Defence Spending

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the financial detail is quite complicated and I think it is better if we write and explain how the figures are built up.

It is clearly an ask for the British public. The cake is finite, as I have said before, and defence needs more. It is not an inconsiderable amount of money that we are increasing the defence budget by, and there is a question of how much money you can spend over time. It is rather like building a house, in that you cannot spend it all at once; you have to build up. If you look at where the investment focus is within the next few years, you find that, first, it is on firing up the UK industrial base, including £10 billion for a new munitions strategy. That is extremely important. Secondly, it is on ensuring that our Armed Forces benefit from the very latest technology, through the DIA. Thirdly, it is on guaranteeing long-term support for Ukraine; if we do not do that, it is just going to become more and more expensive. As the Secretary-General said the other day, this is the cheapest time to defeat the Russians. Fourthly, it is on ensuring that expenditure is effective through radical procurement reform, which I have already covered.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, all of us will welcome any increase to defence expenditure at a time of maximum turmoil and trouble in the world. There is much in this Statement which is to be welcomed, not just the extra money but the aspects on resilience and the rest.

However, I turn the Minister’s attention back to what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said. These increases in defence expenditure matter only in terms of the capability that they will produce, and that depends very much on whether or not these figures are accurate and whether the contention that they are going to be fully funded is correct. Many of the economists and experts outside, having looked at the figures overnight, are questioning very deeply their veracity—not only the fact that the £75 billion championed here is based on an assumption about flat cash values of expenditure but the fact that there is a gap between the £4.5 billion a year the Government say they will spend and the £7 billion. How is it going to be produced? Mr Ben Zaranko of the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that what is proposed will not be fully funded. He said:

“It’s in the ballpark of full-throttle austerity”.


The Resolution Foundation says that the contention that it is fully funded is a “joke”. Since we are not laughing, and since these matters are of national and international importance, can the Minister now tell us precisely what is the veracity of the figures that have been produced?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I really appreciate the detail of that question. Of course, the importance of getting the figures right and where the money is coming from is critical to the success of the entire endeavour. The detail is such that I would rather write than try to answer the question now, but there is no doubt that the commitment to this level of expenditure has been made and will be delivered.

Ukraine

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Thursday 21st September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Government and the Minister for providing this debate. It has been a long time coming, but it is welcome none the less, and I congratulate her on the strong statement she has made this morning, and my noble friend, Lady Smith, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, on their powerful speeches. It is right that a conflict such as this, which we are involved in, should be debated regularly in this House and Parliament.

If we, as a country, had been invaded by Russia, or indeed by any other country, we would be discussing it every day. If it was our Armed Forces battling for national survival, we would be bending every sinew to throw out the invader. We would have factories turning out ammunition, using every single weapon at our disposal, rallying every part of society, just in the same way that the Ukrainians are doing just now. We would make the sacrifices, pay the price, mobilise our people—all our strengths and all our military might. We have done it before, and we would do it again. We would defend our land, our territorial integrity, our borders, our people, and we would do it with tenacity and with national unity. It almost goes without saying. But we need, of course, to remember this: the Ukrainians are not simply fighting for themselves alone. They are fighting for us as well.

The aggression of Russia, and the gross violation of the United Nations charter, as the Deputy Prime Minister of this country said at the United Nations today, by a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council itself, is a threat to our way of life as well, and to our values, our right to live in a world of safety and security, and our territorial integrity. That is why we stand with the people of Ukraine and why we need to do much more, in our own interests as well as theirs.

Maybe on occasion we have lost sight of the stakes that are involved in this conflict. They are mighty. If Putin wins and destroys Ukraine, and makes even part of that country a colony of the Russian Federation, we lose as well. Why is that? First, the new rules of the world would be rewritten by the authoritarians— the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Iranians. That would assuredly make for a very dark and uncomfortable world to live in. Secondly, as we know, Putin would not stop at Ukraine. Moldova, Kazakhstan and Armenia—which is already under attack, as we speak—would all feel the cold wind of an enervated Russian Federation and elite. A world where borders can be changed by military means at the whim of a single paranoid authoritarian would be a very chaotic world indeed.

It is true, of course, and worth putting on the positive side of this terrible calamity, that Putin grossly underestimated the unity of the western Europeans, whom he thought were fragmented and weak-willed. He saw some evidence of that in our weak response to the invasion of Crimea and in the shambolic exit from Afghanistan, but he then underestimated the link between the United States and Europe, which has been welded firm. He underestimated the attractions of NATO, with Finland newly in and Sweden on the brink of membership. His fictional so-called threat has multiplied. More than anything, he seriously underestimated the tenacity, grit, spirit and sheer determination of his fellow Slavs in Ukraine to defend and repel the naked aggression of their neighbouring state.

At the same time, we should not underestimate Vladimir Putin or the small group around him who tell him what he wants to hear. We should not underestimate his capacity for limitless cruelty against the Ukrainians, given the dreadful war crimes already committed, as outlined by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the forced abduction of children—for which the admirable International Criminal Court has now indicted him. We should not underestimate the pain that he is willing to inflict on his own people to pursue his grim vanity project, or his willingness to bear the huge, long-term damage to the Russian economy of an unnecessary war and the serious effects that sanctions are having on that economy. Hundreds and thousands of the young—the brightest and best of Russia—have left the country; it is a country weakened as a consequence.

We should not underestimate Vladimir Putin’s willingness to subordinate Russia to the Chinese and now, bizarrely, the North Koreans, as he takes risks such as opening the Northern Sea Route in the Arctic to soft-skinned tankers of oil, as he has done in recent days. We must not underestimate the enormous propaganda exercise that is being undertaken by the Kremlin, which uses disinformation, espionage, RT television, Sputnik radio and YouTube channels, all designed to undermine western support and encourage the global South countries to bend to it. It is already having an effect on European opinion. According to a recent opinion poll, up to 70% of Hungarians, Romanians and Bulgarians think that providing weapons to Ukraine provokes Russia and drags their own countries closer to the war.

We should not underestimate the efforts that Putin is making to win this conflict, dodging sanctions and smuggling in the components to create accurate missiles. I am told that Russia is producing 200 tanks and 2 million artillery shells a year—twice as many as it was producing before the conflict. Apparently, that exceeds western production by a factor of seven. Russian artillery shells cost $600 a piece, compared with $5,000 in the West—a lesson that we need to take on board. We should not underestimate his capacity for evil, because short of using nuclear weapons, which I think is unthinkable even for him, that capacity for evil may be boundless.

It was one man who took the decision to invade, and it will take one man to decide that enough is enough. One might seriously ask whether that is possible? It is a fair question, but we should always remember that, in 1989, when the Soviet Union decided that it was not winning in Afghanistan and that it was costing it lives and money, it simply folded its tents and came home. There were no off-ramps and no face-savers; it simply came home. Only a few weeks ago, President Xi Jinping of China ended his draconian lockdown without giving any notice to the population. At the same time, the Supreme Leader of Iran released thousands of women prisoners from jail. In both cases, the authoritarians could see that the ground was moving under them. Personal survival matters to them much more than saving face.

That is why it is imperative that Vladimir Putin gets the same message. He will get it by the West standing firm and resolute, with western leaders regularly and loudly telling their people what is at stake and why sacrifices are in their own personal interests and in our nation’s interest. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has said, it is therefore crucial that we supply the Ukrainians with all the weapons and ammunition that they need and when they need them. The delay in sending long-range missiles and artillery shells has hurt the counter-offensive, expectations for which were probably unrealistically high. With the Russians digging deep World War I-type trenches and sowing multi-level minefields, it was never going to be easy to recover the poisoned territory that they had taken. However, as we have seen in the past few days, it is not impossible, and progress is being made.

I say again that we need to guard against the fear and apprehension of escalation that we see in so many leaderships in Europe. Instead of the West being nervous of Russian escalation—something it has maxed-out already—we need to breed in the military hierarchy in Moscow the worry that, if they overdo what is being done in Ukraine, then an actual rather than a fictitious war with NATO might be the result; a war that they know they could only lose.

I saw a lot of the Russian military in my time, including being asked, after my time in NATO, to address the military chiefs club of the Russian Federation, an organisation of retired high-ranking officers. My impression was that they are very patriotic and conservative. The motherland is all important and, in the end, they are not prepared to risk it for a failing Putinesque adventure, especially one which has been so spectacularly unsuccessful, wasteful and humiliating.

The rebellion by Yevgeny Prigozhin showed the fraud of the war’s justification, which he called out, and the inner tensions in the authoritarian glasshouse. Only by ramping up our political pressure and maintaining targeting on Putin himself will the edifice crack and will the military, which has supported him until now, cavil at the damage that he is doing.

Sir Basil Liddell Hart, the greatest strategist of the Second World War, once memorably said that

“the issue of battle is usually decided in the minds of the opposing commanders, not in the bodies of their men”.

It was a salutary reminder that more than Prigozhin have doubts about this war. They need, with our united front, to notify Vladimir Putin that, just as in Afghanistan, the time to go home is now. It is our solemn duty to stand with those who are fighting for us in Ukraine. I quote President Zelensky:

“Human morality must win this war”.


The Ukrainians need to win, they must win, they have to win and we must ensure that they do win.

Defence Command Paper Refresh

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my tribute on the impending retirement of the Defence Secretary in the House of Commons. He is the longest-serving Conservative Defence Secretary and, especially in his role in connection with Ukraine, he has been outstanding. We will miss him. I am in many ways sorry that he did not get the job that he aspired to, which I once had the honour of holding. After all, he had the primary qualification that the Minister and I both have—he is Scottish. Sadly, that was not sufficiently appreciated among the other 31 countries and therefore, the Back Benches beckoned to him as well.

The Minister held up the document, and I could see that it has been well flagged by the department for her. It is called not “Refresh” but Defence’s Response to a more Contested and Volatile World. On page 63 it states:

“As set out in the IRR, the most urgent priority in the Euro-Atlantic is to support Ukraine to reassert its sovereignty and deny Russia any strategic benefit from its invasion. Our continued and unwavering support to Ukraine has shown the UK at its best”.


If that is the case and we are now involved in helping Ukraine in the existential battle it is undertaking with the Russian Federation, why is this Parliament debating and discussing this at the fag-end of the day, just before the Summer Recess? Will the Minister reflect on the fact that the last time we had a full-scale debate on the subject of a war in which we are participating was a year ago? Will she take the message back to her department and through it to the Prime Minister that Winston Churchill came to Parliament almost every week during the Second World War in order that the Parliament of the country was as involved in the conflict as Ministers of the Crown? I have made this point to her before, but it needs to go beyond her because I am sure she actually agrees with me. We really have to have proper debates about this matter; otherwise, documents such as this will lie on a shelf and will not help with the campaign or the fight any more than is happening at the moment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks about my colleague and friend Ben Wallace. I will convey them to him and direct him to Hansard. I know he will be much comforted by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and I know he will not bear any resentment that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, enjoyed what has eluded him. He is looking remarkably free and easy. He is looking positively liberated, so I think he is clearly anticipating with great pleasure whatever lies ahead.

I omitted to respond to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised at the beginning of his remarks about an opportunity to debate this in the autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has just articulated a very similar sentiment, which reminded me. When the noble Lord previously passionately expressed his disquiet and dissatisfaction with the amount of time devoted in this Chamber to debate on the Ukraine war, I did convey that, and I fully understand that this paper is a very significant component of our defence plans. Again, I will take this back direct to the Leader and the Chief Whip and say that there is clearly an appetite for more time to be set aside. Your Lordships will understand that in this House we do that through the usual channels. I would appreciate it if your Lordships would convey the same message through your avenues on your party Benches, because I think the Leader and the Chief Whip would find that helpful.

I am very clear about the significance of where we are now, with another war in Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, indicated—an illegal conflict in Ukraine. The pivotal decisions that now lie in front of defence, our change of direction and how we will take forward this new model, genuinely require debate and discussion. I am very sympathetic to that, so I reassure both noble Lords that I hear what they are saying and I will repeat that as cogently as I can.

Defence Policy (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Friday 30th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who chaired with great distinction the committee before I joined it. Although I joined it only this year, I fully endorse what she said and what it says, and I congratulate it on its perception and insight. Like others, I am sure, I regret that it has taken so long to get to a debate on the important analysis provided by the committee.

The committee rightly made a very important point in its conclusions:

“The strategic assumptions that underpinned the Integrated Review and the Defence Command Paper have changed. In particular, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally changed the European security environment”.


I emphasise “fundamentally changed” because that is now a self-evident truth, but a truth with enormous implications. Indeed, the Government’s response to the committee went further and was even blunter. They said that

“we misjudged the pace of change and the range and severity of the threats we would face. As a result, we can no longer tolerate some of the risks we felt able to bear at the time, and we need to ensure that our capabilities and their supporting enablers are credible for the challenges both of this decade and the next”.

So, here is my question for today: given the huge importance to our country and its people of what is acknowledged to be a fundamental change in the security environment we live in, why have we had so little time allocated to debate these issues? This is only the second debate in this House on the war in Ukraine and its enormous implications since the invasion took place 16 months ago—and this debate is not even actually about Ukraine. There have of course been a number of Statements, and they are welcome, but they simply involve a Q&A session with the Minister concerned, not a full House debate.

This is the Parliament of our country, and it seems obvious to me and to many others that we should be debating, discussing, challenging and deliberating on that “fundamental change” and the Government’s acknowledged misjudgment of the risks we face. The people of this country, in my view, are being short-changed by the Government denying Parliament the ventilation of the crisis, which is what a debate here and in the Commons would represent, because—this is the second issue I wish to raise in this very short and very rare debate—we need to recognise the gravity of the stakes at play in Ukraine today.

This war is not just about saving Ukraine as a sovereign, independent nation state and the survival of its people, important and life-saving as those are. It is about our safety and security as well. Make no mistake at all: if Vladimir Putin prevails in this bloody, unprovoked attempted conquest, the resulting world will be a very different place—and not a very comfortable one. There will be a new rules-based order, that is for sure, but it will be written by the Chinese and a subordinate Russia. It will have the acquiescence of what we have come to know as the Global South—those countries such as India, South Africa and Brazil which are, almost unbelievably, sitting on the fence but edging towards Russia, ignoring as they do the stark fact that, if the principle of nuclear blackmail and of borders changed by force prevails, it will devastate them as much as us in Europe. That new world order assuredly will not enshrine the values and principles we have adopted throughout my life.

Authoritarians do not believe in the rule of law, free speech, a free press, free elections or private property. That is amply on display today in Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. We neglect at our peril the present manoeuvrings of those authoritarians—for example, meddling in the Middle East. As the report says, and the refresh underlines, in this region that is almost ignored by the integrated review, meddling is now on vivid display.

Who here would have imagined the day when China would be the midwife to the rencontre between Saudi Arabia and Iran? Just look at the western Balkans; I know the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, will speak on this authoritatively later on. Neglected as it has been by the West, this area, which we did so much to settle and save, is being used today by Russia and China as an adventure playground for their deadly mischief. I ask noble Lords to imagine for a bleak moment what these two areas will be like if Putin succeeds in Ukraine.

What about the Arctic, the subject of the committee’s present investigation? Russia has long protected and projected its strategic and resource role in the region, but now, as Russia has become the little brother, China has become an Arctic nation—avariciously watching the opening northern sea route and the data-rich domination at the very top of the world.

Eastern Ukraine is on our TV screens every night that something dreadful happens, but its plight and its umbilical connection to this country’s safety and security are amazingly absent from the serious deliberations of our Parliament. That should be unacceptable to all of us. I believe that the Government’s support for Ukraine is justified and praiseworthy. A debate in Parliament would emphasise that point and produce a signal to Putin, in the cracked glasshouse he now inhabits, that our collective resolution is strong, unanimous and durable. When he knows that, even his fevered mind might change. He cannot, and must not, succeed.

Ukraine

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, who has worked hard as the Prime Minister’s envoy on Ukraine. It is also good to look forward to the maiden contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, who is not only an old colleague and friend but a former Minister for the Armed Forces, with a distinguished record that was only enhanced by him being denied the Conservative whip in the House of Commons before he came here.

The most famous expert on strategy during the Second World War was Sir Basil Liddell Hart, who once wisely said:

“The profoundest truth of war is that the issue of battle is usually decided in the minds of the opposing commanders, not in the bodies of their men.”


Therefore, the question for us is: given that Vladimir Putin, in his own mind, made the decision to invade Ukraine, ignoring the advice of his military experts and recklessly misreading the intelligence on the resistance of the Ukrainians, can we change his mind? I believe that we can and that we must do just that. Getting into the mind of someone like President Putin is not easy, even for me who dealt with him personally 20 years ago in what now seems to be another universe. But I offer to the House some recent examples of the kind of mind shifts among authoritarians that might just give us an indication of where we could go in the future.

The first example is the decision of President Xi of China only a few weeks ago to abandon overnight the draconian lockdown policy on Covid. Even an authoritarian in a country such as China will watch public opinion closely, and he could see that the ground was moving—and fast. My second example was less than a week ago. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran, a notably repressive regime, decided without notice to release thousands of prisoners who had defied the law on headdress. Even the Supreme Leader could see that the ground was moving against the regime. With women’s demonstrations escalating all the time, the mind of the commander was changed as a consequence. My third example was the exit by the Soviet Union in February 1989 from its disastrous invasion and intervention in Afghanistan. In the Kremlin, they understood that they were losing the war, the casualty list was producing a massive backlash among mothers and it was costing an already troubled economy a substantial amount of money. So, without any off-ramp being offered, no face-saving formula being available, they ordered their troops simply to come home. My fourth example to the House is 4 June 1989, when Solidarity was elected the Government in Poland. On that day, there were 55,000 Soviet troops in Poland but the Soviet Politburo ordered them to stay in their barracks. It could see the writing on the wall, that the ground internationally was moving and that its mind had to change—and it did so.

What, then, will it take to change Vladimir Putin’s mind without, as it happens, the advice to him of a politburo, a parliament or even a security council? The answer is: primarily by the determination of the West to stand by the territorial integrity of Ukraine and its people. Only by the united resolution of the countries of the free world insisting on the right of Ukraine and the Ukrainians to live as they want will the mind of Putin change when he sees that he cannot succeed. That unity of western Europe was Putin’s first serious miscalculation and so, too, was the renewed link between Europe and the United States. Both must be reinforced.

We must give President Zelensky, who inspired us all yesterday in Westminster Hall, the tools to defend his nation. The main thing, however, is to give long-term commitments to providing help. Piecemeal decisions do not have the same effect on the Kremlin as our united promise to continue providing the missiles, guns, ammunition and training that will help Ukraine to throw out the invader.

It is a brutal fact that the people of Ukraine are fighting for their lives, their country and democracy, but they are also fighting for us. It is again a brutal fact of the new world that Vladimir Putin has created that our front line of defending Britain is no longer the white cliffs of Dover or the north German plains but the mud and blood of the Donbass in eastern Ukraine. We must make sure that that front line is defended with vigour, determination and total resolution. That means that the Government must make a difficult but necessary choice to spend the cash, replenish all that we have sent to Ukraine and restore the defences of our own country. We can all now see the threat to us that is on display in technicolour in Donetsk, Luhansk and Mariupol. There is absolutely no excuse possible for skimping on the defence of our nation and our people. The first and overwhelming duty of any Government is the protection of the nation, and that duty cannot and must not be avoided.

Armed Forces: Resilience

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hintze, in his maiden speech. I applaud and agree with his final sentiment that complacency is not an option. I know him well and recognise his remarkable and successful business career, his pride in his Australian background, especially so on this Australia Day, and his remarkable record for philanthropy, not only to the Armed Forces but to institutions such as the Natural History Museum. He has a lot of experience and wisdom, and we therefore look forward to hearing more from him in future.

I will speak about Ukraine, about which we really should have a full debate in this Parliament, both in this House and in the other House. It is increasingly clear that Vladimir Putin has declared war on the West. It is also clear that we are not responding adequately to that overt challenge to our countries and what we stand for. There is no visible urgency in our national behaviour. It is, of course, a war unlike the wars of the past. However, that old-fashioned type of brutal war is being waged against the territory and the people of the sovereign state of Ukraine. In contrast, Putin’s war on the West is much more subtle, more hybrid, less visible and more multifaceted, but just as potent and damaging. By using misinformation, election interference, cyberattacks, corruption, organised crime and malicious diplomacy, and by exploiting every crack in our democratic societies, he is seeking to disrupt and to weaken the fabric of our liberal, open democracies.

At the same time, that has nothing to do with promoting an alternative economic or social model, as the Soviet Union sought to do with its brand of Marxism-Leninism. Putin may well harbour, in secret, demented dreams about recreating that oppressive empire, but, in reality, he is violently posturing to gain attention and hoping to establish some parity with the United States of America. With his economy tanking and his young, economically active population draining away, those are simply foolish delusions.

The issue for us today as we approach the 365th day of Putin’s three-day war against Ukraine is: what should we be doing in response to the declaration of war by the Russian President? Here is my checklist of what we need to do. First, we need to secure our own societies and democratic systems. With London still a reservoir of Russian dark money, as we heard earlier, and London’s lawyers still doing the dirty work for Russian money men and women, more needs to be done to enforce and toughen sanctions against those who do the Kremlin’s bidding or who profit from his regime.

Secondly, our defences need strengthening, as has already been said and will be said again in this debate—and I am sure in the other maiden speech, from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach, who I know and respect very well as a friend. That does not just mean spending more on defence; it means replenishing the stocks we are giving to the Ukrainians. Thirdly, we need to give the Ukrainians more. If, as Ministers continually say, the Ukrainians are fighting for themselves, their country, and for us, as indeed they are, by holding stocks and equipment here, when our front line is actually in eastern Ukraine, we leave ourselves dangerously exposed.

The fourth thing we need to do is to tell the Russian people that we, NATO, the European Union and the West are not attacking Russia. Instead, we are helping the sovereign state of Ukraine to defend itself against an unprovoked attack. How do we get that message across? The answer is that we did it in the Cold War and can do it again. More Russian language information needs to get into Russia, and we need to promote the independent BBC World Service, as well as YouTube, Instagram and a host of means that can get past the wall of deceit and lies which characterise Russia’s propaganda outlets. A younger generation can access the web, but the older folk—that is, the majority—in Russia depend on the official media, with its Orwellian approach to truth and facts.

Fifthly, we need to tell the Russian military, whose advice Putin clearly ignored when he ordered the invasion, some bold truths. The Russian high command knows that it was ill-prepared for such an ambitious war, and that it had, through faulty and over-optimistic intelligence, completely underestimated the opposition, resilience and ingenuity of the Ukrainians. The Russian military know that they are struggling against a formidable, highly motivated Ukrainian population, now being armed with western-supplied, sophisticated weaponry that they have no answer to. In their collective memory must be the parallel with the Red Army in Afghanistan in February 1989. They were faced with an endless, unwinnable war costing lives and precious resources, so the Kremlin ordered the mighty Red Army of the Soviet Union to come home. Nobody was asking at that time for an off-ramp or a ceasefire, or some face saver for the Russians. They simply folded their tents and left—and 32 months later there was no Soviet Union.

Sixthly, we need to tell Putin and the small number of cronies around him advising him and telling him all the time what he wants to hear, that all his strategic objectives have failed. He wanted to stop NATO enlargement, he wanted to split Europe, and he wanted to split Europe from the United States of America—all failed. He wanted to crush and eliminate Ukraine from the map, and instead he has produced a new, deep, permanent feeling of nationhood in that country. He wanted to annex and absorb the Donbas and the land corridor to Crimea, but now his spokesman cannot even describe what has been annexed and what they still hold.

We need to tell Vladimir Putin this: one step over the Article 5 NATO line and there will be an existential risk to the Russian motherland. Here is another message for the man in the Kremlin, who gave us this terrible war. Speaking, as I do, as the only person ever to announce the invoking of Article 5—that guarantee that an attack on one NATO country should be seen as an attack on them all—I can tell Vladimir Putin this. I met him nine times during my time in NATO, and at that point we did good business together, but I tell him now that the Article 5 guarantee of a nuclear weapons alliance goes well beyond normal red lines.

Finally, we need to address the global south and the lack of understanding of Ukraine’s position in Africa, South America and India. It seems that many countries in the south see this is as a regional conflict of payback for NATO enlargement or a challenge to the over-mighty US and the arrogance of the West. However, they must understand that, if it becomes accepted that borders can be changed by force and that sovereign states can be invaded and annexed, if nuclear blackmail intimidates neighbouring states, many more countries than Ukraine will be on the danger list. We need urgently to get that message over and to make an effort to get it heard loudly.

I end with a sentiment worth the House pondering on if anybody is worried about further escalation. The greatest nuclear threat we face today is a Russian victory. We must do everything possible to prevent that happening.

Ukraine: Update

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their helpful comments. As I have said before, that unanimity of political support in the UK is really important. It has been commented upon to me, and it sends out a very significant message, so I wish expressly to thank both noble Lords for their contributions.

On the latest situation in Ukraine, noble Lords will be aware that the announcement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place on Monday reflected a very significant augmentation of everything we have been doing. In fact, as I prepared to address the House on the Statement, I looked at the list of equipment, ammunitions, help and provisions, and I thought it might be useful if we managed to produce some kind of summary of everything that has been produced, because in aggregate it is a fantastic amount. With the help of not just the UK but our partners and allies, we have in aggregate produced something really substantive that has absolutely put energy in the Ukrainian armed forces to defend their country and take forward courageously the difficult and deadly fight in which they are engaged. There is no doubt that, by listening to their needs and requests and assessing their intelligence, our intelligence and United States intelligence, we have been able to respond very positively to those needs.

Very importantly, because a request was made for co-ordination, what exactly is happening? I remind the Chamber of what I alluded to yesterday, which is that there is a NATO CHODs meeting yesterday and today, where we are represented by the Chief of the Defence Staff. The Secretary of State is currently in Estonia, at Tapa, and tomorrow there will be the donors conference being convened by the United States in Ramstein, which will be attended by the Secretary of State and the Chief of the Defence Staff. These fora illustrate the extent to which everybody is speaking to one another. There is a very fluid dialogue going on, and if you marry that into structures that have been put in place, such as the international donor co-ordination centre and the international fund to help Ukraine, I think noble Lords will understand that there is a really solid framework to support Ukraine in its endeavour to defend itself.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked specifically about the situation in Ukraine. As I think we are aware, it has been going through considerable challenge with the relentless and merciless onslaught from Russia. The nature of that onslaught is in itself interesting, because it suggests that Russia continues to be disorganised, in a sense. Its strategic aims are not clear. From the Russian end, I think the recent switch of commanding officer—the commanding officer has now been sacked and the original one brought back in—indicates that there is some disarray in Russia’s activity.

None the less, we can try to help on both the military front and the humanitarian front, and that is what we have been doing. I think Members are now pretty conversant with where we have got to on the military front and everything we have been offering. On the humanitarian front, Members will be aware that we have been a leading humanitarian donor, with a £220 million package of humanitarian aid, a fiscal support grant of around £75 million and a £100 million grant to support Ukraine’s energy security and reforms.

We have also been doing grant-in-aid medical equipment to the armed forces: ambulances, tourniquets, field dressings, individual first aid kits, medic packs and hospital consumables. We have used the conflict, stability and security fund to support payment of salaries to the Ukrainian armed forces. Over and above that, the Prime Minister confirmed in November that we would provide £12 million to the World Food Programme and £4 million to the International Organization for Migration to help meet some urgent humanitarian needs, particularly of course during winter. That funding will help provide generators, shelter, water repairs and mobile health clinics.

The UK has more than 350 staff in the region working on the response to the crisis—so that is no small amount of support. That includes humanitarian experts, and within the UK more than 70 staff are working on our humanitarian response. I think it is important to mention that the UK has matched pound for pound the public’s first £25 million for the Disasters Emergency Committee’s Ukraine humanitarian appeal. That is the UK’s largest-ever aid-matched contribution.

On more specific things, as Members will be aware, we have been trying to help with work to restore energy supply and with provision of generators. Very interestingly, we have been trying to help with an array of measures, not least the provision of some military equipment, to assist with de-arming equipment that has been left and also with minefield hunting, to try to identify where there are perils. That is all a very necessary precursor to trying to do anything in the rebuild sense.

In an earlier debate on Ukraine, the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, brought to my attention the Wilton Park report in December, and I was very grateful to her. I commend this report to any of your Lordships who have not yet read it. It is a really interesting analytical and constructive suggestion as to how we may go forward with rebuilding the country.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, talked about the tragic helicopter crash yesterday. We were desperately saddened to hear about that, and our thoughts obviously go out to the families of all those affected by that tragedy, including the Minister and the other 14 people. Our thoughts are very much with the Ukrainian Government at this time. I have no further information about the crash, so I am unable to give your Lordships any more detail.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about the location of the Challengers. For security reasons, I cannot disclose that, but I can say that training has already begun. Somewhere in this voluminous briefing pack, I saw a reference to training starting as soon as the Ukrainian troops arrive in the UK. That is likely to be by the end of this month, which is quite encouraging. All the equipment that we have announced—the subject of this repeated Statement—will be operated by Ukrainian troops on the battlefield in the coming months. I cannot be more precise than that but I think your Lordships will understand that there is a mutual desire on the parts of both the UK and the Ukrainian Government to accelerate this as best we can.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the Prime Minister’s earlier reference to a review of what we have been providing. I think your Lordships will now understand that that was more a mechanical inquiry in order to be satisfied that what we have been providing has been used to good effect and is actually changing the dynamic of the conflict, which I think it is. The Prime Minister’s subsequent personal commitment to the new tranche of equipment bears testament to his resolve that the UK Government will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government of Ukraine to support them in this conflict; there have been significant aid gestures from the United Kingdom since the Prime Minister talked of his review. The noble Lord raised that question with me earlier and I said to him that I saw nothing sinister or alarming about that; to me, it was just a routine check to make sure that we are providing the right things and making a difference.

The noble Lord also referred to the language used by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when he talked about the war changing from resisting to expelling Russian forces. I have checked Hansard to see what he said. He was talking of Ukraine. He meant that Ukraine can go from resisting to expelling Russian forces from Ukrainian soil. We have always been clear that our defence policy is to support Ukraine in defending itself against this illegal aggression and to take whatever steps it needs, within international law, to repel that aggressor.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about replenishment. I can provide some information that may be more specific than she thought I might be able to give her. We are fully engaged with industry. That is happening not just within the United Kingdom; it is happening across the piece with our NATO allies. As I said yesterday, none of this can be done in a silo. The United Kingdom cannot have a solitary conversation with a producer; we have to be doing it in tandem with our allies and partners to work out clarity on what is needed, who is going to provide it and when. So we are fully engaged with industry allies and partners to ensure both the continuation of supply to Ukraine and that all equipment and munitions granted in kind from UK stocks are replaced as expeditiously as possible.

Exact stockpile details are classified for obvious operational reasons so I cannot give further comment on that, but I can say to the noble Baroness that a number of substantial contracts have already been placed to replenish UK stockpiles directly. These include the replenishment of the Starstreak high-velocity, lightweight, multirole missile. I can confirm that the replacement next-generation light anti-tank weapons, NLAWs, are currently being built, and several hundred missiles will be delivered to UK stockpiles from 2023 onwards. A contract for further NLAWs was signed on 7 December 2022. I hope that reassures your Lordships that this is actively being engaged on.

I have tried to deal with the points that have been raised. I will check Hansard and, if I have omitted anything, I apologise and I shall write.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Through her, I thank all those at the Ministry of Defence who are assisting Ukraine at this difficult time. The Ukrainians are defending themselves but, in defending their country and themselves, they are defending us as well. Vladimir Putin has made it clear that he is at war with the West and with us; we must take that extremely seriously.

The decision to send the Challenger tanks is a good one. I hope that it will put additional pressure on the German Government to release the Leopard tanks that other countries wish to give at present, so it is symbolically important too. I associate myself with what my noble friend Lord Coaker said: it is time that we had a full-scale debate in this House on this issue. We are at war. Vladimir Putin is at war with us and, in a wartime situation, we really need an opportunity for Parliament to say its word.

Finally, can I offer a suggestion to the Minister that she might take away? When the Prime Minister goes to Kiev, as he will and as he must, he should issue an invitation to the Leader of the Opposition to join him. It is extremely important that the Ukrainians and the Russians see that it is the British people who are fighting at present, not simply the British Government. I hope that she will pass that message on.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. The matter of a debate in this House was raised with me by someone from my own Benches yesterday. As I indicated, it is a matter for the Government Whips’ Office and the usual channels but I am sure that, if they pick up that there is an appetite for it, they will pay close attention. The noble Lord’s other suggestion is interesting. It is certainly something that I will take back and relay to the department. I do not know when the PM is next scheduled to visit Ukraine but I understand the point that the noble Lord makes.

Ukraine

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Friday 25th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, there is an old saying: in Russia, everything changes in 20 years and nothing changes in 200 years. It maybe gets to the heart of the recent crisis, when the unthinkable has become the inevitable.

Over the last few weeks I have been wondering, with the rest of the world, what is inside the head of the man who has, on his own, ordered the violent invasion of a sovereign nation state in this year 2022; whom I met nine times in the Kremlin and in Brussels; with whom I did good business and with whom we created the 20-strong NATO-Russia Council, with Russia as an equal at that table; who personally signed accords guaranteeing the right of nations, and Ukraine specifically, to choose their own

“inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders”;

and who asked me about when we were going to invite Russia to join NATO.

So I ask this today: what irrational thought process has changed that man into the monster who violates the sovereignty—indeed, the existence—of a neighbouring country? What changed that man of the KGB, who this week publicly humiliated the head of his own foreign intelligence service in the full sight of a dismayed world? The answer to many people, and widely accepted, is that he is paranoid about next-door Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. I disagree. I do not think that the organisation that I used to head is the fuel on the Putin fire; it is just a useful demon to scare the Russian public. His real and well-justified fear is of democracy. He has seen how the aspiration of former Communist countries to join the European Union changes these countries permanently and fundamentally. The EU is, in fact, the bogey.

Nations becoming democracies, with a free press, free elections, the rule of law and mixed economies, are a serious challenge to the Putin model of brutal authoritarianism. In his fevered mind, if Ukraine travels in that direction, as indeed it wants to do, then what about the rising revolts in Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan? It is getting, for him, much too close to home. This attack—this breach of international law and of the UN Charter, this heavy-handed assault on a fellow Slavic nation—is actually a sign of weakness, of vulnerability in the face of an inexorable tide of democracy.

So what do we do now? First, we stand absolutely firm and resolute with the Ukrainian people. Secondly, we should finance and supply the resistance to these invaders—make Ukraine the new Afghanistan for Russia. Thirdly, we must build our own defences, protect our own democratic values and imprint in the mind of Putin and his generals the inviolability of the Article 5 guarantee, and the danger to their motherland if they ever thought of crossing that line. Fourthly, we must mobilise the whole world against this outrage and make sure that the sanctions bite savagely and affect the Kremlin’s thinking.

Finally, I remind the House of what President Putin said in May 2002, standing beside me in Rome at the NATO-Russia summit. He said this:

“Russia always had a crucial role in world affairs. The problem for our country has been, however, that over a very long period of time a situation arose in which Russia was on one side and the other side was … the rest of the world.”


He continued:

“Nothing good came of that confrontation between us and the rest of the world.”


These were wise words in 2002; they are even more true today.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

I regret, therefore, that I do not accept what the Minister said in her kind and detailed letter. There is no real reason given in that letter why these provisions should not be put on the statute book, to put the matter absolutely beyond doubt. I urge your Lordships that we all in Parliament do our duty and do not simply leave it to the Ministry of Defence to decide what is necessary or unnecessary for the protection of independence.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 27, in my name and those of other noble Lords, which calls for an independent defence representation unit. The amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is the principal amendment in this group, but this amendment is important and I am sure the Minister will have been well briefed on the subject. As the noble and learned Lord said rhetorically in Committee:

“I do not understand why we always expect the Armed Forces to have second best.”—[Official Report, 2/11/21; col. GC 295.]


And, in respect of independent representation, I fear that that is precisely what they get at the moment.

In Sir Richard Henriques’ fine report, he points to the fact that there is independent representation in Canada, Australia and South Africa but not for the British Armed Forces. There is talk that the present representation is a mere sticking-plaster solution. In Committee, the Minister said in mitigation of the stance that these proposals would not be accepted that,

“approximately 40 of these recommendations require policy and legal analysis … and I cannot accelerate that at the moment”

and

“we have so far been able to undertake only a light-touch analysis of some of his recommendations.”—[Official Report, 2/11/21, cols. GC 295, 297 and 288.]

I put it to the House that this recommendation is simple, clear cut and very necessary indeed. There is no reason why the Government need postpone further consideration of it. The Minister said in Committee that further consideration will be given when legislative time was allowed, and most of us know that that is usually shorthand for a long time in future. I strongly believe that a defence representation unit is urgent.

In his report, Sir Richard says he has considered the arguments carefully here, and that

“The Unit must be fully independent of the military command and act under the general supervision of the Attorney General. Any guidelines or instructions issued by the Attorney General must be published.”


He also makes the very strong point that

“there should be a significant saving on Legal Aid from the creation of this Unit. … Many of the delays at Court Martial may be avoided by the services supplied by the Unit.”

I do not intend to take up the time of the House this evening as we move through the consideration of this Bill, but I shall also read out paragraph 8.3.10 of Sir Richard’s report:

“Budgeting can only be a speculative process in this sphere. I have no doubt that there will be a saving in Legal Aid expenditure, the cost of Services Legal Aid approximating £1.8 million in the year 2019/2020. The cost of adjourned trials in the Court Martial caused by a lack of, or by delayed representation cannot be assessed. The provision of this facility to Service personnel and veterans should not be dictated by budgetary speculation, but by the moral obligation to provide proper support to those who serve or have served their country.”


His final sentence needs to be emphasised and repeated:

“The knock on the door will carry markedly less menace with the knowledge that competent legal assistance will be readily available.”


For the last couple of years, we have come to know precisely the anxiety and mental cost to serving and former members of the Armed Forces caused by that knock on the door. I therefore suggest to the Minister that Sir Richard Henriques’s recommendation that a defence representation unit be created to provide a triage service to service personnel and veterans under investigation for criminal conduct be a matter of some urgency. I look forward to the Minister saying to us tonight that that will be brought forward.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

There is no doubt that serious crimes are more difficult to investigate in the military than in civilian life due to the exigencies of service. On the other hand, serious crimes occur less often than they do in the territory of every civilian police force. That is why Sir Robert Henriques concluded that

“there should be a senior civilian appointment within the Defence Serious Crime Unit … with experience of major investigations and the ability and necessary experience to control a major incident room.”

He thought that such a number two should have the

“experience and ability to record, retain, manage and process several hundred allegations simultaneously using the most up to date technology.”

I would hope that the noble Baroness could explain, if she resists that particular proposal, that there is some system of training somebody up to the standard Sir Robert Henriques was talking about in his recommendation. How is a person going to get that experience to control a major incident room and carry out the various tasks he is referring to? It is not possible. That is the practical reason why he wanted a civilian as number two.

In recommendation 13 of his report, he said that the candidate would have

“achieved sufficient rank and recognition within civilian policing to act as an ambassador for the interests of Service police within the wider policing community.”

It is important that the service police are seen to be a first-rate service; there should be nothing second rate about the legal service provided to the Armed Forces on whichever side of a particular trial they may be. It is important that the service police should have status and expertise in all fields. I recall, for example, a court martial in Germany involving a German victim, where it was necessary to fly in a criminal pathologist from England to examine a body and later give evidence, and other scientists had to be imported as well. That was only one aspect of the case—the management of a large case is extremely difficult. I respectfully suggest that you cannot get that experience within the service police because they are scattered and do not organise themselves in that way.

I commented at very considerable length in Committee on the necessity to maintain the serious crime unit in a manner that is operationally independent of the military chain of command—for all the reasons that I gave then, and those so eloquently advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I do not propose to repeat those comments but very strongly support what he has said.

I emphasise the need also to set up a strategy policing board of experienced civilians—as referred to in paragraph (5) of this amendment—to which the provost marshal for serious crime and the defence serious crime unit should be accountable. That should be done now. There was some suggestion that the provost marshal for serious crime had already been chosen—that is the wrong way round. You need to get together the body of people who will provide support and to whom these various bodies will be accountable.

I will say a brief word about Amendment 27. I strongly agree that there should be a defence representation unit. There are a number of very competent and able solicitors around the country who carry out this task, but it is not well paid, and they have to travel considerable distances to do it; legal representation is frequently delayed as a result.

I remember my great friend Gilbert Blades, who was the solicitor in the Finlay case that started all this off in 1995. His method of attracting clients was to drive around in a pink Rolls-Royce, the arrival of which at an army unit would cause something of a stir. I do not imagine that a defence representation unit would pay the sort of fees that would enable a person employed there to buy a Rolls-Royce, but there we are. It is very important that such a unit be set up; I support that amendment too.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to group 7, which comprises government Amendments 38 to 42, 45 to 47, and 67 and 68, in my name. I will speak also to Amendments 43, 44 and 66, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.

I thought it would be helpful if I started with something of a scene setter on the report of the review conducted by Sir Richard Henriques. As noble Lords will be aware, on 13 October 2020, the Secretary of State announced the commissioning of a review by Sir Richard Henriques, to build upon, but not reopen, the recommendations of the service justice system review by His Honour Shaun Lyons and Sir Jon Murphy.

The aim was to ensure that, in relation to complex and serious allegations of wrongdoing against UK forces on overseas operations, defence has the most up-to-date and future-proof framework, skills and processes in place, and that improvements can be made where necessary. The review was to be forward looking and, while drawing on insights from the handling of allegations from recent operations, it was not to reconsider past investigative or prosecutorial decisions or to reopen historical cases.

I am pleased to say that Sir Richard submitted his report at the end of July 2021 and, as I had committed to do at Second Reading, we published it on 21 October, with a supporting Written Ministerial Statement, to enable your Lordships to have chance to consider it during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill. It goes without saying that we are very grateful for the comprehensive and considered work that Sir Richard has undertaken, and we particularly welcome his recognition of the need for a separate system of military justice. In summary, the report contains a total of 64 recommendations, approximately a third of which are focused on taking forward the establishment of a Defence Serious Crime Unit—DSCU—originally recommended by Sir Jon Murphy.

There are also a number of operations-related recommendations, including for protocols between the service police, the Service Prosecuting Authority and the Judge Advocate-General for processes relating to the timely and effective investigation of allegations of unlawful killing and ill-treatment by UK forces on overseas operations. There are also recommendations for improving the technical IT systems supporting the military courts, and a number of recommendations relating to summary hearings.

As set out in our ministerial Statement, we have prioritised taking forward the recommendations to establish the Defence Serious Crime Unit, and I am extremely pleased that we were able to take swift action to table the government amendments for the key DSCU recommendations—one, two and seven—because they require primary legislation.

We have also committed to taking forward work over the coming months on four other recommendations, which will: amend standard operating procedures to ensure that service police are informed with minimum delay of reportable offences; establish a serious incident board within the Permanent Joint Headquarters; create or upgrade an operational record-keeping system; and adopt a uniform approach in respect of training of service legal personnel prior to their posting to the Service Prosecuting Authority.

The remaining recommendations, including among other things legal support to personnel, improved technology and IT for the service courts and improvements to the summary hearing process, raise wider implications relating to policy and legal and resourcing issues. These will be considered further by the department over the coming months. Where appropriate and necessary, legislation will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows. I will of course update your Lordships on progress.

Our goal will be to ensure that, in considering and taking forward work on Sir Richard’s recommendations, we continue to maintain operational effectiveness and the swift delivery of fair and efficient justice for victims and offenders.

The amendments in my name contain the necessary changes to primary legislation to give effect to the Government’s plans for a new tri-service serious crime unit, headed by a new provost marshal for serious crime. This is an important set of amendments that demonstrate the Ministry of Defence’s commitment to the highest investigative capabilities for the service justice system. Through this, we are rapidly taking forward the most important set of recommendations from Sir Richard Henriques’s recently published review.

The amendments make the following key changes. The new clause provides that the new provost marshal for serious crime is subject to the same rules about appointment as existing provost marshals. This means appointment by Her Majesty and the requirement that they be an officer in the service police. The new clause also provides that the new provost marshal for serious crime will be responsible for ensuring that investigations of the new tri-service serious crime unit are independent.

The new schedule contains consequential amendments relating to the clause and provides the new provost marshal for serious crime with the same investigative powers as the pre-existing provost marshals for the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force and service police. I should underline that these are not new investigatory powers for the service police. This is about ensuring that the existing service police investigatory powers are available for the new arrangements. We expect there to be a similar consequential exercise for changes needed to secondary legislation.

Sir Richard’s recommendations supported those made by His Honour Judge Shaun Lyons and Sir Jon Murphy regarding the implementation of a Defence Serious Crime Unit. He further recommended: that the Defence Serious Crime Unit be an operational unit; that it should be commanded by a provost marshal for serious crime; and that the provost marshal for serious crime should have a duty of operational independence in investigative matters owed to the Defence Council, on the same terms as that owed by the service provost marshals under Section 115A of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

The Ministry of Defence has been working on the Defence Serious Crime Unit model since the recommendations made by the Lyons and Murphy review. There were non-legislative ways of implementing the recommendations from Lyons and Murphy under consideration. However, the recommendations from Sir Richard require primary legislation, particularly as far as they concern the operational independence of the unit and the new provost marshal.

The Defence Secretary is adamant that we should progress these aspects of Sir Richard’s report with the utmost speed, which is why we are bringing these amendments before your Lordships today. With the support of noble Lords, we will be able to implement these critical recommendations and, in tandem, we will progress the remaining recommendations which focus on the functionality, remit and operational considerations for the unit.

With the establishment of the new provost marshal for serious crime and the tri-service serious crime unit, the MoD will be in a stronger position to respond to serious crime. We will be able to combine resources and specialist skills from across the single services under one unit and will build an independent, more effective and collaborative approach to policing across defence.

This reinforces the decision by the Secretary of State for Defence that the existing principle of jurisdictional concurrency between the service and civilian jurisdictions should be maintained. That of course is a position that Sir Richard Henriques has also supported. The service justice system is capable of dealing with the full range of offences when they occur, in the UK as well as overseas. These changes to service policing will support that capability into the future.

I hope that this explanation assures noble Lords of our commitment to the improvement of policing across the service justice system and our intent to adopt the recommendations provided in the judge-led reviews. I therefore urge your Lordships to support the proposed amendments in my name.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

Will the noble Baroness give way for a moment? She admits that she is not implementing all the recommendations in the Henriques report in relation to the prosecution and then she said that the Government would consider them with utmost speed. I recognise all these wonderful phrases. Then she said that she would bring forward amendments when parliamentary time allows. That seems to me to kick the matter down the road. Some of his recommendations that are not part of this new clause need to be implemented as early as possible. I am sure the Minister will eventually find that “when parliamentary time allows” normally means in many years’ time.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am just checking back to see what I actually read out. I was pointing out that this is roughly broken into three sectors. One is what we are taking forward today with the amendments. The second concerns four other specific recommendations that we are taking forward. Then the remaining recommendations, as I said, raise wider implications for policy, resourcing and legal issues. I said that these will be considered further by the department over the coming months and, where appropriate and necessary, legislation will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows.

That is not kicking the can down the road. That is to simply say to the noble Lord that we recognise that we still have research, inquiry and investigation to do in the department to understand the consequences of these recommendations from Henriques. We want to be clear about that but, equally, we are very positive about Sir Richard Henriques’ report. I said that our goal will always be to ensure that, in considering and taking forward work on his recommendations, we keep an eye on operational effectiveness and the swift delivery of fair and efficient justice for victims and offenders.

I hope that explains to the noble Lord why I cannot really go any further than that today. I certainly dispute his analogy of kicking the can down the road. This is a serious and substantial piece of work. We are prioritising the most important part, which we think will make a big difference to policing within the service justice system, and we are being canny about how we then progress the other bits of the report.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

May I ask the Minister to be more specific and tell us which of his recommendations in relation to this specific part raise policy implications that will have to be considered over some time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. I rise to deal with the key issue of independence. It is, as I said on the previous day in Committee, essential to two things. One is public confidence—one cannot overestimate the importance of that—but it is equally important to the morale and well-being of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

I think we have established a very clear structure for the independence of the Director of Service Prosecutions and the three distinguished holders of that office, Bruce Houlder, Andrew Cayley and Jonathan Rees, the current DSP, have ensured that it happens. Now, how do we deal with the independence of the police? It seems to me very important to look at the problems with the independence of an investigation. Many us will have forgotten—or were not alive at the time—when there were serious problems in the civilian police, particularly with watch committees and other mechanisms that were meant to ensure that the police were accountable and independent. It did not work. Various things were tried and eventually we came up with the police and crime commissioners, as Sir Richard notes in his report.

Looking at independence, and having had to fight for the independence of the judiciary from time to time, I can assure noble Lords that what you need is a structure behind you—someone independent to go to on whom you can rely. In the case of the judiciary, one can obviously come to Parliament. That is ultimately what is provided for. That is why, it seems to me, the independent strategic board proposed is absolutely the key part of this. There should be an absolute duty for an independent investigation, which should not be qualified in any way, but you need an institutional structure.

What I wholly fail to understand from the Minister’s observations is why that cannot now be put in place and, in the way that police and crime commissioners have been made part of the statutory mechanism that looks to the police, why we cannot have a statutory mechanism for the Armed Forces. Surely they are entitled to the same sort of protection as ordinary civilians—as us all. I do not understand why we always expect the Armed Forces to have second best. There can be no reason why these issues have not been fully considered and why the Government cannot go forward.

This has been a long-standing problem. One has to go back only to the awful problems of the Iraq and Afghan wars, with the sticking-plaster solutions—if I may be so bold as to describe them as that—of bodies such as IHAT, the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. If you lived through cases on that, you would appreciate the need for a structure and something that we can be proud of to protect independence.

Given the history of the way in which the Armed Forces from time to time behave, if you do not do something now, you will have a problem in the future. I urge the Government to grapple with this now and deal with it by putting in provisions, as Sir Richard recommended. If one reads his report carefully, one sees the importance of the strategic board as the guarantor of independence. As the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said, how is independence to be secured without some form of mechanism?

The second area on which I want to comment briefly is witness and victim care. This seems to me an important part of a statutory protection. If there is a witness or victims’ unit, there is someone to go to. Again, why are the Army, the Navy and the Air Force to have second best? Why is there not statutory provision, just as there is in the ordinary criminal justice system? I urge the Minister to look at this again with the objective of protecting the Armed Forces for the future and giving them what the rest of us have.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales in making the valuable and very firm points that he made. The question he asks is far from rhetorical. Why should members of our Armed Forces settle for second best? Why should we expect them to be less entitled to systems of justice that ordinary citizens can access?

I have vivid memories of the overseas operations Bill from this Session of Parliament. That was another Bill that came from the House of Commons, where the debates were dominated by a Minister demanding total obedience to every dot and comma of the Bill on the grounds that if you were against it, you were against the British Army, thereby allowing through provisions that might well have led to British soldiers and other members of Britain’s Armed Forces appearing before the International Criminal Court. Eventually, the Government woke up, but not without huge pressure and a lot of distinguished Members of this House making sure they got a very firm message. I do not want to embarrass the Minister too much, but I know that she played a role in getting common sense seen in that debate.

When we look at legislation being brought forward by the Government, we are wise to be cautious about what the Government say in their own defence. Therefore, when the Minister says that there are elements in the Henriques report which require attention and I ask which of those have policy implications, I would expect the department to be able to tell us. I recognise the phrase “when parliamentary time allows”, because I am sure I used it during my ministerial career. There is usually very little parliamentary time available for primary legislation, which is what would be required to enact the remaining aspects of the Henriques recommendations.

I follow my noble friend Lord Coaker in what he says and his detailed questions. The key question concerns the fact that, while Henriques made a number of recommendations, 13 of them have not appeared in the amendments to the Bill in this Committee. He is right to ask this question, which I repeat: which of these require policy consideration, because that could take a very considerable period to come forward as well?

The stories in the Sunday Times, both last Sunday and the Sunday before, should, frankly, horrify all of us. What is described there is disgraceful, disgusting and completely indefensible. I am not a lawyer or a soldier, but I cannot understand why action is not being taken and investigations into this particular incident are not taking place. We are being told that only if the Kenyan authorities start to make their inquiries will anything happen in this country, when there seems to be clear evidence around, involving British citizens and members of the British Armed Forces involved in this. Why has there not been some investigation? Just as members of the Armed Forces are perfectly entitled to be treated like other citizens in this country, victims also have a right to the kind of justice and investigation that we would expect for anyone else in the country.

We should not allow the Sunday Times to develop this story, week after week, with hugely damaging effects on the reputation of our Armed Forces, the recruitment of people into them and the country as a whole. Although it is not, strictly speaking, the business of this Committee, it is a matter of public concern. It has alerted the public in general to the whole question of service discipline. Therefore, the business of this Committee and Bill, detailed and arcane as it is in some ways, has now become a matter of public attention. It is up to the Government and Ministers in the Ministry of Defence to pay attention to that and resolve it so that they protect the reputation of the country and our distinguished Armed Forces.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank noble Lords for an interesting and stimulating debate, as ever. I shall endeavour to respond to the points raised. I certainly hope that the fate that befell Admiral Byng, so colourfully described by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, does not befall me, or the proceedings would come to a summary conclusion.

I will first address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who said, quite correctly, that perception is important. I agree with that, but so is legal exactitude, which is, I accept, tedious to some but none the less absolutely vital in the framing of legislation. I will come to that in a little more detail shortly.

I say to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Robertson—who, with the best of intentions, I know, raised the appalling situation of the Kenyan lady —that I am constrained. This is a live investigation in Kenya, and it is sub judice. I can say that the Secretary of State has offered our full co-operation, but it is essentially a Kenyan investigation. We are prepared to offer any co-operation that we can when they request it. We have to let the investigatory process continue.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, reverted to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, about the remaining Henriques recommendations. I looked at again at what I said and double-checked where we are. I do not want to be discouraging or disappointing, but I can put my hand on my heart and say that approximately 40 of these recommendations require policy and legal analysis. That is factual, and I cannot accelerate that at the moment, but I am happy to give your Lordships an undertaking that I shall certainly monitor and report back on progress. I hope that will reassure your Lordships that this is not some somnolent process that will fall asleep once Committee stage is over. I am very happy to place that on the record and offer to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boyce (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 66A. I will not cover all the ground covered on the overseas Bill; I merely want to say that I look forward to what the Minister has to say about delivering what she said at the time. Aspects of the welfare of our people should be looked at and some implementation of policy achieved.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 48 and will follow what the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said. I will say why the amendment and more care for mental illness are required.

I live in a town in Scotland called Dunblane. In 1996, a gunman used a private armoury to kill schoolchildren and their teacher. At that time I was shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and lived in the town. The Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth, was the local Member of Parliament. We came together that day. It was by any standard a traumatic day. We did everything together after that to handle the issues that came up in the media. The following day, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition came to the town.

Within days I was back at work, which you do: it is traumatic, but you get through these things. I thought, “Well, I’m tough enough”—I had been a politician in Scotland for long enough, after all. You think you can take it all. But gradually I came to realise that I was not coping with it at all. I remembered that the Secretary of State for Scotland had offered counselling to those who had been affected. We were also made the same offer as individuals. I went to see the counsellor because I found I could not mention the events of that day without breaking up, and this was not something that was convenient or natural when you were in the bearpit of Scottish politics. I took up the offer and went to the counsellor. I spent a morning with an experienced counsellor and I was fixed. It took only a morning, but that lady was quite remarkable in the way she treated me.

Fast forward two years and I am Secretary of State for Defence. The Omagh bomb exploded in that small town in Northern Ireland. I went across as Defence Secretary with the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Roger Wheeler, and spoke to the troops that day. The troops based there who had helped in the aftermath were pretty hardened infantry soldiers—as tough and as hard as you can get, and they had been in Northern Ireland for some time—but they were deeply affected by what they had seen that day. They could cope with most things, but the sight of a baby torn in pieces was something they were deeply traumatised by.

I told them my story that day to say that they had been injured by what they had seen and that they needed to take the counselling that was going to be on offer. Although they were tough and hard, if they had been told after being shot in the shoulder to put a sticking plaster on it and it would go away, it would not have seemed sufficient even for them, yet they had been injured in another way, and there were ways in which they could be treated. I hope that had an effect that day and persuaded some of them to take that treatment, which they probably felt was not something they would ever really need.

Since then, of course, the traumas of Afghanistan and Iraq have come along and many more of our Armed Forces have been severely affected. Therefore, this amendment, which, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said, maybe does not go far enough, alerts the Ministry of Defence to the necessity that is there to make sure that more attention is paid to that aspect of medical welfare.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think anybody can disagree with the intention of these amendments. Indeed, I agree entirely and am pleased to have heard about the progress made by the MoD in recent years when it comes to mental health—and, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said, the differing approach that we have taken to mental health and physical health over many years. It begs the question as to whether there is anything about physical health in the Bill, if we are potentially about to put something in about mental health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 50 in my name, which is in this important group of amendments. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Lexden, for their amendments in this group. I very much support and appreciate them.

I will try to keep my remarks relatively brief to give other noble Lords time to speak. This is a crucial set of amendments. The Committee will know that homosexuality was banned in the British Armed Forces until January 2000. That is quite astonishing, given that the law was changed in 1967. The ban was lifted by the then Labour Government and I was very pleased. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, was Secretary of State at that time. If he was not, he would no doubt have been working towards that. The fact that homosexuality was banned in the British Armed Forces until January 2000, some 33 years after the 1967 Act, is shocking.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that I left the Ministry of Defence in October 1999, so I cannot claim the credit.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I would say that my noble friend laid the ground for it.

My serious point is that it has left a situation in which thousands upon thousands of ex-service men and women were dishonourably discharged, or quite outrageously forced from the service, simply because of their sexuality. It is simply unbelievable given the standards we have now and simply unacceptable that it happened. The practical impact of that discrimination —loss of pension, loss of livelihood et cetera—let alone the mental health damage and the stigma attached to it, was simply unacceptable and unbelievable. I want to draw attention to that. I would be interested to know from the Minister what the Ministry of Defence’s estimate—the Government’s view—is of the number of people impacted by this. I have seen estimates in the press of up to 20,000 people. I do not know whether that is correct; maybe noble Lords have better information than me, but it will be interesting to know what the actual figure is.

We have heard the Government say that there will be a restoration of medals. That seems good, but its progress has been slow. What will the Government do more of to try to accelerate that progress? There is clearly a need for further compensation, for pensions to be reformed and all those sorts of things. The Minister must now consider the restoration of ranks, pensions and other forms of compensation to honour appropriately those who have served our country with courage and distinction. That is what Amendment 50 seeks to do. Fighting With Pride gave compelling evidence to the Select Committee on the Bill about the damage that the ban on homosexuality has done to LGBT+ veterans. What steps will the Minister take to proactively identify those who were discriminated against? What discussions has she had regarding further forms of compensation for those affected?

I was grateful that the Minister in the other place said so clearly that

“the historical ban on homosexuality in the armed forces was absolutely wrong and there was horrific injustice as a consequence of it.”

I could not have put it better. It is absolutely shameful for our country. How do we go about fixing this injustice? That is what we all want to do. The Minister said that the Government would resist a similar amendment as it would

“complicate our efforts to address at pace this injustice.”

I do not understand what was meant by “complicate”. Surely the amendment would give a clear direction and encourage action. The Minister then said that fixing this injustice

“is at the heart of our veterans’ strategy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/21; col. 929.]

When will we get to see this strategy and will the idea of compensation be included?

When giving evidence to the Bill’s Select Committee, Craig Jones from Fighting With Pride said:

“When people were found or suspected”,


of homosexuality,

“they were arrested, often late at night, by the Royal Military Police. They were taken away for questioning, and that questioning … went on for days. Many of the people who were questioned had no legal support, or no ‘accused’s friends’, as we sometimes call that in the Armed Forces. They were searched, and the process went on for a very long time. After they had been charged, many were taken to military hospitals for medical inspections, which were a disgraceful breach of trust between members of the Armed Forces and the officers whom they were in the care of.”

I could not agree more with the Bill’s Select Committee’s report, which stated:

“Diversity is a source of strength for the Armed Forces and all should welcome and encourage a more diverse Armed Forces.”


Surely part of that is righting this historic wrong.

I was moved by an article that I hope noble Lords saw in the Mirror a few weeks ago. It outlined some of the case studies of some former veterans, forced to leave the Armed Forces after some years of service. It was heartbreaking and unbelievable. It brings tears to your eyes when you read it. We were all shocked by it, but what we want is speedy action from the Government.

I will mention one positive sign: is it not great that finally in our country, on Remembrance Sunday this year, Fighting With Pride will be able to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph? That is a symbol of the change that we all want and the action that needs to be taken, but it needs to take place sooner rather than later. I press the Minister not only to share our shame and sense of outrage at this injustice but to explain to the Committee what we will do about it to end it more quickly than we seem to be at the moment.