioner will not be a serving member of the Armed Forces, and that is sensible, but would it not be an advantage if she or he has had military experience? Will the commissioner have available to her or him an advisory board of people with military experience, and preferably of a younger generation, who might be more in tune with the purpose and spirit of the Bill? I have heard it said that the military covenant is not worth the paper it is written on without the resources to make it a reality. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure the House that, were the allocated resources to run out, there is a government commitment to increase the commissioner’s budget in the light of proven need?

Next, what exactly will the definition of families be? Apart from those who are married—or, if I may say so, engaged—to serving Armed Forces personnel, will that include those in civil partnerships? Will it include, for example, for those who are unmarried or in informal relationships, the next of kin? Will it include parents? How will all the service personnel and their families be made aware of the new system, wherever they live in the world? Will families be able to contact the commissioner on behalf not only of a serving member of the Armed Forces but themselves? If so, that seems to me to be the biggest development that the Bill will bring about. Will the commissioner be able to consider complaints that have already been referred to the superseded ombudsman system? I think my noble friend indicated that that is probably the case.

The more I think about this Bill and the ideas and good intentions that lie behind it, the more I think that the key question is whether it will work and whether the moral compass of the Armed Forces will benefit by this change. Will the commissioner be able to convey the necessary authority to do the job? How is Parliament going to be able to know and ensure that progress is made? Does my noble friend agree that, if recruitment and retention rates can be shown to have improved, this might be a sign of success? Will the new system be embedded in the training of recruits, so that it is hardwired into the system, because it is also about building new levels of trust and, I suppose, esprit de corps?

My time is nearly up, so I will have to end here by saying this. I am not the only Member who is aware of the fact that this Bill has been brought in at a time when our Armed Forces are facing challenges that have not been faced for some time, and they will be deployed in areas and in ways that we have not seen for decades. I have always found the phrase “put in harm’s way” a rather quaint euphemism, but it is true that there is an awful lot of harm out there now. I very much hope that this Bill, if it achieves anything, can develop our Armed Forces as the effective military force that the country requires, and that we can play a part in improving morale and making our Armed Forces fit for the dangerous future that lies ahead.

Major Defence Contracts

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

Drones: RAF Bases

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Viscount Stansgate]

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

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

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

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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