National Shipbuilding Strategy

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Beamish]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the National Shipbuilding Strategy.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to delivering a thriving shipbuilding sector across the UK, supporting companies and skilled jobs across the whole supply chain—from full vessel builds through to design, repair systems and integration. The Ministry of Defence and the wider Government continue to support the sector through a 30-year pipeline of shipbuilding projects, and we are closely considering shipbuilding as part of our long-term industrial strategy development.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. In 2017, Sir John Parker produced the national shipbuilding strategy, which was a good vision for the future of shipbuilding in the UK. It was refreshed in 2022 by the previous Government, who, ironically, six months later awarded a contract to the Spanish state-owned shipbuilder Navantia. Today, we have tenders for ships for Trinity House and Border Force, the concern being that they will go to foreign yards. Also of concern is that the National Shipbuilding Office, in its latest bulletin, talks about UK content not UK build. Why is shipbuilding not part of the national growth strategy? Those ships should be built in the UK.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Certainly, the shipbuilding strategy is part of the industrial strategy going forward, but my noble friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of shipbuilding to our country and to growth. I will continue to say at this Dispatch Box that the manufacturing industry of this country needs to be rebuilt, and part of that rebuilding has to be ship- building. We look not only to the Ministry of Defence but to departments across government to do as much as they can to ensure that British ships are built in British yards. That is an important principle that they should adhere to if they possibly can.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 3, I will also speak to Amendment 5. Both are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Minto and are on the issue of whistleblowing. Close followers of this Bill will know that I raised this matter at Second Reading and by amendment in Committee.

Let me put a little perspective around this. This is a good Bill. The creation of such a visibly independent office as the Armed Forces commissioner is a very positive development. The powers and functions conferred by the Bill on the commissioner are extremely important. The Minister’s willingness to engage throughout the Bill’s progress has been genuine and constructive, and is much appreciated.

To keep this as brief as possible, in Committee I argued, in essence, that the commissioner should be empowered to investigate any concern raised by a whistleblower and should protect the anonymity of the whistleblower. I was grateful for the support that I received across different Benches, and there was a very useful discussion. I inferred that there was indeed a consensus around the broad thrust of what I was trying to achieve but a divergence of view on the part of the Government about how to achieve it. The Government’s response in Committee was that there was already

“a comprehensive whistleblowing system, for military and civilians alike, and it includes robust policy, procedural investigation teams and a confidential hotline, so the amendment is not required”.—[Official Report, 24/3/25; col. GC 453.]

This response refers to the improved complaints system, which I do not deny is there and operating to improved effect. The Government were also concerned about the breadth of my amendment, which they felt could reach a range of issues beyond general service welfare matters.

Dealing with the first response, I was not persuaded by the “a whistleblowing system already exists, so nothing more is required” argument. I will explain why. Notwithstanding the creation of an Armed Forces commissioner to deal with general welfare issues, many of these issues will continue to be addressed through the existing complaints system, but that is not an argument for no commissioner. As accepted by the Government, this creation is an enhanced protection for service personnel and an additional route for complainers or victims to use. As I argued in Committee, whatever support and protection we can give to our service personnel, particularly women, we should provide it.

Given the Minister’s willingness to engage further, I withdrew the amendment in Committee. Subsequently, I had a constructive meeting with him and his officials when we explored the issue further. I had sympathy with the point about the breadth of issues that could be encompassed by my amendment. I did not intend whistleblowing with respect to the commissioner’s role to extend beyond welfare and general welfare issues as defined in the Bill, so Amendments 3 and 5 have been drafted accordingly to reflect that. A whistleblower as defined in Amendment 5 is within the parameters of the Bill.

The Minister helpfully shared with me the MoD’s further thinking on the issue and the advice from his officials. Anticipating that he will wish to cover that in his wind-up speech, I will address what may arise. I hope that will assist him in his response.

The Government consider that whistleblowing is not a legally recognised term and does not have a clear, agreed meaning. I have no difficulty in understanding what whistleblowing means, and from the contributions in Committee it is clear that neither do your Lordships. Much more importantly, service personnel will have no difficulty in understanding what whistleblowing means. The simplicity of being given a simple central point of access to the Armed Forces commissioner under the widely understood umbrella of whistleblowing, regardless of what service you are in, to voice your whistleblowing concern anonymously is manifestly attractive. That a friend in the services or a relevant family member can do the same with anonymity will have a compelling appeal.

Given the reputational damage done to the MoD, with a catalogue of dreadful stories over a period of years, particularly in relation to servicewomen, why would the MoD not want to do this? Indeed, just this morning BBC Wiltshire reported horrific accounts of alleged rape and sexual assault from three women, one of whom served in the Navy and another in the RAF. The third is still serving in the Army. What a message this amendment would send to those women—women who feel they are being ignored and that their concerns are being overlooked. My amendment is specifically designed to offer such women a widely understood and simple route to seek help, regardless of what other procedures may exist.

The Government claim that whistleblowing is not a legally recognised term. However, it features in Section 340Q of the Armed Forces Act 2006—the very Act of Parliament that this Bill amends—and in the Police Reform Act 2002. Those Acts confer the power to investigate whistleblowing complaints to the Service Police Complaints Commissioner and the Independent Office for Police Conduct respectively. In fact, Section 340Q of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is even entitled

“Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”,


and the Police Reform Act has an entire part with that same title. It is therefore evident that there is statutory precedent for whistleblowing provisions. It appears that we are dancing on the head of a pin here.

I have dealt with, and I hope rebutted, the Government’s argument that whistleblowing is superfluous and that a specific addition is not needed to this Bill. The Government then came up with an imaginative diversion. Whereas my previous amendment was too wide, now that I have confined it to the parameters of the Bill the Government now argue that the amendment is too constraining. There is now so much dancing on the head of a pin by the Government that the pin is about to buckle.

I understand that the Government will undertake to give reassurance about anonymity and confidentiality in respect of the commissioner’s activity and any report prepared by the commissioner. That merely reaffirms what I think we all assumed was there already, regardless of any whistleblowing function. Otherwise, how could the commissioner do the job without those protections? I understand further that there will be an undertaking to engage in a comprehensive communications campaign for the benefit of Armed Forces personnel and their families about the role of the commissioner and what can be raised with the commissioner. Again, that is necessary, but it is not a substitute for what I want to achieve.

Indeed, that communications campaign might wish to begin with Ministers. The Minister recently repeated the Written Statement by his honourable friend the Minister for Veterans and People in the other place laying before Parliament the Service Complaint Ombudsman’s annual report for 2024. In that Statement, he says that the Armed Forces commissioner

“will have the power to investigate any issues raised directly by Serving personnel and their families”.

That is not what the Bill says. The Minister, whom I respect greatly, was merely the hapless intermediary. I suggest that the Government get their own house in order before they take issue with others.

I think where we have got to is that the Government are saying, with some bells and whistles, that we are doing enough. I say we are not. My amendments will deliver more. I shall listen with great interest to the debate and in particular to the Minister’s wind-up remarks. If he can give me an undertaking that he will return at Third Reading with an amendment that specifically covers whistleblowing, I will be content to withdraw this amendment so that we can explore the Government’s proposal further. However, if he is unable to do so and he cannot go further than he has already proposed, then I will be left with no choice but to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I welcome this amendment because it is trying to get to a point that I do not think any of us could disagree with, which is that we want people to be able to raise issues affecting not just them but colleagues and members of their family. What the noble Baroness said about the legal definition is right. It is in other legislation, and I think it was raised when I was on Armed Forces Act 2006, but I am not sure what it adds to the powers of the commissioner.

The commissioner has quite wide powers under the Bill as drafted, including being able to do thematic inquiries. I am sure that if he or she received complaints—the noble Baroness mentioned the appalling treatment of women in certain parts of the Armed Forces—the commissioner could, without any interference from outside, take it on himself or herself to conduct an investigation. I would support this inclusion if it added anything to what is already there, but I am struggling to understand what additional powers it would give to the commissioner. Obviously, it would be down to the tenacity of whoever is appointed as to whether they try to take up some of these individual complaints.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate and for the ongoing discussions we have had in Committee, outside of it and now back here on Report.

Let us be clear about this: there is no difference in our policy objectives. Nobody wants to read about the things the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, outlined, or about the sexism and other behaviours that we see in the Armed Forces. There is no difference between any of us on that. There is nobody here who supports that. We all want that to be exposed and we all want people to feel able to come forward, through the complaints procedure or through the new body we are setting up.

People say that we still see these things happening today, and of course that is true. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that, when the First Sea Lord went to a recent Defence Select Committee, he spoke about the number of Navy personnel who had been dismissed from the service using the legislation that the previous Government brought in. They quite commendably and rightly brought that in to deal with some of the appalling and unacceptable behaviour.

Noble Lords asked whether that legislation goes far enough and whether more needs to be done. Of course more needs to be done, which is why we have an Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. We understand that the legislation is still not sufficient and that more needs to be done. Therefore, we are bringing forward this Bill.

I understand perfectly that the intention behind the amendments is for people to feel able to approach the commissioner without fear of repercussions from their identity being made public. I wholeheartedly agree with that—who is going to disagree with that? There is nobody who would disagree with that. We all want people to trust the process and the commissioner, and feel confident that their issue will be addressed and that they will not face any negative consequences from coming forward.

What is proposed in the amendments that the noble Baroness has brought forward, quite commendably, and in the arguments that have been made, is—as my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lady Carberry have said in their remarks—available to those who come forward now. As the Bill is currently drafted, the various policy intentions are being met. Let me go through some of the technical reasons again, because they are important.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised the difference between an individual complaint and whistleblowing, and I accept that there is a difference. Is there anything in the Bill to stop a whistleblower going to the commissioner and the commissioner undertaking an investigation in one of their thematic reviews?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There is not. My noble friend is quite right to point that out.

The term whistleblower is not a universally recognised term in law. That may be irrelevant to us in considering the debate, but it is of relevance to us as a legislature. There is some limited precedence for its use, there is no single meaning, and it requires additional context to explain what the term means in each case. The amendment seeks to define the term in reference to certain people and topics, but it would not create any additional protections for those people, because, as I have said, the commissioner can already investigate everything that the amendment lists—as my noble friend Lord Beamish has pointed this out—whether it involves a whistleblowing-type situation to expose a general service issue or a personal issue that somebody wants to raise individually. The commissioner can already investigate any general service welfare matters that they choose. Anyone can raise such an issue with the commissioner, including the class of person defined in the amendments.

Once established, the Armed Forces commissioner and their office will automatically be bound by data protection legislation. This means that, for all individuals who contact the commissioner, the information and details they provide will be subject to stringent protections under the existing legislation. That includes the principle of protecting the integrity and confidentiality of their personal data.

None the less, as noble Lords know, to try to address the continuing concerns, the Government considered what more they might do. In considering this amendment, noble Lords should remember that the holy grail of all this is anonymity. People will not have trust and confidence in a system if they do not believe that, if they wish it, there is anonymity; they will be frightened of the consequences, whether of whistleblowing or of raising an issue on a personal level.

We are looking at this and, in addition to the substantial protections afforded by data protection legislation, we undertake to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading that would go further in respect of reports prepared by the commissioner to preserve the anonymity of individuals who make complaints. This will prevent a complainant’s details coming into the hands of the Secretary of State or the general public without the consent of the complainant, but it will not interfere with the commissioner’s ability to use the information in connection with an investigation. In other words, the Government have conceded that anonymity is an issue and commit to bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading that will put that in the Bill, to ensure that anonymity is protected in legislation.

I say again, because it is so important, that trust and confidence are everything. Who will come forward—whatever the legislation says—without trust and confidence in that system? At the heart of that is anonymity. That is the legislative proposal that we are seeking to bring forward at Third Reading, should we be in a position procedurally to do so.

There is a further issue that is not legislative— I think the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, raised it. The Government commit to update our current “raising a concern” policy, which includes replicating the protections available to civilians under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. This update will outline the role of the commissioner and ensure that similar protections for people under this policy are applied to disclosures made to the commissioner. This will include provisions relating to anonymity and confidentiality, ensuring that anyone who raises a genuine concern in line with the policy will be protected from unfair or negative treatment due to raising the concern.

--- Later in debate ---

I should say at this point that it is not my intention to put this amendment to the vote, not least because it was drafted by my very inexpert hands. The Public Bill Office was kind enough to accept it, but I am not going to make great claims for my ability to write a law that should actually go on the statute books; it is a probing amendment. One of the ways in which the commissioner could access specialist knowledge is, obviously, from the Children’s Commissioner. That is why I levered it in, possibly slightly inelegantly, where the amendment says that the commissioner should co-operate with the Children’s Commissioner and other relevant children’s services. I hope to hear from the Minister an understanding that, although we understand that the Armed Forces are in many ways a special case, we need to think about the people who have the special skills to deal with children and to support the Armed Forces commissioner in holding those inquiries when it deals with children. That is my case. I beg to move.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I welcome the amendment, in the sense that the noble Baroness is trying to ensure that those in the Armed Forces who are aged under 18 are protected, which I think we would all wish. I disagree with her about recruiting those aged under 18, because I suggest that the Army Foundation College in Harrogate does a fantastic job of helping and developing young people from some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country. Having taken a passing-out parade there as a Minister, I have to say that it is quite emotional to see the change that some of those individuals have gone through in the time they were at Harrogate.

In saying that, the noble Baroness is correct that there have been incidents at Harrogate that should not have happened, and it is important that the commissioner is able to look at them, particularly concentrating on under-18s. I understand that Ofsted already inspects Harrogate, but I accept that is only one part of what the noble Baroness is trying to get at with this amendment.

It is important to have this debate, because whoever becomes the commissioner should look at this. When they look at particular cases, or even hold a thematic inquiry into under-18s provision, then, as the noble Baroness quite rightly says in her amendment, drawing on expertise from the Children’s Commission and others will be important. As she quite rightly says, the Armed Forces commissioner, no matter how good he or she is, will not have the specialist knowledge that the Children’s Commission and others do. So I welcome the debate: if we are to attract people to our Armed Forces, it is going to be very important that the experience they have is of the utmost quality and does not lead to some of the issues that have, sadly, arisen at Harrogate.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing this amendment. As she pointed out, we had an amendment in Committee that listed a whole set of different groups to which we suggested the Armed Forces commissioner should pay particular attention. It was not intended to be something that would ever be brought to a vote. In the light of the Atherton report and the Etherton report, it is important for the commissioner to think about groups that have faced particular problems within His Majesty’s Armed Forces, so exploring who the commissioner should take into consideration and where there might be a need for particular inquiries or reports seemed to be worth discussing.

Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, that recruiting under-18s is something that we accept, it is important to bear in mind that people aged under 18 are still technically children. It is important that the commissioner, in looking at their welfare, looks to other bodies that deal with that. In this regard, mentioning family members is also important, because if we are talking about recruitment, as the noble Lord has just done, it is not simply whether a 16 or 17 year-old wants to sign up but whether their parents feel comfortable in that as well. This is an important issue for us to discuss, but obviously not to push to a vote on this occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beamish]

13: Schedule 1, page 8, line 16, at end insert—
“3A “(1) The Secretary of State must not make a recommendation to His Majesty under paragraph 3 unless the recommendation has been laid before and approved by the relevant Parliamentary Committee in both Houses.(2) References in this paragraph to the relevant Parliamentary Committees are references to—(a) both the Defence Committee in the House of Commons and the Committee charged with this responsibility in the House of Lords, or(b) the Joint Committee of both Houses which—(i) is charged with responsibility by those Houses for the purposes of this paragraph, and(ii) has notified the Secretary of State that it is a relevant Parliamentary Committee for those purposes.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would mean the Secretary of State could not recommend a candidate to be appointed Armed Forces Commissioner to His Majesty until relevant select committees in both Houses of Parliament have approved that candidate.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

Amendment 13 is another attempt to ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny over the individual who is appointed as the Armed Forces commissioner. As I raised in Committee, there has been a lot of play made by the Government that the Armed Forces commissioner is being based on the German model. However, as we debated in Committee, the parliamentary oversight in this Bill is nothing like that of the German system. In the German system, the German armed forces commissioner is appointed by and answerable to the Bundestag. In the Bill before us today, the Secretary of State for Defence is the individual who recommends the appointment to His Majesty the King.

In Committee, I moved Amendment 3, which would have given powers to both Houses to have a vote on the individual’s name before it went to His Majesty, therefore giving Parliament a direct say in, and scrutiny over, who is appointed Armed Forces commissioner. Even though in Committee I raised a number of examples of where this is already practised in appointments, the Government sought to reject my amendment. The old tradition is that God loves a trier, so here is my second attempt to try and get some parliamentary scrutiny of the process of the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner.

Amendment 13 would not allow the Secretary of State to recommend to His Majesty the King the individual to be the Armed Forces commissioner before the individual had been before the Defence Select Committee and the relevant committee in your Lordships’ House, which I think would be the International Relations and Defence Committee. This is a watered-down version of my previous Amendment 3, but it would at least ensure that both Houses of Parliament were scrutinising the individual as a fit and proper person to be appointed as commissioner. It would also give some confidence that the two parliamentary committees which oversee defence issues had had an opportunity to look at the individual who is being put forward.

Many people would ask: why is this important and why should Parliament be involved? Over many years, we have seen scandals affecting our Armed Forces—at Second Reading, we discussed many of them—and we have all agreed, I think, that this is the third attempt to get right the oversight of complaints and other issues to do with our Armed Forces. This is an attempt, through the Bill, to ensure that Parliament has a say.

The other issue, which we should not ignore, is that the individuals affected by the complaints and scandals, as well as campaigners, have—quite rightly—very little respect for or confidence in the ability of the MoD or the chain of command. Giving parliamentary oversight of the commissioner’s appointment would help them know, at least, that it is not just the Secretary of State and the MoD putting forward the necessary person. It is important not only that Parliament should have a say in these matters, which I personally believe is right, but that campaigners, and individuals who use the service of the Armed Forces commissioner, have the confidence that it will be not just the Secretary of State making the recommendation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this important debate, including my noble friend Lord Stansgate, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. Their questions will be answered as I go through my remarks. I also thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for his views on the Bill and his engagement on the subject to date. As he knows from the discussions he has had with me and the Minister for the Armed Forces, I understand and fully appreciate his concerns and views about the scrutiny of the commissioner’s appointment and the importance of properly funding the commissioner.

We are confident there will be the right balance of independent scrutiny in place, in line with other, similar public appointments. Parliament will have a clear and important role in the process. The public appointments process and the rigorous pre-appointment scrutiny will be the mechanism to address any concerns that the House of Commons Defence Select Committee may have about a candidate. We will be able fully to take account of the Select Committee’s views before making the recommendation to His Majesty.

Furthermore, as was clarified in Committee, the House of Commons Defence Committee will be involved in the recruitment process and will consider the candidate before their appointment. The Secretary of State will then carefully consider the view of the chair of the Defence Select Committee. I can confirm that we have also discussed this issue with the chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee, Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the chair of the International Relations and Defence Committee, and make it clear—in answer to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Beamish in his amendment—that, should the IRDC wish to provide a view on the appointment to the HCDC, it would be very welcome to do so.

As with the House of Commons Defence Committee’s opinion, any views provided by the International Relations and Defence Committee will be a matter for consideration by the Secretary of State. However, I hope that the confirmation that the mechanism exists to feed in views from this place, should Parliament wish to do so, will alleviate the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Beamish. His amendment has caused us to further consider how the IRDC may be involved. Because the Executive cannot dictate to Parliament, I emphasise that it is if that Select Committee wishes and chooses to do so.

On Amendment 14, I fully agree that it is crucial that the commissioner has the tools, including the financial assistance, they need. The Bill has been designed to ensure that this is the case. I again thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for taking the time to meet with me and the Minister for the Armed Forces to discuss this matter. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Beamish and others that this Government—I would like to clearly state and put this on the record—will commit to providing sufficient funding to the office of the commissioner.

Noble Lords have asked about a future Government; it is difficult to commit future Governments to particular policies, but I would assume and expect that, even if the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was the Secretary of State for Defence, or the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was back in office, all of us, including myself, would ensure that the commissioner’s office was properly funded. I believe that would be the case. The amendment from my noble friend Lord Beamish is particularly important because it forces us to put on record that the funding of the commissioner’s office is crucial and fundamental to the successful delivery of this important reform.

If the commissioner feels that their funding is insufficient to carry out their functions effectively, the Bill has been designed to ensure that they will have the opportunity to raise this in their annual reports. The Secretary of State in the other place and the Minister for Defence here—whoever that is—would find it more than a little uncomfortable to have to defend themselves against the charge that an Armed Forces commissioner, regarded as a crucial reform, believes that they have been insufficiently funded to undertake the requirements legally expected of them.

With that, I thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for Amendments 13 and 14. I hope that I have been able to provide him and other noble Lords with the necessary reassurance. On those grounds, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I will take that as a win. I look forward to the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House—I have been involved in the process. As I said when moving the amendment, for the campaigners, it is not to be underestimated that the individual selected has at least had the experience and been scrutinised by somebody other than the Secretary of State before the nomination. I welcome that. With the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Defence Spending: Scotland

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the Royal Navy’s shipbuilding in Scotland is very much dependent on other UK yards for fabrication and block work, for example, so a vibrant shipbuilding industry throughout the UK is important. Does the Minister therefore agree that it is disappointing that the Scottish Government have just awarded the ferry contract to Turkey—work that could have been done in the UK to support UK shipbuilding nationally?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an important point. We would all agree that this Government need to ensure that, as far as possible, the increases in defence spending benefit UK industry, British industry, and that is what we are seeking to do. We are doing that with the steel industry, and we want to see shipbuilding benefiting from the increases in defence spending. That requires a whole UK Government effort, not only at government level but with all the devolved Governments across the UK working together to ensure that we benefit from this increase in spending.

As I say, the crucial point, which has been brought home to us all, is the ability of this country to rebuild manufacturing, whether it be shipbuilding, steel or other industries, to ensure that we have the sovereign capability we need should we face a crisis. Frankly, this has been a wake-up call that may have come too late for this conflict, but for future conflicts we will ensure that we have capability now rather than at some distant point in the future.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 21A, I shall also speak to Amendment 21B in my name. In so doing, I declare my interest as a serving Coldstream Guards Army Reserve officer with the 1st Battalion London Guards.

I mention this not only because it is my duty to do so in declaring one’s interests but because the London Guards are one of the few good-news stories in the Army Reserve. We are one of the only infantry battalions that is growing. Our partnership with our regular counterparts in the Household Division uniquely positions us for recruitment and retention by offering a dual role: ceremonial duties and contribution to the field Army’s war-fighting capabilities. I should also say that I have the honour to serve alongside the present doorkeeper, Mr Davey—he is not in his place—who, after a distinguished career in the regular Army, now fulfils an essential combat service support role for the battalion on top of his duties to this House.

But I know from attending courses and battle camps with reservists from other infantry formations that the picture is not so positive outside London. This is not to say that we do not face challenges, and there is a feeling that the battalion works well because of the tireless work of individuals up and down the chain of command, bolstered by permanent staff who go above and beyond the call of duty—that is to say, the battalion works in spite of the system, not because of it.

Reserve forces are a vital component of the Armed Forces, providing essential mass, unique capabilities and a diversity of skills that are critical to meeting the Ministry of Defence’s commitments. At the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations conference in November 2024, the Minister for Veterans and People, Alistair Carns MP, delivered the keynote address, focusing on the critical importance of reconnecting defence with society. He praised the contributions of reservists and cadets, noting their significant role in bolstering the UK’s operational capabilities and enhancing social mobility. He said:

“Reserves and cadets are the beating heart of our defence capabilities, offering unparalleled skills and serving as a bridge between the military and the communities they protect. Their commitment ensures that defence is not only ready for today’s challenges but also resilient for the future”.


At the same conference, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen—a former Defence Secretary and former NATO Secretary-General—reinforced the significance of strong community ties in defence efforts, particularly in the face of escalating global threats. He underscored the unique value of the RFCA network in enhancing public understanding and support for the Armed Forces, commenting:

“The role of reserves and cadets has never been more crucial. They exemplify the spirit of service and commitment that underpins our national security. Their efforts strengthen the bond between defence and society, ensuring we are prepared for any challenge”.


I know that the Minister has a personal connection to the Army Reserve, with his son-in-law serving with the Mercians.

In the past, including at the Second Reading of this Bill, the Minister has offered his wholehearted support for our nation’s Reserve Forces. Yet, despite strong words of support from both Ministers and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, the reserves are absent from this Bill. It is unclear how the Armed Forces commissioner will effect positive change for the vital work that reservists do and may be called on to do in the future.

This is the situation when considering the reserve estate of buildings and infrastructure: it is at best tired and often not fit for purpose, with too many assets—kitchens, ablutions and boilers—condemned. On training, courses are hard to get on, too long and not available enough. Access to the training estate remains a challenge and funding for some courses is inconsistent. Equipment platforms are of very limited availability, with no viable equipment support to manage training demand. JAMES, the Joint Asset Management and Engineering Solutions platform—it consists of a range of tools for the capability management of military equipment parts—does not work well for the Army Reserve.

On pay and welfare, there are frustrations with the normal retirement age of 55 and perceptions around the over age extension. Pay remains an issue and is not reflective of reservist civilian employment, meaning that they often have to take pay cuts in order to miss work for training. There is also a feeling that remuneration does not compensate for time away from family.

That list is not exhaustive, but these are some factors that severely hamper the reserves’ ability to recruit and retain and which impede their operational effectiveness. Therefore, my Amendment 21A would give a duty to consider the

“lived experience of Reserve Service Personnel”

so that, in carrying out their functions under this legislation, the Armed Forces commissioner would have to give equal consideration to the lived experience of reserve and regular service personnel. The amendment aims to empower the Armed Forces commissioner to ensure equal treatment of Reserve Forces in terms of resources and respect, thus enabling them to fulfil UK plc’s defence requirements and commitments.

Under my Amendment 21B, on the duty to consult the heads of reserves in carrying out their functions under this legislation, the Armed Forces commissioner would have to consult the heads of the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force reserves before implementing any changes that would affect reserve service personnel. Policymakers too often impose policy on reserves instead of collaborating with them, resulting in unintended consequences and unsatisfactory outcomes. This amendment would ensure that policymakers create and implement policy affecting reserves collaboratively, maximising the chance of success.

I look forward to the contributions from other noble Lords and the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. As the noble Lord has outlined, the Reserve Forces are an important part of our defence effort. There was possibly an image, going back to the 1970s and 1980s, that they were about weekend soldiers and drinking clubs. They are far from that today. If you look at the deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, you can see that the number of reservists deployed either as formed units or individuals made a tremendous effort. Certainly, the medical services saved the lives of countless members of our Armed Forces in both theatres; that could not have been done without reserve medical services.

Those forces are unique because, when they are on such deployments, they do not deploy back to a formed unit. As the noble Lord said, they have their unit, but it can be a very lonely existence for some of those individuals when they deploy back. I certainly know that, when I was in the Ministry of Defence and talking to reservists, the issue of mental health was one that particularly concerned me. In a regular unit, there is a welfare structure around them, but the individual who goes back to their individual work or home can feel very isolated. I came across some terrible examples where individuals who were severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan were forgotten by the welfare system. I think that things changed—we put things in place—but it is important to remember that these individuals are fighting on behalf of and alongside regular individuals.

However, they do not fit neatly into the category that this Bill outlines. As the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said, reserves may well come across employment issues, discrimination in employment and other issues that affect regular forces, but they do not necessarily fit in there. If we somehow forget about them as the Bill goes through, that will be remiss of us. We will have to wait and see what the outcome of the defence review is, but there will possibly be a larger role for reserve services—particularly because, these days, the Armed Forces across the piece, whether the Navy, the RAF or the Army, have become much more specialised. Some of the skills used in civilian life are very sought after in our military today. If we are going to attract those people, we should make sure not only that the offer is attractive in terms of both remuneration and the experience that they will get but that, if things go wrong, they have support as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for tabling these amendments, which allow us to discuss the issue of reserves. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, yes, reserves are covered and are within scope of the Bill when they are subject to service law. I have made that point on a number of occasions, but I say it again so that we are absolutely clear of the fact and have no misunderstanding.

I need to declare an interest as, like the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, my son-in-law is an active reservist. I have to be careful about that because, as noble Lords can imagine, he is not without an opinion about certain things—nor indeed is the rest of the family—so I put that on the record. He was active in Iraq. My noble friend pointed out the service of reservists in these campaigns, and my son-in-law was one of them. We all know people who are, were or will be reserves.

The Bill does not cover cadets, as the noble Baroness pointed out, although they are of course a major policy issue, as well as a major source of pride for us all. We hope that they both develop and expand. I will respond to a few of the points made before I make my formal reply.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

Having read the Bill, I know that the Minister is right: the reservists are covered while they are under service law. But what about individuals who are not on active service but who, for example, are affected by mental health problems or injuries they have sustained, and find it difficult to get redress for those things, which are a result of their service? How would that be covered? Would the commissioner be able to look at those individuals, who might not be active at the time but are still reservists? I can give examples of individuals like that who have sat at home for long periods of time, who are not active but were ignored by the system.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The answer to that is yes. I say to my noble friend, as I would to any noble Lord, that if there are instances of anything like that, he should bring them to my attention. I cannot always promise an answer, but I will always ensure that things are looked into. If my noble friend has something he wants me to look at, of course I will do so.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I am sorry to press the point. My noble friend the Minister said, “Yes”, but can he clarify that? This is important. The Bill says that they are covered by service law. If an individual, for example, has been on operations, has mental health problems, and has been detached from his unit for a while and is trying to get help, he is not technically covered by service law in those situations. Would he or she still be able to go to the commissioner and say, “Wait, we are not getting treatment or support in the way that we deserve”?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My understanding is that, in that situation, the issue arose as a consequence of service law. If that is wrong, I will clarify the position in a letter, and I will copy in all noble Lords in the Committee. My understanding is that, because the issue arose when they were subject to service law, the commissioner could therefore still look at it.

It would be remiss of me not to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on his own service. He mentioned Mr Davey, whom I acknowledge as well. There will be many other people whom we all know and who deserve congratulations and respect for their service. I ask the noble Lord to pass on the thanks of all noble Lords in this Committee to his unit, which, as he pointed out, has done particularly well. I also thank him for his speech and the various points he made in it, which were very good. The importance of what he said is not only shown in the answers he receives; it is in the fact that people will have heard his comments and the opinions he expressed. That also influences opinion in a way that is not always obvious, so he should take great credit for that. It is self-evident that we must consider the needs of reservists, but that is not always said as loudly and clearly as it should be, so the noble Lord taking the opportunity to do so when speaking to his amendments is extremely important.

My noble friend Lord Beamish outlined, in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, the importance of reservists and the even greater role that, potentially, they may be asked to play in future. We will see what happens with that. My noble friend pointing out the importance of reservists is extremely welcome.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, for the point he made about our dialogue and interaction on reservists and when they would be subject to service law. On the engagement point and the comments that he read out, we are actively considering how we would do that. I imagine that that would be through surveys and visits and by talking to individual reservists and their units about their needs, requirements and concerns. It is not necessarily for me to lay out to the commissioner exactly how to do that, but that is how I would expect a commissioner to work to ensure that the views and opinions of reservists were gleaned.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out the importance of veterans, the centrality of their commitment and their importance to the regulars, with whom they often train and serve side by side. He will know of that importance better than most of us, from his own military background and experience. He, too, was right to point out the importance of reservists.

I have already answered the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on whether reservists are included in the scope of the Bill.

I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on the Armed Forces commissioner’s consideration of and consultation with reserves. As I said, our Armed Forces reserves play a vital role in supporting our national security, and we recognise their dedication and value their work and well-being, showing them the same high regard as our regular service personnel. The contribution, skills and commitment of our reserves are essential to our operational strength, and I believe that every Member of the Committee would agree with that. As I said before, I hope that the noble Lord can pass that on to his friends and colleagues.

It is for that reason that reserves are within the scope of the new commissioner. As with regular members of the Armed Forces, members of the reserves will be able to contact the commissioner at any point about general service welfare matters that have arisen in connection with their service, and have those issues considered. That was the point I made to my noble friend Lord Beamish: they can contact the commissioner at any point about general service welfare matters that have arisen in connection with their service. That goes to the point that my noble friend rightly raised.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beamish]

24: Clause 6, page 6, line 24, leave out “, except Gibraltar”

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I will move it. I thought the noble Lord had got one of his colleagues to move it, but I will do it on his behalf because I have some sympathies with it.

Clause 6 excludes Gibraltar as opposed to the other British Overseas Territories. As a veteran of, I think, every single Armed Forces Act for the last 20 years, I know that this issue comes up every time. I understand—as does the noble Lord, to be fair to him—the unique nature of the Gibraltar regiment. It is a very old regiment; it goes back to 1867. Again, we perhaps think it is just a ceremonial regiment which is seen in Gibraltar itself but, as noble Lords will know, members of the Gibraltar regiment have served in different theatres, including the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan, and alongside regular UK forces. They also train with UK forces and are highly thought of by the individuals with whom they deploy.

I know this came up during the passage of, I think, the Armed Forces Act 2011, and again, there was a carve-out for Gibraltar. It comes to a point that I know the Minister will make: that it has to be down to the Government of Gibraltar to adopt the Act to include these individuals. But it puts those individuals at a bit of a disadvantage. If I am correct in remembering the various Acts on which I have served over the years, I think the 2011 Act excluded Gibraltar, but subsequently the Government of Gibraltar incorporated that Act, so they are covered by the existing legislation.

Is it the intention that, if they are excluded from the agreement of the Armed Forces commissioner, we expect the Government of Gibraltar to adopt this Bill, similarly to what they did with the Armed Forces Act 2011? Without that, it would be wrong to exclude these individuals. As I said, they have deployed with great honour alongside UK forces.

The noble Lord, in tabling his amendment, wanted to find out what the intentions of the Government were for the Royal Gibraltar Regiment. We cannot have individuals being deployed alongside members of the regular Armed Forces of the UK without being subject to the same rights that other members will have.

I understand that the clause also covers any other overseas territories so, again, I would like to understand what that will mean in terms of difference. I understand the particular nature of Gibraltar, but what will that mean for the other overseas territories’ forces and their ability to use the Armed Forces commissioner for any issues that arise? I beg leave to move the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Beamish for his outstanding realisation that he was moving the amendment and for swiftly jumping to his feet to put forward some very important points.

Given that this matter is legal and technical, I shall read out the legal points, because some very important points are contained within them. The relevant piece that we are looking at is the extent points in Clause 6; that is what we are referring to. Although it is very technical and legal, is quite an important part of the Bill.

Amendment 24 relates to the application of the Bill to Gibraltar, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for tabling it and my noble friend Lord Beamish for introducing it. It seeks to include Gibraltar alongside the other British Overseas Territories in the permissive extent clause of the Bill. While I understand that the noble Lord may be concerned about the exclusion of Gibraltar, I shall give him some reassurance.

My colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, met the Chief Minister of Gibraltar towards the end of last year. He was very welcoming of the Bill and confirmed that he is content to legislate in the Gibraltar Parliament on Armed Forces matters. In this case, UK and Gibraltar officials will now take steps to mirror the UK legislation in Gibraltar law, thereby continuing to demonstrate the close co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Gibraltar on all defence matters.

I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who has responsibility for the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, for his recent letter to the MoD on these matters, in which he praised the approach of the department and expressed a desire to promote this across government.

I reassure the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Beamish that although the Bill will not extend to Gibraltar, it will still apply to UK service persons subject to service law, and their families, wherever they are in the world. Members of a British Overseas Territories force, including the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, are subject to service law when undertaking any duty or training with UK Armed Forces. That also applies to other overseas territories, as my noble friend mentioned, provided they are subject to service law. It will also apply to UK Armed Forces premises worldwide, provided they fall within the required parameters set out in the Bill. I hope that that is of some reassurance to my noble friend, and I respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that answer. The only thing I will add about Gibraltar is that things move very slowly. Having been the MoD Minister responsible for Gibraltar, I know that things do not move quickly. The Armed Forces Act 2011 was not signed into Gibraltar law until 2018. If the chief Minister has given a commitment that this will take less time than it took to enact the Armed Forces Act 2011, then, with that and my noble friend’s explanation, it has been worth having this debate. We have had it for every single Armed Forces Bill—certainly that I have been involved in. On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, who owes me a large drink for moving his amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I read the regulations very closely, but I am not sure how it includes engaged couples unless they are covered by an interdependence in terms of finances. If an engaged couple were not living together or did not have a joint bank account, for example, would they be covered? It used to be the fact that, in terms of considering casualties, there had to be a connection of financial dependency between the two.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am advised that Regulation 2(3)(a),

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

includes engaged people. If that is wrong, I will come back to it, but that is the whole point of having the draft regulations before us. As I said, these regulations are draft and will come back as secondary legislation in due course.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I am afraid I have to say to the Minister that I think that is very woolly. As a Minister who dealt with casualties—I am sure other Members who have served in the Ministry of Defence will be aware of this—I can say that the Armed Forces family is very complicated. At a sudden death or tragic event, various emotions come together and, unless that is defined, you will have difficulty.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a really helpful comment from my noble friend. These are draft regulations; we are not going to legislate them now. The Bill will give us the power to create secondary legislation, and those draft regulations can be changed when people make various comments, including the ones my noble friend has made. Those can be taken into account and, if there needs to be change, there can be.

The whole point of the draft is that it gives the opportunity for noble Lords to make various comments on them. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, may reflect that kinship is not covered in the way she would expect, and therefore could make that point in response to the remarks I have made and will make. That is the whole point of what we are discussing. If this draft is not drawn tightly enough, of course it will have to be changed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beamish]

3: Schedule 1, page 8, line 16, at end insert—
“3A The Secretary of State must not make a recommendation to His Majesty under paragraph 3 until the recommendation has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean the Secretary of State could not recommend a candidate to be appointed Armed Forces Commissioner to His Majesty until both Houses of Parliament have approved that candidate.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 3— I will refer to Amendment 5 later—is like Amendment 4 in the sense that it covers parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner. It does so in different ways, but Amendment 3, standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, puts forward one way of achieving this.

In the Second Reading debate on the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill in the House of Commons, much play was made of the fact that the Armed Forces commissioner will be akin to the German armed forces commissioner. My right honourable friend John Healey, the Secretary of State, said:

“The role is inspired by the long-established German parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, which enjoys cross-party support in the Bundestag and support across the military”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/24; col. 75.]


He then went on to quote the present commissioner for Germany’s armed forces, who welcomes and looks forward to the new Armed Forces commissioner being installed in the UK.

Here, my noble friend the Minister also referred to the inspiration from Germany for the Armed Forces commissioner when he said this at Second Reading:

“The Bill was inspired by the long-established and successful German parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, who has been championing and providing a voice to Germany’s armed forces for almost 70 years … Our proposed Armed Forces commissioner, like the German commissioner, will have the power to consider the full breadth of general welfare issues that may impact service life”.—[Official Report, 5/3/25; col. 302.]


So, really, the spark that has done this is the German system.

I have to say, that is where it departs a little. The German system looks at the thematic issues that will be the remit of the new commissioner and she can also look at general service complaints, but the way in which the German commissioner is appointed is very interesting and very different from what is being proposed in this Bill. At the moment, this is what is proposed in paragraph 3 of the new schedule to be inserted by Schedule 1:

“The Commissioner is to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State”.


So the Secretary of State will be the person who appoints this person and decides who they should be, but the German system is very different. The German armed forces parliamentary commissioner is established under the German Basic Law, which was framed in 1949 and, I think, clarified in 1956. The Bundestag parliamentary commissioner has some of the same remit as the proposed commissioner in the UK but there is the force of federal law behind him or her.

Then, we come on to how the German commissioner is appointed. They are elected by the Bundestag, whose website says:

“The Bundestag shall elect the Commissioner by secret ballot with a majority of its Members”.


It goes on to say that candidates may be put forward

“by the Defence Committee, the parliamentary groups”

or groups of members of the Bundestag for this purpose. It says that there should be no debate and that there is a simple vote. It also states:

“Every German who is entitled to be elected to the Bundestag and has attained the age of 35 shall be eligible for the office of Commissioner”.


Although my noble friend and the Secretary of State have argued that this would be akin to the German system, I am not sure that it is, given the powers, process and parliamentary scrutiny that it has. Am I surprised that, in drafting this, they have ignored the bit about Parliament? No, I am not, because the Executive are never keen on giving up power or ceding it to Parliament. I have no doubt that, following this debate, the Minister’s civil servants will come up with umpteen reasons why this cannot be done and, if it was, that somehow the earth would stop spinning and the sun would stop rising.

I have known my noble friend for many years and, as I always like to be helpful, I point out that there is a precedent already in the UK in the appointment of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. I was not aware how he or she was appointed until I looked it up, but it is very much Parliament’s responsibility to appoint that individual. It is an open competition, and there is then an interview panel and final selection, which is done by the chair of the PACAC—the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee —an experienced ombudsman, and an independent panel. In that case, Parliament, via the role of those two individuals, has a direct say in selecting that person, so I am sure that we could come up with some system whereby Parliament could have a more direct say in who this person will be. It is a new role, and if the Government are arguing that they want to mimic or mirror the German system, Parliament needs to have a role in it. As the Bill stands, it has no role at all.

I know that, in Amendment 4, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, puts forward an alternative method of involving Parliament. We need to look at ways in which this could be achieved because, without it, the question of who the individual is—I will come on to this later regarding finance—could be at the behest of the Government of the day. If we are trying to give the impression that this person will be independent and accountable to not only the Armed Forces but the general public, and have an oversight role, having Parliament in that process is important. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, and I suggest that, before the nomination is sent to the King, it should go through both Houses of Parliament. That would give at least some oversight of the mechanism.

Amendment 5, which is also in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, is about the tenure of office, where again the Bill tries to mimic the German system but does not quite do it. Under the Bill as currently outlined, the tenure is a five-year term that can be extended but only for another two years. I wonder where they got the extra two years from. I think that was a suggestion in an annual report from one of the existing ombudsmen, but why two years? Amendment 5 proposes that the tenure should be up to two five-year terms. That would be in line with the German system, which is a five-year term that can then be repeated for another five years.

I accept that, with public appointments, it is important to get a turnover of people, but with this role, first, it is a new role. Secondly, the individual is not going to be a member of the Armed Forces or a civil servant, so he or she might have to take a long time to get themselves up to speed with the way in which our Armed Forces are structured and operate. That is before, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, they get their head around the complex nature of the Armed Forces family.

The option of having an extra five years would be better. You only have to look at the workload in the present ombudsman’s report, which has seen something like a 25% increase in complaints. If this person is going to be hit with that from day one, they are going to be very busy. Added to that role—remember that this is a new and extended role—they will do thematic reviews. An obvious one would be on initial recruitment, for example. However, we have looked at this in the past in terms of the Nicholas Blake report into the sad deaths around Deepcut. The House of Commons Select Committee also did quite a major report on that back in 2006. It is sad that some of those things have not changed.

It would be in order to extend that person’s tenure. It would also allow the individual to get a quicker under- standing and be able to follow through on reports. I think some of these thematic reports will take a long time to go through. If they are going to make a change and have weight, they are going to have to be done thoroughly without a time limit that means it will be passed to a new commissioner or, somehow, they will run out of time.

All I will say to my noble friend is that I have looked at the German system; this is not the German system. It can be nearer to the German system if we make some amendments to it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 4 and 21, which are in my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, pointed out, in some ways Amendments 3 and 4 are trying to bring a parliamentary dimension to the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner. I fully agree with everything the noble Lord said on Amendment 3.

There is no objection from these Benches to Amendment 3; it seems a very reasonable amendment. Indeed, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, is wrong, and the Box—although there is not officially a Box in Grand Committee—officials are not going to be able to give the Minister a bit of paper to tell him that there is no way on earth there can be a parliamentary vote. Some sort of statutory instrument and a negative or positive approval in both Houses seems to be de minimis. I would hope that His Majesty’s Government will think seriously about allowing some parliamentary involvement in the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner.

One of the problems I envisage with the straightforward negative or even a positive assent is that normally in Grand Committee, when we have a statutory instrument, it feels a little bit like the Scottish play:

“When shall we three meet again?”


Very often, it is the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for the Labour Benches—now the Government Benches —and either the noble Earl, Lord Minto, or the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and me. Very often, there is nobody else other than officials who are required to be here looking at statutory instruments. If we are talking about a serious role for Parliament looking at the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner, I would like to advocate for a stronger role, which may include a committee as outlined by Amendment 4.

Amendments 3 and 4 are almost different models of how to make an amendment. The one from the Liberal Democrat Benches almost looks as if my colleagues, in drafting it, came up with something from the European Parliament, which is extremely detailed about what is happening. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, has done something that is nice, skeleton legislation in the true Westminster style. However, I suggest that including a committee’s involvement—most logically the House of Commons Defence Committee, and maybe also the opportunity to speak to the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee—could be an important way of ensuring that the commissioner is a robust appointment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I again thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for bringing his experience and knowledge of many years. As he says, we have known each other for a long time, and I appreciate the contributions that he has made in the past and will make in the future—on not only Armed Forces and defence matters but many other things.

All the points made by my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lord Stansgate, the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord Lancaster and Lord Wrottesley, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, were really interesting. Before I come to my formal remarks, as I said at the outset, I can say that we will meet between Committee and Report to consider the involvement of Parliament. At the moment, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee is how we see the involvement of Parliament, and I can tell my noble friend—this answers other noble Lords’ questions—that we will discuss the length of time and whether the Government still consider that the most appropriate period.

I say that without any promise that we will therefore change or alter it. I have heard what noble Lords have said and the points and contributions they have made. It is certainly my intention to meet to discuss their points to see whether we may move or if the Government are not persuaded. We will meet to discuss all of that.

I will just reply to some different points before I come to the formal remarks. My noble friend Lord Beamish will be happy that his amendments have at least caused the Government to say that we will have to reflect on the points he has made. He knows me well enough to know that I do not say that as a way of assuaging his views but as a genuine engagement that we can have to see whether we can take forward his points. I say that to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, with respect to the support they have given to those amendments and the various comments noble Lords have made.

I take the point that the German system is not exactly the same. As my noble friend pointed out, in the Secretary of State’s speech he spoke about our system being inspired by what happened in Germany. That is the point. It is not an exact replica but it has been inspired by it. In discussions with the German commissioner we have taken that forward.

As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, helpfully pointed out, the German commissioner sits in the Bundestag. The German model allows for their commissioner to be there and join in and that is not the role we will have for the commissioner, so again, it is different in that sense. There are differences, but the fundamental question goes back to the point the noble Lord, Lord Russell, made and that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made earlier; we are setting up the commissioner to answer the “So what?” question.

In answer to the question on how the military feel about it, they are very supportive of this commissioner being set up, so that is really important. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is right to challenge us; this is a difficult balance between independence and accountability. We are attempting to say that the commissioner has to be independent to command the respect of all of us and to do the job we need them to do: to act without fear or favour to deal with some of the very real issues we face. But we want them to be accountable as well.

My noble friend Lord Beamish has said that accountability should be done through confirmatory votes of both Houses of Parliament. The Government’s view, as it stands, is that that accountability should be done through the Defence Select Committee, with the pre-appointment scrutiny process there and its ability, once the appointment is made, to consider that further and report to the Secretary of State on its view of the suitability of that particular candidate. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has added another possible dimension to it. All of us are wrestling with independence versus accountability. That is a very real dilemma for all of us, but it is a balance we seek to achieve.

I will say a little about the Armed Forces commissioner and the process as we see it. I want to answer my noble friend’s question as it shows a difficulty. My noble friend asked why the appointment is on the recommendation of the Secretary of State and not a parliamentary appointment. He noted the fact that it was pointed out at Second Reading that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman was a precedent for the sort of process he wants. However, there are several examples of similar roles where appointments are made on the recommendation of Ministers and not subject to the same process as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

There are, but there is also a very good example in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, where Parliament has a clear role in appointing that person. The problem with the pre-hearings by the Select Committees that my noble friend suggests is that they can make a recommendation but it does not have to be followed.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is absolutely correct that the Defence Committee can make a recommendation but the Secretary of State does not have to follow it. I suggest to the Committee that, if the Defence Committee of the House of Commons said that the person who had been recommended or offered the post of commissioner was totally unacceptable and inappropriate—not somebody who should be given that position—the Secretary of State would find it difficult in those circumstances not to accept that advice, although of course they could.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I accept my noble friend’s point, but is it actually in the Bill, or would it be under guidance afterwards? If he is setting great store by its role, it should be in the Bill.

[Lord Coaker]

I think my noble friend knows the answer to his own question, which is: no, it is not in the Bill—that is what he wants me to say. From his own experience, he knows that the Secretary of State said in the other place, and read into the record, the importance of the role of the Defence Committee and the importance of its recommendations. Of course, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for that. In my view, if the Defence Committee was so exercised about a particular appointment and had concerns about it, the Secretary of State could of course still go ahead but it is difficult to believe that they would not consider that very deeply before confirming that appointment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is very tempting to say what I think about this, but I am not going to. I think the Committee will share my view that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, has raised a very important point and that we need to properly understand what the law is at the moment and look at his reference to what happened or did not happen in the past. I cannot, therefore, stand here and give a view, because I do not know—that is the honest, open and frank answer. But either in Committee next week or, certainly, on Report, I will be able to tell noble Lords what the situation is. At that point, I will tell the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, what my personal view is, but for the moment I thank him for a very important question about whether there should be a gap when someone leaves the Armed Forces before they can become the Armed Forces commissioner. It is an important point of principle, on which we will get the proper legal answer.

I will now read into the record the formal pages of my brief, which is necessary. I thank my noble friend Lord Beamish, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their views on the Bill. I acknowledge their concern about the scrutiny of the commissioner’s appointment and their views on the length of the term. I reassure noble Lords that we are confident in the existing pre-appointment scrutiny processes giving rigorous and independent scrutiny by Parliament, with the House of Commons Defence Committee testing that the preferred candidate has the right skills and experience and giving its views before a recommendation is made to His Majesty, and a timely appointment process.

As I have said, noble Lords have made good and fair points—I have not mentioned my noble friend Lord Stansgate, but he also did—and we are happy to consider further how we can take all this forward. I hope that, with that reassurance, my noble friend will not press his amendment. I am also happy to consider further not just the scrutiny but the right length of tenure to balance the commissioner being able to effect meaningful change with bringing a fresh perspective to the role.

On Amendment 21, we wanted to say a little bit more on the implementation timeframe, just to clarify. I share the noble Baroness’s eagerness to see the commissioner’s role established and their office operational as soon as practicably possible. We have not included that level of detail in the Bill, as she points out, as that would be an unusual legislative step. However, I am happy to provide further details on the intended timeframe for employing the commissioner and establishing their office as soon as possible. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, also mentioned the timeframe.

As the Committee will be aware, several factors affect the commissioner’s appointment. Notwithstanding the role of the Defence Committee pre-appointment scrutiny, the commissioner will be appointed following completion of the Bill, and the role will be subject to a full public appointment process, regulated and overseen by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. In addition, the intended timeframe will need to factor in the passing of the necessary secondary legislation, drafts of which have been provided to noble Lords. We expect that the process will continue in 2025 and, in parallel, we will undertake the necessary implementation work to ensure a smooth set-up and a transition from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman position. Therefore, I can now confirm that we anticipate that the commissioner’s office will be stood up in 2026.

I hope that provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness. With the comments that I have made on considering the points of my noble friend Lord Beamish and others, I hope that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for what has been a very good debate around these two amendments. I hear what the Minister said about this person being on a statutory footing—I think this was stressed in the Second Reading debate. When we get to my Amendment 6, I will explain to noble Lords that that does not necessarily give the protection that this individual requires.

My noble friend says that the Government wish the pre-hearing process to be done by the Defence Committee. I have no problem with that; I have tremendous respect for members of that committee and, having served on it for many years, I know the good work that it does. But what is to stop a future Secretary of State just ignoring that? That is why it needs to be in the Bill. I am not suggesting for one minute that either my noble friend or the current Secretary of State would do that, but we have to future-proof the legislation. We only have to look at the period of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, when a lot of conventions that had been agreed were just thrown up in the air, including what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred to: appointments that had gone through and been agreed through the process, which were then ignored at the end.

This is something that we need to come back to. I hear what the Minister said—that the Bill is not a duplicate of the German system—but that has been the unique selling point that both he and Ministers have made about why this is needed. I welcome further discussions on the time limits and term limits of the individual, and I hope that we can consider this again. With that, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Beamish]

6: Schedule 1, page 10, line 32, leave out “may” and insert “must”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to the Commissioner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

Again, this goes to the heart of the issue of independence. I accept that the Government wish to ensure that this individual and the office are independent and cannot be influenced, or have their work affected, by the Ministry of Defence. But at the moment the Bill says:

“The Secretary of State may make payments and provide other financial assistance to the Commissioner”.


I am sure my noble friend will turn around and say, “Well, it would be unheard of for a Secretary of State to withhold money”—in a minute I shall come on to an example of where this actually happened. But I learned a long time ago in local government that, if you control the purse strings, you control a lot of influence in terms of how you can affect the actions of any public body or any activity.

Again, referring to the German system, I accept, as my noble friend said—that this is not a direct copy of the German system. But there are safeguards in the German system because it says in the federal law there that the necessary staff equipment is made available to the commissioner for the performance of his or her functions, and it is a separate piece in the Bundestag’s budget. This is the budget that is drawn up by the Bundestag. It is a draft budget that is done by the Council of Elders and is then agreed to by the Bundestag. So, again, Parliament has a direct say. It has not been down to a Minister to decide that the Armed Forces commissioner will or will not get the finance, which is very different to what we are proposing here.

My noble friend said in the Second Reading debate and again today that the difference is that this will be put on a statutory footing and, therefore, that will make all the difference. It will not. The Intelligence and Security Committee is on a statutory footing under the Justice and Security Act 2013. I presently chair the committee, and it has not had its budget raised for the last 10 years. It has now got to a point where crisis talks are taking place over whether we can carry out our functions as a committee. That is because the previous Government took a clear decision not to increase the budget, even though we asked for moneys to be brought forward. So, again, just because things are on a statutory footing that does not mean that somehow they will be insulated from a future Secretary of State or Government —I am not suggesting that my noble friend or the Secretary of State would do this—who may not like what the commission is doing and may say, “We’re not going to give you another increase in your budget”. That is the death by a thousand cuts that has happened to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Likewise, I presume that the budget is within the remit of the MoD. I have not been a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, but I know the battles royal that there are over different priorities in the defence budget. That makes you wonder who would be arguing for this within the defence budget if it is coming across other things. Trying to be helpful, I am looking for other examples for the Minister of where we could perhaps have a different system. A different system would be, again, my old friend the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, whose money comes from the Treasury and is part of the Consolidated Fund, so it is not in a departmental budget. That at least gives some protection for that money. But this is a serious point, and how this can be remedied needs to be looked at.

This is a simple amendment, changing “may” to “must”, but, without it, the individual in the role would, as I say, be very vulnerable. Who in the MoD is actually arguing for the Armed Forces commissioner in terms of budget? Are they arguing for this rather than for some piece of shiny new kit in a procurement round, for example?

If we cannot have this amendment, some thought needs to be given before Report on, first, how the budget will be provided and guaranteed; and, secondly, how this will somehow be ring-fenced. Without that, it will be easy to kill this off, either by not giving it any finance at all or by cutting its budget over a number of years. Those are my points and that is the reason for this amendment. With that, I beg to move Amendment 6.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments seems quite similar in form to the previous one. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, has presented a modest amendment that would change “may” to “must”. The amendment I am speaking to is a little fuller; it would take more lines in statute. Although the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, is no longer in his place, I stand with some caution because I realise that my amendment runs to three lines.

Its purpose is very similar to that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. In many ways, his amendment does the job, and does so very neatly. Nevertheless, I will clarify a bit more why we feel that it is necessary to put in the Bill that funding and resources will be made available to the Armed Forces commissioner. It is precisely because, if there is no clarity and certainty on that, all the ambitions in the Bill are in danger. The idea is that the Armed Forces commissioner will be more than a glorified ombudsperson and that they will promote the welfare of the Armed Forces’ serving personnel and relevant family members, as well as promoting the Armed Forces more generally. How will the commissioner do that if they are not adequately resourced?

The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, is absolutely right: this is a time of financial pressures. There is a real danger that the sort of role that can be cut is the role of the Armed Forces commissioner. Although I know that we have guarantees that defence expenditure will be increased and that we keep talking about the size of the defence budget, it is still very small, relatively speaking. If this post is being funded out of MoD funding, there is a danger that it will not be a priority. Maybe it is the role of the Minister for the Armed Forces to argue for this post and, at each budget round, to make sure that there are no cuts—death by a thousand cuts—but I would not be so sanguine.

I would like the Grand Committee at least to think about the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and I are raising in our similar but different amendments; and to consider ways of ensuring that, if the Armed Forces commissioner is to be brought into place, they are able to do the job that His Majesty’s Government and this Committee want them to do and which the Armed Forces need them to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

If this role works and changes the culture in the Armed Forces, should that not drive down the number of complaints coming forward? That is a benchmark for what it is going to do. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that the way in which different services deal with complaints is, frankly, ridiculous. If it were a business, it would have gone out of business a long time ago with the length of time it takes. It is not good for the victim or the service either.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord. All I am trying to do is to put in a dose of reality as to just how expensive this process could be if we are not careful. There is enormous value in it, but can we please be mindful of balance of investment and of finding the right, efficient process that delivers value for money for our service personnel?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his remarks and the points that he made. I also thank other noble Lords.

Again, let me say something about the general point around the reason for the Armed Forces commissioner; this was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and referred to by my noble friend Lord Beamish. I have made my point. The noble Baroness and my noble friend were at Second Reading, so they know that I made the point about the statutory footing for the post then.

This is my personal view, as well as a ministerial view: it is of huge significance when the British Parliament, because of its concerns about some issues happening in the Armed Forces, establishes a statutory person or body—I forget the legal term—to undertake investigations into issues of general welfare concerns that can be raised by a wide cohort of regulars, reserves and their families. It has been given a statutory footing, rather than being a single response to a particular horrific event, although of course it is important to have an inquiry if something happens. To have a standing statutory office responsible for dealing with some of the issues that we have talked about and are all appalled about, with a statutory legislative basis, is significant.

I can take off the ministerial hat and become a citizen—and it means something for the vast majority of the people in this country to say that the legislative will of Parliament is that a statutory body has been set up to do something. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, raised the issue of culture. The statutory body or office of the Armed Forces commissioner will make a significant difference to individual investigations. As well intentioned and important as they are, although they can shine a light, they cannot get to an overall pattern of dealing with issues that arise and are brought to their concern. My noble friend raised the issue of it being statutory. I realise and agree that, on its own, that does not matter and will not make a difference, but it is of huge significance as a starting point for setting up the office.

I will deal with the particular points as I go through, and I want to take up a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, made. Part of what we have in the Bill is the ability to have transition arrangements, moving from the end of the term of the Service Complaints Ombudsman at the end of 2025 to the new arrangements —the transition to the office that we want to set up in early 2026 to try to overcome any particular problems that occur. I take her point about trying to ensure that we get that office up and running as quickly as possible, notwithstanding the fact that, when you set something up new, there are inevitably things that come up. But I thank her for raising that point. I shall come to the point on resources when I have made some general points, and come back to other points that noble Lords have made.

Amendments 6 and 7 relate to the financial resources available to the commissioner. Both amendments aim to ensure that the commissioner has sufficient funding. The noble Baroness’s amendment would also ensure that they have practical assistance now and in the future to undertake their functions.

I reassure my noble friend Lord Beamish and the noble Baroness that I fully support and share their intentions. It is crucial that the commissioner has the tools that they need, and the Bill has been designed to ensure that that is the case. Therefore, the intent behind this amendment is critical and acutely observed.

I want to point something out to noble Lords and try to answer the points that they are raising. The Secretary of State has an obligation in Clause 4, under new Section 340IA(7), to

“co-operate with the Commissioner so far as is reasonable”.

It says that the Secretary of State

“must, in connection with an investigation … give the Commissioner such reasonable assistance as the Commissioner requests”.

That ensures that they have the necessary assistance from the Secretary of State to conduct their work effectively. In that instance, in dealing with investigations, the word “must” is included.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

If it is already in part of the Bill, I cannot see any reason why the Minister should not include the amendment. He may wish to do what the department has already done in the briefing note that it gave us at the Ministry of Defence, in which it used “will”. I would settle for “will”.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are trying to say that we certainly wish to see the investigative work of the commissioner funded. Therefore, “must” is appropriate in that particular instance, so we have included it there.

Should the commissioner feel that their funding was insufficient to carry out their functions effectively, they will have the opportunity to raise this in their annual reports, which are presented to Parliament. As I have said, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, and this mechanism would give the ability to scrutinise and challenge any funding decisions. I suggest that a Secretary of State would find it quite difficult to defend themselves against the charge that an Armed Forces commissioner reported to Parliament in their annual report that they had been insufficiently funded to undertake the requirements expected of them.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and other noble Lords highlighted, the Explanatory Notes estimate that the running costs of the commissioner may be in the region of £4.5 million to £5.5 million. This represents a significant increase in the funding for the ombudsman, which was £1.8 million in 2023—a point that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, noted. While wholly independent of the MoD in their role, the commissioner will still be required to abide by the financial rules, regulations and procedures laid down by both His Majesty’s Treasury and the MoD in the commitment of their financial resources.

I hope that this provides some reassurance to my noble friend, the noble Baroness and other noble Lords on the Committee. As I say, we intend to ensure that the commissioner has adequate funding and practical support, both now and in future. With that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend, but the quick answer is: no, it does not. There is a point that I think he is missing. I say this with no disrespect to him or the current Secretary of State but, as Robin Day famously said, he, like all of us, is a here today, gone tomorrow politician. We have to ensure in legislation that this continues on into the future.

The Minister gives an optimistic view that, somehow, having a statutory basis for this gives it some type of protection. Well, I am sorry, but I gave the example of the ISC—it does not, and I assure him of that. He said that the commissioner could raise this in an annual report, but I suggest that he reads at least the last eight years of the annual reports and statements—one is coming out next week—of the Intelligence and Security Committee, where this point has been made constantly and ignored by the last Government. That is a body that is on a statutory footing. Not wanting to get in the hierarchy of scrutiny, I note that you could argue that that is a little different to what we suggest here—but, obviously, for the victims, it is not. So, without that, the Minister may be fine, but I am looking to the future.

We perhaps have to have discussions about this. If the Minister has already given us a briefing note saying “will”—the noble Lord, Lord Russell, argued that—I would be happy with “will”, because that at least defines it compared to “may”. Discussion needs to be had about where it is within the MoD budget because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, you suspect that the Min AF or Veterans Minister will argue for this department, but they are the only voice in there doing that.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill and add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, on her maiden speech. I look forward to many more contributions.

I have been involved in welfare and redress for Armed Forces personnel for over 20 years. I was a member of the House of Commons Defence Committee and a Minister in the Ministry of Defence. I think I have also sat on every single Armed Forces Bill over the last 20 years. It is worth reading the conclusion from a House of Commons Defence Committee report, Duty of Care, from 2005. The 20th anniversary of it was Monday this week. It says:

“We … recommend that an independent military complaints commission be established. It would have the authority and capability to make recommendations which would be binding on the Armed Forces. It would also have a research capacity that would enable it to examine trends that it had identified … It would be for the commission itself to decide whether to undertake an investigation, but we would expect it to take into account the seriousness of the allegation. The commission should have the authority to consider past cases … The primary goal of the commission would be to resolve complaints made to it. If the commission decided to pursue a complaint, it would have the right of access to all documentation, and to Service personnel, in order to enable it to establish whether the correct procedures had been followed and whether there were matters that required criminal investigation … The commission should be required to make an annual report to Parliament … We recommend that the commission be established in such a way as to assure both complainants and the public of its independence from the Armed Forces. We believe that the commission would help MoD identify lessons that need to be learned. We also believe that a truly independent scrutiny mechanism would contribute to bolstering public confidence in the Services”.


One could argue that it has taken us only 20 years to get to that point. In its response to that report, the Government noted that recommendation. They were forced to bring in the independent complaints commissioner following the Blake report into the Deepcut incidents in 2006. It was quite clear from very early on that Susan Atkins, the first commissioner, did not have the powers or abilities to make real change. Then, under the 2015 Act—I think the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, might have been involved in that—we got the Armed Forces ombudsman, which did have powers to investigate but, again, did not have the real power to make the real change that was needed.

It is worth looking at another House of Commons Select Committee report from 2019—one that I was not involved in—entitled Fairness Without Fear: The Work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. It gives a litany of failures for that organisation, not because of a lack of dedication on the part of the staff but because of cuts in staff, the negative attitude that still existed towards the institution and the delay in implementing recommendations. That has been quite clear as, over the past few years, the slow drum beat of scandals has not really gone down. We had the issues around the Wigston report, which was referred to earlier. In 2019 we had another excellent report—I served on that committee—on women in the Armed Forces. The way in which women were still being treated was absolutely appalling. We have had the issue around the Red Arrows, and we have had women being abused in the Submarine Service—it has been constant. Have we failed over the past 20 years? Yes, we have.

This is possibly an opportunity to change that, but I think we are hanging a lot on this Bill. We might think that, somehow, by changing the name and changing it slightly, things will improve—I am not sure that they will. I think the Minister should take on board some changes. For example, I am concerned about the length of the commissioner’s term. The Bill says that he or she will be there for five years, and the term could be extended for possibly another two years. I want to probe why that has come about. I know that one of the past ombudsmen made a suggestion about the length of the term, but if you are to have somebody build up the knowledge, this is important.

Another thing is the independence of the commissioner, because they will have to rely on finance from the MoD. I would like a mechanism set up whereby this body is not under the remit of the MoD if it is to be completely independent. Time and again, we have seen organisations having to fight for resources—we heard that about the Victims’ Commissioner, for example. There are models we could set up whereby it falls outside the MoD and the budget is not in danger of being raided.

We also need a mechanism by which the recommendations are implemented. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, it is great to identify them, but these reports need to lead to reaction.

I warn my noble friend that I am minded to put down some amendments that I think are needed to strengthen the Bill. The intentions are good but, if we are to emulate the German model, which I have studied previously, I am not sure that just changing the title and changing what we have will actually do that. I welcome the Bill, but there is a lot more work to be done on it yet.

Armed Forces Personnel: School Fees

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord will know that there have been considerable concerns around recruitment and retention. The Government have undertaken a review of that. He will also know that we have taken a number of measures alongside that to deal with it, not least of which was to ensure that we implemented in full the pay rise for Armed Forces personnel. We have extended childcare grants to armed services personnel serving overseas, and one of the biggest things we have done as a radical Government is to bring back from Annington Homes over 36,000 military houses, the state of which was a disgrace. This will be a major contribution to improving the morale and the recruitment and retention of Armed Forces personnel.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister knows the good record that the Labour Party has of investing in military schools, with the £20 million- plus that it put in to rebuild The Duke of York’s school in 2009. Can he say how many children have left because of this announcement?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a good point about the record on investment. He did a good job himself in ensuring that we had investment into schools such as The Duke of York’s. On the number of children, approximately 2,650 service personnel claim CEA for around 4,000 children. The figures that I have show that none have left the CEA system following this policy change. Five children out of those 4,000 have moved schools, but that is within the CEA framework.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

Indeed. We are assured that the strength of our relationship with Israel allows us to make representations about the protection of civilians, and about the increase in the flow of humanitarian aid. We do that in the context of it being an extremely important ally, while being cognisant of the broader threat from the terrorist group Hamas and Iran, which my hon. Friend mentioned.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The F-35 programme has not only given world-leading capability to our Air Force and Navy, but provided jobs and technological advancement in the UK defence industry. Could the Minister give an assurance that any review of our relationship with Israel will not jeopardise that programme?

[Leo Docherty]

I can give the right hon. Gentleman that absolute assurance. We are immensely proud of the F-35 project, which delivers devastatingly effective fighting power for us and our allies, and 20,000 UK jobs.

War Graves Week

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I begin by declaring an interest as a former commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and a current trustee of the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Lord) just described what we all see when we visit Commonwealth war grave cemeteries, with the beauty and the neatness of their lines. I always find it moving to read the inscriptions and see the young ages of some of the individuals who took huge responsibilities to protect the freedoms that we take for granted today. It does an extraordinary job of maintaining those graves, not just in this country but around the world. I pay tribute to all the staff, including the current director general Claire Horton.

I also pay tribute to His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, who has been the president of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission since 1970. When I was a commissioner he took a very active interest. Commissioners today will know his interest, and he still attends ceremonies on behalf of the commission, even at his advanced years. I had the honour in 2010of being appointed by the Queen as one of the two parliamentary commissioners for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, along with my great friend Keith Simpson, who is no longer in the House. Like the commissioners today, we both took the role very seriously. It was one of the highlights of my parliamentary career, and a privilege to serve in that organisation.

I also had the honour of being a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, responsible for the new war graves cemetery created at Fromelles in 2010. That shows that we are still finding casualties throughout the world, who are still given the respectful burial that each deserves. I pay tribute to the staff who do the research, and for all their care and dedication. Fromelles was on a different scale—more than 400 bodies were uncovered in a piece of detective work by an Australian individual. It was a great honour to attend the interment of the first casualty there, along with my Australian counterpart.

It has been said that we think the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is a great British institution, but like a lot of things in the UK, it came into being by accident. The tenacity of Fabian Ware’s great registration scheme in the first world war led to the formation of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Was it universally popular at the time? No, it was not. I suggest that anyone with an interest in how it came to be reads the debate of 4 May 1920, when the money was being apportioned to set it up following the great war. Was it a foregone conclusion? No, it was not. People argued against it, such as the Member for Holborn, Sir James Remnant, who argued that the dead were not the property of the state. It was quite a new thing then for the state to take the decision, because in other campaigns, bodies were repatriated if people could afford it. One individual in that debate opposed what he called the nationalisation of death.

The commission was set up uniquely by dedicated individuals. At an Italian war cemetery, the generals’ graves are huge mausoleums, and the privates are stuck behind. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission was clear that in death, everyone is equal. That was an important message and is why the standard commemoration was put in place. No exceptions were made. One of the most poignant things for me is not the graves themselves but the names of individuals—generals can be next to privates. There is no rank in death. An example that sums that up well is down at the Hollybrook memorial in Southampton, which commemorates those lost at sea. There is Lord Kitchener, and then a long list of names of those from the South African labour corps who were lost in an accident off the Isle of Wight. That shows what the commission did and continues to do to ensure that individuals are remembered, regardless of their status.

When I was a commissioner, I had the great honour of visiting the commission’s staff around the world, including, as I think the Secretary of State mentioned, in Gaza. It is not the easiest part of the world, but the dedication of the staff is just the same. I will certainly be thinking of them today, and the job that they do. The cemeteries are beautiful. The most poignant one that I visited is in Papua New Guinea. It is in the middle of a jungle, but is beautifully maintained by the staff. As the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) said, the staff look after not just the memorials and the gravestones, but the horticulture. I am a bit of an anorak on the subject, but if anyone wants to look at the horticulture of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, its history is absolutely fascinating. The work of Gertrude Jekyll and others set the standards that are maintained today. As the right hon. Gentleman said, with climate change, adaptations need to be made, and the commission is at the forefront of that work.

I have the honour of being a trustee of the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation. The problem with the commission, if there is one, is that its remit is very tightly controlled by its royal charter. When I was on the commission, one of the issues was whether, technically, we were able to do education. It did not fall within the remit, so we came up with the idea of the foundation. I encourage everyone to look at the foundation’s website, and ask those who are not already members of the foundation to join, so as to support its educational work. It is great at taking the work of remembrance, and of the commission, to schools and so on. That work is not just about remembering the commission’s iconic sites in France, but about getting people to recognise what they have on their doorstep. That formed the subject of a project that I worked on when I was a commissioner. There are war graves in our local cemeteries. In my constituency, there are a number of single graves, but also 24 in Stanley cemetery and 12 in Sacriston cemetery. The Commonwealth War Graves Foundation is trying to ensure that people are aware of their local history, because the people in those cemetaries are mainly local people.

When we look into the stories, which some great local groups are doing, we find that the reason why graves are in a particular place can be very interesting. In County Durham, there are the graves of an Australian bomber crew who were killed returning from a training mission. I think someone referred to this site earlier when discussing the commission’s work with its international partners, but in Cannock Chase there are some 400 casualties from Australia and New Zealand, alongside nearly 2,000 German casualties—zeppelin crews and so on—who died mainly during the first world war. That shows that the commission works internationally. Why are there 400 Australian and New Zealand casualties in Cannock Chase, of all places? Well, it is a very sad story. It was a casualty clearing station, and the casualties went there after the first world war, having survived the horrors of the western front, only to die, in most cases, of Spanish flu. Casualties turn up in different places for interesting reasons.

We in the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation are keen to work with local groups. We have volunteers who not only maintain graves but work on history projects. It is important to get schools involved. We also have a lecture programme; people can ask for a lecture from a volunteer, and I am one. I am qualified to give the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation lecture to local groups. I encourage everyone to look at our website and try to get their community involved. They will be amazed to see what is on their doorstep. That is an important way of bringing not just the work of the commission but local history to life.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I have sat here quietly so far, and I almost hesitate to intervene because this is a very dignified debate, but the right hon. Member is making an extremely important point. In my home town of Tain, way up in the highlands, we have 30 war graves, and many are the graves of Czech airmen, which reflects exactly the point that the right hon. Member makes. For 35 years, two people, Billy and Mary Grant, have looked after those graves out of the goodness of their hearts. I have mentioned them deliberately; I want them to have their names in Hansard because of all the good that they have done. The right hon. Member’s point is excellently made, and I support it to the hilt.

[Mr Jones]

I thank those volunteers, but the hon. Gentleman has raised another interesting point. These are not just British casualties; throughout the United Kingdom, there are casualties from all nations that contributed to our efforts in both world wars.

As I have said, I am passionate about this subject. I think the two commissioners in the House will confirm that once you have been a commissioner, you have it in your blood. I know I am a pain when I go to a funeral or a wedding, because I always go around the cemetery to see whether there are any Commonwealth War Graves Commission sites. The commission has taken a great step forward in digitising information and giving visibility to the casualties who are buried not in large cemeteries, but on our doorstep.

Let me end by paying tribute not only to the commission’s current staff members, but to those who have gone before. They are loyal, dedicated individuals. Is this about glorifying war? No, it is not; it is about recognising the sacrifice that people made, and let us hope that we can continue to do that. It is poignant, especially given the war that is taking place in Europe, to recognise the sacrifice that was made on our behalf in the past so that we can enjoy our freedoms today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Defence

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered defence.

In recent weeks, our armed forces have been required to use force to protect international shipping and to protect our allies. Our armed forces are the best of us; we increasingly need them, and we are increasingly asking more of them as well. When the threat picture changes, the first duty of Government is to respond, which is why this Government have committed to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, the biggest increase in spending for a generation.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Grant Shapps]

I will just make a bit of progress first, keen as the right hon. Gentleman is. That will result in a £75 billion cash boost to our nation’s defences over six years from a flat cash baseline. Although we have had a long-held commitment to hit 2.5% when financial conditions allow, delivering that commitment now involves choices.

[Mr Jones]

If the Secretary of State is serious, can I ask him why next year, if we exclude the Ukraine funding from the defence budget, the core defence budget actually goes down?

[Grant Shapps]

It does not.

[Mr Jones]

It does.

[Grant Shapps]

No, it does not. The outcome from the defence budget, which must be the basis upon which the right hon. Gentleman is judging last year’s, includes supplementaries. In particular, it now includes the additional half a billion, which I can tell the right hon. Gentleman I chose to send to Ukraine as an active decision, rather than it coming into our main budget; I feel that that would have the support of the House. When we include all that, the budget increases. In any case, it already increased by 1.8%.

[Mr Jones]

It does not.

[Grant Shapps]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to continue this debate, but the fact is that it does as soon as we include the supplementaries.

[Mr Jones]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Grant Shapps]

I will not for the moment, because this point has been discussed ad infinitum. In any case, we are offering another £75 billion in cash terms, which I note that the Labour party has yet to do because the funding requires a determination, in our case, to get the civil service back to pre-covid levels and to help pay for the expansion of our defence. It requires sound economic management and, above all, an understanding that an investment in deterrence today is wiser and less painful than paying to fight a war tomorrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grant Shapps]

No, I still have not confirmed that because, before the extra half a billion, if we take the outcome from last year and the amount that was pledged for this year—including supplementaries, to be clear, which is the same basis as last year—it is an increase of 1.8%. However, this is rather beside the point, because since the time we debated this question at the Select Committee on Defence, we have committed to putting in another £75 billion in cash terms from the baseline over the next six years.

[Mr Jones]

Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

[Grant Shapps]

I think the right hon. Gentleman will want me to complete this section. I would be interested to hear him apply that commitment to his own Front Benchers, because this Conservative £75 billion rise in defence spending is highly significant. It is precisely what our armed forces need to respond to axes of authoritarian states that are trying to reshape the world in their image, and it is the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grant Shapps]

The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the way this is presented is entirely the usual way for the Treasury to present increases in spending. If I take him back to the previous cash boost for defence—I think it was £24 billion and it was described, I think, as being over five years—it was presented on exactly the same basis, and I do not remember the hon. Gentleman making the same point then. Regardless of the numbers, surely the point is this: will the Labour party commit to this timeline?

Labour Members said that they wanted to get to 2.5%, and that they would do it when conditions allow. We have now said that we know conditions will allow because of the management of the economy. Will they follow us, or will they send their Back Benchers out to criticise an increase, even though their own Front Benchers will not match it themselves? Perhaps we should not be surprised, given that the Leader of the Opposition, not once but twice backed Jeremy Corbyn—sorry, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—to be Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition proclaims his support for our nuclear deterrent, yet he has stacked his Front Bench with anti-nuclear campaigners—I counted 11 who voted against Trident—while he goes up to Barrow and claims he is all in favour.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Secretary of State is doing, like last time he came out on this debate, his used-car salesman act. The fact of the matter is clear: the only way we get to £75 billion is if we freeze the defence budget for the next six years. Is he going to do that? Given what he announced last week, will he explain first where the money is coming from, and secondly what is the proportion of resource departmental expenditure limits and capital departmental expenditure limits? There is no detail at all. It is just an empty promise and a political slogan that he is batting around as his usual avuncular self.

[Grant Shapps]

The way the right hon. Gentleman tries to represent it is simply not true. If it were meaningless, why has his own party not taken the difficult decisions to get to the £75 billion which, to be clear, is the amount additional to what is currently programmed in? He is right that defence budgets may have increased over time, but £75 billion is still the additional figure. If it is so straightforward, why doesn’t he encourage those on the Labour Front Bench to do it? I think I know the answer. He asks how it will be paid for, and it will largely be paid for by cutting the civil service back down to pre-covid levels. Labour Members do not want to cut 72,000 from the workforce of the civil service so that it goes back down to pre-covid levels, and because of that they will not follow us in our commitment. That shows where their choices lie.

Labour Members say they want 2.5% and are keen to see that, but they are not willing to put in place the difficult decisions to reach that. By failing to take those decisions, they will be failing to fund our armed forces if they were to come into office. That would leave our nation more vulnerable, and play directly into the hands of our adversaries, including Putin.

In January, I set out a comprehensive case for increasing defence spending in response to what I described as “a more dangerous world”. After all, Putin is on the march, pursuing wars in the east of Europe while backing greater political influence and assassinations in the west. China has certainly become a lot more assertive in recent years. Russian mercenaries, Islamic extremists and military strongmen have overrun democracies and societies in Africa.

As Iran has nourished and manipulated its proxy militia and groups around the middle east, the Islamic republic itself has for the first time carried out an aerial assault on a democratic near-neighbour, Israel. Its Hamas terrorist allies brought mass murder to Israelis on 7 October, and they have brought pain to the Palestinians—both before and since—with the Hamas approach to running that area. Meanwhile, one of Iran’s other key allies—the Houthis—continues to hold global trade hostage in the Red sea. So, from Moscow to Tehran and from Beijing to Pyongyang, a network of authoritarian states is pressuring allies and our interests. Working together, they are more connected than they have ever been before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Grant Shapps]

I have been quite generous; I will make a little bit of progress.

That is why this Conservative Government will act now. We are going to deliver the greatest strengthening of our national defence since the cold war. Some will argue that the threats we face are perhaps not imminent or existential. They may claim that increased defence spending is not a good use of money, which perhaps should go on other commitments—there are many to discuss—but I argue that we have seen the consequences up and down the country of the more dangerous world that I described in that Lancaster House speech.

In recent years, we have suffered terror attacks. We have also suffered cyber-attacks on business, on Government, as we were just talking about, and on critical national infrastructure. They were mostly not successful, but the amount that it costs to get around them increases all the time none the less. We have suffered intellectual property theft. We have seen Hong Kong protesters dragged into the Chinese consulate in Manchester and beaten. We have seen Iranian journalists threatened and stabbed in London. We have seen former Russian military officers assassinated in hotels in Mayfair and poisoned in suburban homes in Salisbury and, just last month, British citizens charged with setting fire to Ukrainian-linked business units in east London, apparently on the instructions of Russian intelligence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grant Shapps]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is precisely the point, and that is exactly why it is right to invest in Ukraine. I do not want to make this a political speech—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It’s the way you tell them.

[Grant Shapps]

This is a serious issue, and I am surprised by that sort of attitude. I want to ask, because it is a serious point, whether the Opposition are now ready to commit to that extra £500 billion if they were elected, because I have yet to hear that confirmed, and that is an important issue for our Ukrainian friends. I accept that the Ukrainians have the Opposition’s support, but they also need the pledge of money and the certainty that this House will provide it, come what may.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I am afraid there is nothing cast-iron about the figures, the plan or, indeed, the proposals for paying for it. I will come to that in a moment.

Before I took the first intervention from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), I wanted to pick up a final point that was made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on the question of reviewing what we need to face the threats that we now face. The Defence Secretary is dismissive about the need for a strategic defence review, despite the fact that his own Department is preparing for exactly that, whatever the result of the next election. That was confirmed in the House last month by the Minister for Defence Procurement. He also made the point a month before, when the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) talked about a defence review and the Minister for Defence Procurement said,

“he makes an excellent point.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 27.]

The problem for the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who was involved in the five years of coalition government after 2010, and the problem for the Conservative Front-Bench team, who have been in government for the past 14 years, is that people judge Governments on what they do, not on what they say.

The Defence Secretary mentioned his January speech at Lancaster House, and he is right when he argues that what we do on defence sends signals to the world. What signal does it send to Britain’s adversaries when our armed forces have been hollowed out and underfunded since 2010, as his predecessor admitted in this House last year? What signal does it send to our adversaries when defence spending has been cut from 2.5% under Labour to 2.3% now, when day-to-day defence budgets have been cut by £10 billion since 2010, and when the British Army has now been cut to its smallest size since Napoleon?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The present Defence Secretary was chair of the Conservative party until 2016. Is it not also a fact that, when the Conservative party was in coalition government, it cut the defence budget by 18% and not only reduced the size of the Army but made people compulsorily redundant? Had a Labour Government done that, we would have heard howls and cries from Conservative Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

The right hon. Gentleman, a former Armed Forces Minister like me, is absolutely right. Many of them still have half their so-called airframe life remaining. As I have said, they are more than capable of intercepting and shooting down the threat aircraft that they would have to match. That is all the more reason to keep them against a rainy day, rather than flogging them off or breaking them up for parts. Crucially, creating such a war reserve would demonstrate a sign of intent to any potential aggressor that after many years of doing the opposite, the UK is now preparing to fight a sustained conflict with a peer enemy, should that become necessary. Hopefully, in so doing, we will make that eventuality far less likely.

Linked to the vulnerability of our radar stations and the shortage of fighter aircraft are the extremely worrisome delays in airborne early warning. The Royal Navy’s early warning aircraft, Crowsnest, is many years late. It has only recently entered service for the air defence of the fleet. For the Royal Air Force, the Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft were withdrawn shortly after the integrated review was published in 2021, leaving us without a mainstream airborne early warning aircraft. The E-3 was meant to be replaced shortly thereafter by the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail, but the programme has been subject to multiple chronic delays and is still not in service.

The RAF is clearly embarrassed by this and is attempting to deploy chaff between in-service dates, when the aircraft could take off the runway, and an initial operating capability, when the aircraft might actually be ready to fight. The latest information I have is that the ISD could now be in autumn 2025, whereas the IOC could be in the first or even the second quarter of 2026, which is still two years away. That leaves a critical gap in our air defence capability for which the MOD, and Boeing in particular, must be held robustly to account. Moreover, the initial buy of five Wedgetail aircraft was inexplicably cut to three several years ago by ministerial fiat, even though we were contractually obliged to buy all five radars, which themselves were very expensive.

In short, the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail is rapidly becoming the RAF’s equivalent of the Army’s Ajax programme—a procurement disaster that has gone on year after year at vast expense to the taxpayer, without actually entering operational service, as Ajax still has not. The Defence Committee, alarmed by that, has invited the head of Boeing Defence, Space and Security, Mr Ted Colbert, to appear before the Committee at Westminster to provide an explanation, although we are still attempting to finalise a precise date for his personal appearance.

Boeing is an organisation in crisis after the sad deaths of more than 300 people caused by the two crashes of its 737 MAX aircraft. We have seen further serious safety incidents, most recently in January when a door flew off an Alaska Boeing 737 MAX 9 in mid-flight. That incident was followed by a number of so-called whistleblowers, involved either at Boeing or in its supply chain, coming forward with very serious allegations about failures in the way the company builds its aircraft. No doubt partly as a result, Mr Dave Calhoun announced that he will step down as chief executive at the end of the year. In the first quarter of this year, Boeing reported a net loss of more than $350 million, and it is still experiencing serious production problems across a range of aircraft, both civilian and military, of which the UK Wedgetail is but one example. The US Air Force also has numerous issues with Boeing, not least in its much-troubled KC-46 air tanker programme.

For many years, Boeing as a company has done extremely well in winning major multibillion dollar procurement orders from the MOD, in return for which it has placed very limited amounts of work on those programmes with the defence industry in the UK. To give specific examples, according to the MOD’s recent figures, on the E-7 Wedgetail, the estimated UK content is around 10%; for the AH-64 Apache, it is only 7%; for the P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft, it is barely 4%; and for the original CH-47 Chinook helicopters, it was just 2%. According to the answer to a written parliamentary question I tabled, the UK content for the new order of CH-47 extended-range Chinooks for our special forces will generate a UK workshare of about 8%. Taken together with the purchase of the Boeing RC-135 Rivet Joint electronic reconnaissance aircraft, for which no workshare figure is publicly available, that represents some $10 billion of business for Boeing from the UK MOD for which the UK workshare has been 10% at best and 2% at worst. Boeing has done incredibly well out of the UK MOD, while UK industry has done incredibly badly out of Boeing.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is also bad news for the defence budget? Those contracts are in dollars, and the dollar exchange rate puts huge pressure on the defence budget.

[Mr Francois]

Another former Armed Forces Minister is right, and he will know that the effect of the dollar exchange rate on buying so many big off-the-shelf items from the US has cropped up time and again at both the Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee.

The problem does not apply just to air platforms. Boeing had a major logistics contract with the MOD called the future logistics information system, or FLIS, which was due to run until late 2020. However, as was evidenced by the Public Accounts Committee, in late 2020 the MOD signed a five-year contract extension called “Bridging the gap”, worth £515 million to Boeing, which was not even competed. That raises questions about the degree to which the MOD seems to be mesmerised by Boeing as a company, to the detriment of value for money for the UK and for our industrial workshare. Indeed, the PAC subsequently reported:

“We are…concerned to hear that the MoD awarded the contract for this £515 million programme to a large defence prime contractor without a competitive tendering process.”

That is all the more surprising given that in the 1990s, the standard policy of the MOD was to ask for a 100% offset in major off-the-shelf procurements of military equipment from abroad, especially from the US. For instance, in the late 1990s, for the purchase of the C-130J Super Hercules, Lockheed Martin was required to place work to the equivalent of 100% of the multibillion-dollar contract value with UK industry. The work could take one of two forms: direct offset, which is work on the aircraft platform itself, such as propellers or undercarriages or logistics support, or indirect offset, which is other high-quality work to be placed with the UK defence industry over the life of the programme, but not necessarily directly related to the platform itself.

Under the Blair Government, for whatever reason, the policy was quietly dropped. That has allowed a situation to develop whereby the MOD has bought a number of big-ticket items from the US without receiving any legally binding guarantees of compensating workshare for the UK industry. I therefore suggest to the next Government, of whatever political colour, that if they are reviewing defence, they might want to look at reintroducing the concept of 100% offset for any further major offshore procurements.

In some cases, it is operationally the right thing to buy something off the shelf from the US. I would argue that Wedgetail—at least when it was five aircraft, anyway—was the right decision, but I do not think it acceptable that we hand out such handsome contracts to foreign suppliers without UK industry being given its fair share.

In conclusion, a cynic might say that Boeing is a company increasingly in crisis, which is falling apart even more rapidly than the aircraft it purports to build. That is serious for us in the UK, as like it or not, Boeing is one of our major defence suppliers and is responsible for supporting key equipment in service. We do not want that company to fail. Therefore, we can only hope that the incoming management will take a firm grip of the situation and turn it around—the sooner, the better.

Lastly, it is very good news that we are reversing the downward trend in defence spending and are now investing more, rather than less, in the defence of the realm. That is very much to be welcomed, but it is a question not just of how much we spend, but of how well it is spent. I very much hope that with the new integrated procurement model and perhaps a couple of humble suggestions that I have been able to offer this evening, we can put more of that money to good use to ensure that we, our people and our allies remain safe in an increasingly dangerous world. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I begin by putting on the record the whole House’s thanks to the members of our armed forces for the service they give selflessly to protect us all? It is often said that the first responsibility of a Government is to protect the nation, keep it safe and protect its citizens. I think we need to look at what has happened over the past 14 years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) said in his contribution that the armed forces are being “hollowed out”—not his words or mine, but those of the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace). Have we got to that situation by accident? No, we have not. That has been a deliberate policy over the last 14 years, including the 18% cut in the defence budget up to 2015-16. Today, the defence budget is 7% lower in real terms than it was in 2010. As my hon. Friend said, we saw our armed forces personnel cut by nearly 50,000—they were not only cut; there were compulsory redundancies. If a Labour Government had done that, every national newspaper would have had a lot to say about it. One in five ships in the Royal Navy has been taken out of service. We have 200 fewer aircraft in the RAF now, and satisfaction ratings for service life are at an all-time low of 50%.

Is it a time for serious policy and serious money on defence? Yes, it is, but we have not got that from the Government or from the Prime Minister’s announcement, which is the usual smoke and mirrors. It is about soundbites that can be sold at the next general election. The Defence Secretary could sell snow to the Eskimos in his confident sort of way. I am not sure they would come back and buy more snow from him once they discovered what they had actually been sold.

If we look at what has been announced, an extra £75 billion is the headline. That will be repeated by every Conservative candidate in the general election, but we know they only get that figure if the defence budget would have been frozen for the next six years—something the Defence Secretary fails to admit. Also, where is the money? If my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench had announced this, straightaway people would be saying, “Where’s the money coming from? Where’s the detail?” There is no detail; it is just an aspiration—that is all it is. There is no separation between how much will be spent on resource and capital departmental expenditure limits. What we have from the salesman that is the Secretary of State is a whole shopping list of everything that will be put right by the supposed huge expenditure he has announced. It is pretty hollow.

Let us deal with facts. The Secretary of State does not like dealing with facts. It is like when he came before the Defence Committee. If we take the money to Ukraine out of the budget, the defence budget for next year—this was confirmed by the strategic finance director of the MOD—falls. The question that people need to ask at the next general election is: where is the money coming from? Why are our armed forces in such a dire state? We know the answer to that. It is because of the past 14 years.

We need to concentrate on three things: the defence of our homeland and the contribution to NATO, which has been mentioned; the capability of our equipment and how it can be delivered; and putting weight behind British industry and skills. The Secretary of State said earlier that the announcement meant a huge boost to UK defence expenditure, but the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) demonstrated what we have seen over the last 14 years: contract after contract given to the United States, without any commitment to UK skills. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) mentioned the case of the fleet solid support ship given to a Spanish shipyard. That would never happen in any other European nation. We must ensure not just that we have the right equipment and procurement procedures, but that decisions are taken to boost our armed forces and to help UK plc.

[Bob Seely]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a balance? Clearly, one would like everything for the military to be produced in this country to support our industrial base, but at the same time we complain about procurement scandals when the kit turns out to be so much more expensive than elsewhere. We need a balance. When we can realistically produce stuff in this country, we should be doing so—obviously, I will make the case for radar on the Isle of Wight—but if we try to do everything in this country, we will need to increase the defence budget just to pay for poorer quality procurement. He does not seem to be addressing that point.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seems to be talking down the UK defence industry. He talks about radars in the Isle of Wight, which are some of the best radars in the world, but what are we doing? We are not giving long-term commitments to those capabilities. We are buying off the shelf from the United States and other nations. We are not just talking about buying British; it is about co-operation with our allies as well. The problem is that if we take a short-termist view, which is what has happened over the past 14 years, we do not get the commitments and the flow through of orders, nor the R&D, investment and certainty, that people on the Isle of Wight need.

The Secretary of State said that the UK is now on a war footing following this announcement. Why, then, did it take the Government nearly two years to procure the order for 155 mm munitions? That is not a war footing; that is a slow snail’s pace of procurement. We need to ensure that we get not only the finance and the increase in the defence budget, but that rapid throughput of work. That cannot be done just by placing one order this week and then leaving it for several years, thinking that somehow the defence contractors will still be there with their skills.

We need a thorough defence policy. One thing that has been missing in the last 14 years is a coherent defence industrial strategy. Even when the Government do come up with a strategy, such as the shipbuilding strategy, what do they do? The main argument for that strategy was that we needed to have a throughput of work at UK yards, so what did the Government do? They made an order where most of the work will be done in Spain. No other European nation would do that.

As has been said, this is a very worrying time, and I agree totally with my hon. Friend the Member for Halton that we need to make the case for defence. I have been doing that for 23 years in this House, as have others across the House. We need to make that case to show that the democracy that we take for granted is delicate and needs to be protected. We can protect it only if we invest in the capability to do so, because there are those, even beyond the immediate threat we see from Russia, who would happily see the precious democracy that we cherish snubbed out, not through argument and debate, but through violence and war.