‘Stitch-up' or scandal? What triggered the downfall of Britain's Sea Lord
This year, however, the august gathering – due to start on May 12 – was postponed at the last minute because of a keynote speaker dropping out. No, not a Ukrainian admiral sidetracked by urgent business in the Black Sea, or a tetchy Trump envoy throwing a hissy fit. Instead, it was the host himself, First Sea Lord Adml Sir Ben Key – whom, delegates were informed last week, had 'had to step back from all his duties for private reasons'.
The Ministry of Defence declined at first to elaborate, prompting speculation that Sir Ben was perhaps gravely ill. But on Friday, it confirmed he had stepped down while claims of an extramarital affair with a female subordinate are investigated.
It is the first time in the Navy's 500-year history that its First Sea Lord has faced a formal misconduct probe – which is perhaps surprising, given the reputation Royal Navy commanders had, in centuries past, for floggings, drunkenness and occasional acts of piracy.
Yet while it has been portrayed as a straightforward HR matter – the Navy forbids commanders having relationships with underlings – some suspect the reasons for his departure may have been rather murkier. A popular officer among the ranks, Sir Ben was said to be unhappy over planned cuts to the Navy, and was rumoured to have clashed with the Chief of the Defence Staff, Adml Sir Tony Radakin, over priorities. With Labour tipped to publish its long-awaited strategic defence review (SDR) in coming weeks – one that few expect to offer much new cash – there is speculation that the disciplinary proceedings might have been brought about, at least partly, to silence him.
'I think he has been stitched up to get him out of the picture,' one unnamed Naval source told the Mail on Sunday. 'He had constantly raised questions about the delays with new ships, funding for recruiting and the lack of frigates, and he was told to keep quiet. Now he can't say a thing.'
The MoD has declined to comment further, as has Sir Ben, 59, who has two sons and a daughter with his wife, Elly. But whether well-informed or not, the unproven speculation could barely have come at a worse time for the Government, as it tries to persuade both Britain and the world that the Navy will remain a serious global player.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has promised to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP, amid growing threats from Russia and China, but many experts believe that figure should be twice that. With Donald Trump refusing to act as a Nato backstop, British Navy chiefs feel their own role in Europe's security architecture is now even more important. Their thinking is that Continental powers, particularly Poland and Germany, should focus on land forces, while Britain, as a longstanding naval force, counters Russian threats in the waters off north-west Europe.
The possible future combat scenarios were laid bare in the topics for this year's Sea Lord's essay competition, which included: 'What if China, Russia, Iran or North Korea cut data cables to the UK?' and 'What if the UK has to defend the North Atlantic alone?' Yet, after decades of peace-time cuts, some commanders doubt the Navy even has the capacity to defend Britain's own waters, let alone project power across the Baltics or protect Taiwan.
Last November, Defence Secretary John Healey said he would scrap two amphibious assault ships and a frigate as part of £500 million in short-term savings, while there is also talk of mothballing aircraft carriers amid fears they are too vulnerable to underwater drones.
The downsizing of the Navy is something that Sir Ben has witnessed first hand, having joined the force as a cadet in 1984, at the height of the Cold War. He went on to command a mine hunter, two frigates and the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious. In 2019, he became the UK's Commander of Joint Operations, supervising British evacuation efforts from Afghanistan after the Taliban took power in 2021, before taking over as First Sea Lord from Sir Tony later that year. Until recently, he was considered a frontrunner to succeed Sir Tony as Chief of the Defence Staff, the Armed Forces' top job.
Officers who have served with Sir Ben speak well of him, although there is by no means consensus over whether he was the victim of a 'stitch-up'. They point out that the Navy, as with the rest of the Armed Forces, has a zero-tolerance stance on officers having affairs with subordinates, given the close-knit working environment on ships and submarines. For low-ranking officers, an illicit liaison could lead to allegations of favouritism. For top-ranking commanders, there could be a risk of blackmail. They also point out that Sir Ben himself had been vocal on sexual propriety.
Last October, he publicly apologised for 'intolerable' misogyny in the Submarine Service, after investigations exposed sexual harassment within its ranks. He returned to the theme in March, telling a Parliamentary defence committee that 'unwelcome sexual behaviours' were being stamped out.
'I don't think there is any stitch-up here – he had a sexual liaison with a subordinate in his chain of command, having dismissed others who did the same,' one former rear admiral says. 'First Sea Lords have more important things to do with their lives than have clandestine affairs.'
Others, though, are sad to see the back of a popular commander-in-chief, and do not rule out the possibility that the affair allegations have been used as an excuse to sideline him.
'There is literally nothing left to cut in the Navy without taking an axe to the body itself, and he may have been resistant to that,' says one source. 'It might have been that a colleague dobbed him in to bring about his downfall.'
In fact, uncertainty had been surrounding Sir Ben's future since well before last week. In January, The Times reported that he intended to retire this summer rather than apply to succeed Sir Tony, citing sources who said he no longer believed he could 'fix the Navy'. His office then contradicted this, briefing journalists that he was committed to managing whatever changes lay ahead.
There is, however, potential for disagreement over how those changes are implemented, particularly when tight budgets force a focus on certain priorities at the expense of others. Among the big expenditure programmes are the new Dreadnought submarines, which will replace the ageing Vanguard fleet as carriers of Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent, and Type 83 destroyers, which will have enhanced air defence capabilities, including against hypersonic missiles. But Sir Tony and Sir Ben may have differed over how much to invest in 'next generation' weapons, especially unmanned air and sea drones.
'Radakin had quite a radical agenda for rapid modernisation, pushing AI and unmanned systems, but you still need ocean-going ships, as drones can't just fly for thousands of miles, especially in extreme weather,' says one source. 'There is a balancing act between retaining the older systems and bringing in new tech – plus ships can take 10 years to build, so you have to plan ahead.'
'Sadly, successive governments have failed to invest properly in defence, and believed naively that the US was going to protect everyone for ever, ' adds ex-Royal Naval commander Ryan Ramsey, a former captain of the submarine HMS Turbulent. 'Radakin and Key are both good guys – maybe there is some politics at play here, but frankly, even if that turns out not to be true, the damage has already been done.'
The mood in the top ranks is unlikely to be improved by reports that the soon-to-be-published SDR contains no specific costings, potentially delaying key spending decisions in the autumn. Critics say Starmer's Government is needlessly prolonging the process, mindful that hiking defence spending is unpopular with Labour's Left.
'Ben Key probably wanted to retire because he was just tired,' added another former comrade. 'Running the Navy is OK when there's money around, but when you're firefighting against cuts all the time, it's just exhausting.'
Meanwhile, the search is now on for a replacement for Sir Ben, who may end up finishing an otherwise distinguished career in disgrace if this is indeed the end of his association with the Navy, as appears to be the case.
The current Second Sea Lord, Vice-Admiral Sir Martin Connell, has taken his place as Acting First Sea Lord, although there is as yet no new date for the Sea Power Conference at Lancaster House. It remains to be seen whether the essay contest will be revised to include the topic: 'What does a Navy do if it loses its top commander overnight?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on talking in class: the writers speaking up for oracy education are right
Two years ago, Sir Keir Starmer enthused about teaching speaking skills. So schools campaigners were understandably dismayed when oracy – otherwise known as speaking and listening – did not appear in the interim report of the curriculum review for England headed by Prof Becky Francis. Peter Hyman, the former New Labour adviser who became a headteacher, has been a key figure behind the revival, over the past decade, of an idea developed in the 1960s. Steps to embed the importance of verbal communication in education have already been taken, with more than 1,000 schools working with the charity Voice 21, and a parallel project in Scotland. The hope expressed by children's authors and others last week is that its absence from the draft report was an oversight which will soon be rectified. The task before Prof Francis's commission is a daunting one, with reformers of all kinds looking to it for solutions. An evidence call attracted 7,000 responses, with the future of special educational needs provision, and a wish to reduce exams, among key issues raised. But it should be clear to the panel, and to ministers, that oral learning also matters. One reason is the rising number of children arriving in primary school with speech and language skills below the expected level. While some pupils catch up later, others need specialist help. Communication difficulties are one reason for the increase in the number of education, health and care plans (EHCPs), which set out what such support entails. The reasons for such complex changes are not yet fully understood, although the pandemic has had an impact. The challenge of artificial intelligence, in relation to university studies as well as schools, is another factor behind a renewed emphasis on talking. Given the easy availability of technological tools to aid writing, it is arguably more important than ever that people are equipped to share ideas and knowledge through speech as well. In many European countries oral examinations are far more common, in schools as well as universities, whereas in the UK 'vivas' are mostly reserved for postgraduate studies. In foreign language learning, the importance of speaking is taken for granted. But while oracy already features in the maths and science curriculum, as well as in English, it is often marginalised. The tricky task of reformers is to alter teaching practice so that more weight is placed on verbal communication, without making this yet another assessment hurdle to be cleared. For its champions, the core of oracy education is the ability to make connections. They want young people to be able to express themselves, and point out that this is a vital life skill – for example, in job interviews and the kinds of public‑facing work that seem least likely to be taken over by machines – for which school should prepare them. Big gaps in confidence about public speaking have long been recognised among the most glaring social inequalities. This doesn't mean that everyone should aspire to be a debating champion. Different accents, personalities and ways of relating should be valued, not ironed out. But if our schools are to keep pace with our frenetically changing world, it is surely right that they should maximise the facility for language, which is part of what makes us human.
Reuters
3 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump says US is close to reaching a trade deal with China
TURNBERRY, Scotland, July 27 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday his administration was close to reaching a trade deal with China, but gave no other details. "We're very close to a deal with China. We really sort of made a deal with China, but we'll see how that goes," Trump told reporters at the start of a meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland.
The Guardian
3 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Remembering victims of historical injustice
Campaigners are right to say that the miners' strike, which saw the violent repression of strikers at Orgreave in 1984, remains an enduring source of injustice (Government launches Orgreave inquiry, 40 years after clashes at miners' strike, 20 July). And Pete Wilcox, the bishop of Sheffield, who is to chair the Orgreave inquiry, is right to recognise that the acknowledgment of truth is essential for long-term community healing. Sadly, Orgreave is not the only example of where truth and justice have been forsaken when excessive violence has been used against people on strike. Two hundred years ago, on 3 August 1825, six people were seriously wounded and seven killed by soldiers at North Sands, Sunderland, during the 1825 seamen's strike. The killings were met with anger and outrage, with many local people believing that those who died had been wilfully murdered. Soldiers had fired like target practice into a crowd of 100 from a boat on the River Wear. The threat posed by the crowd, made up of a combination of women, children, strikers, workers and bystanders, was greatly exaggerated. The only inquiries were two short inquests into just two of the seven deaths. At the time, the killings were reported in national newspapers and were undoubtedly one of the most significant events of 1825. What happened at Sunderland is not so different from that six years earlier at Peterloo, on 16 August 1819, yet knowledge and awareness of these two massacres are vastly different. The Sunderland seafarers' union, the Seamen's Loyal Standard Association, stated that 3 August 1825 should 'ever be remembered', but over time, the North Sands Massacre has been virtually forgotten. The denial of truth and justice at Orgreave is unfortunately just one of several incidents where those policing industrial action have used unnecessary violence and then placed the blame on their victims. All victims of historical injustice should be remembered and their communities allowed to David Gordon ScottThe Open University Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
