Armed Forces Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to support strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, just said. He brought to our attention a most significant failure in how Armed Forces pensions have been paid, calculated and mispaid.

It would be extraordinary to be told—but it appears that we will be told this—that the contractors have no obligation whatever to correct the mistakes that they have made, and that they will not be charged under some legal system to make repayments for the mistakes that they have made. It is also extremely important for those who are obliged to pay back, or are being asked to pay back, that the system they will work under is explained to them rapidly and quickly. Every day that goes by, they do not know what is to happen, and, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, some considerable sums are involved.

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

My Lords, I will just start with quite a profound comment, if your Lordships do not mind. Today we mark 20 years since RAF Nimrod aircraft XV230 was lost during a routine operational flight in Afghanistan. That was the biggest single loss of life of British service personnel since the Falklands War, and I know that the thoughts of all noble Lords will be with the families, friends and colleagues of those we lost two decades ago in service to our country.

On a slightly lighter note, can we just get out of the way one sobering fact? The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is right to point this out, so let us get it out in the open and out of the way. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has been on the road to Damascus, seen the light and changed her mind on a number of issues. I have to say that I have been on the same road but in the opposite direction, and therefore I have come to different conclusions. That is the last time I am going to mention that, because there are a number of such examples as we go through the Bill.

However, the serious point that I wanted to make is to say, first, that in a number of the contributions that have been made, noble Lords have made suggestions, “What about this?” or “What about that?” Obviously, I will reflect on all the various comments that have been made. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about the possibility of a meeting to take further some of the comments she made. I am perfectly happy to do that.

I will also deal, slightly out of order, with what my noble friend Lord Davies said, in a very important contribution, supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and, as I see, by others around the Chamber. It is a very difficult and important issue, because it not only involves who has responsibility for whether it falls within the covenant but involves a lot of different people, organisations and financial calculations one way or the other. I know one of my ministerial colleagues is dealing with it, so I suggest that I organise a meeting to bring together the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, my noble friend Lord Davies and other noble Lords who want to attend, to discuss where we are precisely with this issue so we can take that forward. My noble friend’s contribution was so important and had such a huge number of points, so that is the best way forward for us with respect to that. Whether it is part of the covenant or not, my noble friend made a huge number of other points. So that will have been noted and we will take that forward.

I am very pleased to begin our consideration of the Armed Forces Bill, and I look forward to the contributions, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, with the noble Earl, Lord Minto, but obviously also from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and many others. I am also grateful for the amendments. I know there is general support for the Bill. but I also know that nothing is perfect and that there are always clarifications that need to be made, and there is also the possibility of taking things forward and trying to improve it. That has always been the way that I try to take things forward and I will continue to do so.

I will first deal with the amendments from the noble Baroness. We have sailed together on many warships and I have met the RFA crews, as she will know. I thank her for her contribution and I acknowledge the concerns that she has raised about Royal Fleet Auxiliary personnel. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary, or RFA for short, is a unique asset to defence—we all agree with that—and we continue to invest in it. We work closely across government to ensure that the seafarers who work for the RFA have the employment conditions that reflect the essential nature of their work. As the noble Baroness outlined, these amendments would extend the covenant principles to include the RFA. Public bodies in scope of the statutory covenant duty would need to have due regard to the effects of membership of the RFA in the same way as for members of the Armed Forces.

The Government do not support that extension. The Armed Forces covenant legal duty is specifically designed to address the disadvantage arising from the unique obligations and circumstances of service in the Armed Forces. RFA personnel make an important contribution of support to defence activity, including on operations, as the noble Baroness pointed out, but they are civilian seafarers employed on civilian terms and conditions. For all civilians, participation in or support to military operations does not in itself create the same obligations or unique challenges as membership of the Armed Forces.

Extending the duty on that basis would move it beyond its intended purpose and blur the clear boundary around those whom Parliament designed it to protect. However, in Clause 31, the Bill appropriately recognises—the noble Baroness pointed this out—the distinct position of RFA personnel, which brings them within the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner, providing an independent route for concerns about welfare, working conditions and systemic issues to be investigated. Since this is Committee, I would refer noble Lords to the Bill itself, because Clause 31 also refers to Schedule 4, which lays out in more detail some of the additional general functions that would be required, and it is more extensive in terms of welfare provisions, investigating thematic issues that may arise, promoting the welfare of RFA members, and, very importantly, improving the public’s understanding of the welfare issues that RFA members face. Schedule 4 adds to Clause 31 in a way which I think contributes to maybe answering some of the points that the noble Baroness has put forward in her amendments.

The provision, however, fundamentally does not alter their civilian status or justify extending a covenant duty designed specifically to address disadvantage arising from service in the Armed Forces. This does not, however, mean that the RFA personnel are overlooked. In the spirit of the covenant, organisations who have signed the Armed Forces covenant pledge are encouraged to consider the needs of other groups within the wider Armed Forces community, where individual circumstances meet it. That obviously will include members of the RFA, but that is distinct from extending the legal duty itself, which remains focused on disadvantage arising from service in the Armed Forces. However, the Government remain committed to ensuring that RFA personnel receive appropriate support but do not believe that extending the covenant legal duty is necessary nor consistent with its statutory purpose.

I move to the other amendments in the group, which were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in her comments, and signed by the noble Earl, Lord Minto. These amendments would extend the Armed Forces covenant duty beyond national duties to a much wider range of public bodies, as the noble Baroness pointed out in her comments, including non-departmental public bodies and publicly owned companies. I understand the intention behind these amendments, and we share the objective of ensuring the covenant is properly embedded across public service delivery, but we do not believe that such a broad approach is necessary or indeed proportionate.

The purpose of the duty is to ensure that covenant considerations are reflected in the policies and strategic decisions that shape service delivery. For that reason, the duty is placed on Ministers and the relevant national authorities that determine policy and set the framework within which services are delivered. Non-departmental bodies are therefore not included, as generally their role is to implement government policy rather than to determine it. By placing the duty on those bodies responsible for setting strategic direction, the Bill ensures that covenant considerations are embedded throughout the wider system.

In direct answer to the noble Baroness’s point about HMRC, it would not be covered by the covenant. She also pointed out a couple of organisations that she felt it would be appropriate for the covenant to cover, but it would also bring organisations into scope whose functions have little or no connection with the Armed Forces, such as the Met Office or the Environment Agency. There are bodies you can point at and ask, “Why is that not included?”. But there are also other bodies where you would ask, “Really?”. It is a way of considering all that. It would increase administrative requirements without necessarily delivering a benefit to service personnel, veterans, their families and the bereaved. The Government believe that the targeted approach set out in the Bill strikes the right balance between improving covenant delivery and ensuring obligations are focused where they can have the greatest effect.

I point out, as a reassurance—I am sure people have noticed—that the Bill does provide flexibility for the future. Should evidence emerge that additional bodies ought to be brought within scope, the Secretary of State will have power to do so through secondary legislation, and that is included within the Bill before your Lordships today. That is the Government’s view, and I hope it provides some of the necessary assurances to the Committee. I ask the noble Lords not to press their amendments—with the offer, again, that we can of course continue to discuss these matters.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, which seems to me to be one about fairness and about anomalies in the Bill, and I thank the Minister for his reply. I make no apology for highlighting the unique position of the RFA, which I feel the Minister acknowledged in his reply. He acknowledged that they have a distinct position. They are not just civil servants. They may be civilians, but the Armed Forces covenant extends to reservists, who are civilians until they are deployed as reservists. It is profoundly unfair that the men and women of the RFA who wear a uniform and are deployed alongside our Armed Forces are outside the covenant’s protections, and yet they are included in Clause 31 and Schedule 4 for pay and conditions. As the Minister pointed out, it leads to ambiguity; it cannot be the Government’s intention to create this ambiguity.

I feel my amendments are a modest change, but they represent a statement of intent. It seems to me that Defence Minister after Defence Minister is lining up to want to value the RFA more and to give a statement of intent. The Minister has been offering meetings between now and Report. I hope he will consider the position of the RFA within the Bill and how, together, we might clarify this intent. I look forward to further discussions, and I reserve the right to bring this back on Report if necessary.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness is saying it would be helpful to have a further discussion, of course we can.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

I appreciate that very much. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I too am pleased to support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Harlech, both of which, I believe, attempt to strengthen the Armed Forces covenant, much as my amendments in the previous group were intended to do.

Amendment 6 addresses what could become a gap in the application of the covenant. It is all very well and good placing this new legal duty on select public bodies, but that duty means little if those bodies cannot identify who among their community belongs to the Armed Forces. This amendment attempts to correct that by requiring the relevant bodies to ask, sensitively and consistently, whether an individual falls within that community and to distinguish reserve service from veteran status, since the two carry quite different implications for practical support. I understand that this is something a number of hospital trusts have started to do when patients attend their A&E departments. Identifying early on whether a patient is a serving member of the Armed Forces or a veteran allows clinicians to develop tailored care.

Amendment 7 addresses the operational readiness of our Reserve Forces, which I know is of particular importance to many of my noble friends, as eloquently attested by my noble friend Lord Harlech. This Bill extends liability for callout and recall, which we will discuss later, but that rests on an assumption—a very important assumption—that reservists are medically fit to serve when summoned.

There is nothing in the current drafting that asks health bodies to have any regard whatever to that reality. My noble friend’s amendment remedies this. The provision has effect only where patients are already of equivalent clinical priority, at which point a reservist’s mobilisation requirements may be properly weighed.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech for raising these two important issues about the potential operation of the covenant once a legal duty is established. I very much hope that the Minister will give these amendments the due consideration that they merit.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. I recognise the service that he gives as an active member of the reservists—captain, I think, so congratulations to him. I am not sure whether that is a promotion that has just happened or whether I just missed it, but congratulations on that. I too declare an interest as my son-in-law is also an active reservist, so I am well aware of many of the issues quite forcefully put at times. That may recur at various points throughout the Bill, so I ask people to take note of that.

I was just looking for the relevant point in the extension of the covenant in Clause 2. Before I make my formal remarks, I will go to the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and my noble friend Lord Davies. Clause 2(2) inserts a duty to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant and lists, in a way that we are all supporting, the specified persons and the specified matters, so there is a huge extension to cover many of the points that noble Lords are making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Could the Minister clarify something? The definition of “health body” refers to NHS England and integrated care boards. Does that include dental services, just to put that on the record?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My assumption would be that it includes all NHS services. The serious point that I am making is that page 2, on the extension to the national bodies and covering matters, starts to try to deal with some of the various points that the noble Lord has quite rightly made, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for his views.

Amendment 6 would require bodies subject to the covenant duty to ask and record whether an individual belongs to an Armed Forces community. I recognise the intent behind the amendment and that the recording of someone’s Armed Forces status does not always happen as it could or should. We are continuing to encourage improvements in that area, because it is important that we do that as far as possible. We do not believe, however, that it is appropriate to place statutory requirements on these bodies to ask them to record an individual’s Armed Forces status. It may not always be necessary for the delivery of services or the removal of disadvantage, so it risks imposing an additional administrative burden, for limited benefit.

In many cases, bodies subject to the duty, such as Government Ministers, make decisions about the Armed Forces community in general rather than about specific individuals. It would therefore be impractical and unnecessary to require these bodies to establish whether every individual who is or may be using their public services is a member of the Armed Forces community, which is what the amendment would require. It is important to say to the noble Lord that the covenant duty’s updated statutory guidance already highlights the importance of bodies identifying who is in the Armed Forces community, giving them the flexibility to determine the best way forward, rather than imposing a rigid statutory requirement. I hope that answers to an extent some of the questions asked the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. We have statutory guidance that we have updated to try to improve the situation as well.

On Amendment 7, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that our Reserve Forces are medically ready when called upon. Fitness to serve is already a fundamental consideration for the services when reservists are being considered for mobilisation. Active reservists, as the noble Lord will know better than most, are subject to pre-mobilisation health checks delivered through defence primary healthcare arrangements, and individuals will not be mobilised unless they meet the relevant service medical standards.

I share the objective of maintaining reserve readiness, but the amendment is not the appropriate means of achieving that objective. It would place a new statutory duty on health bodies across the UK to take account of reservist mobilisation status in the exercise of public health and social care functions. The proposed new clause would require health bodies to take defence readiness into account when allocating access to examination or treatment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am confused as to the Government’s position on my noble friend’s amendments. Is it that there is an obligation on the reservist to self-declare and it is up to the reservist to sort that out? Or do they contend that there is an obligation under Clause 2 on the bodies mentioned to make some kind of inquiry to work out who is in the community that they serve? It is important that that confusion be clarified.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not think we are saying it is the reservist’s responsibility to ensure that people are aware, but we are encouraging bodies—and I have encouraged them—to determine the status of the individuals who come before them. As I say, rather than having a statutory requirement, we often see it as good practice and we are encouraging, through guidance and other ways, a means of trying to improve the situation.

As I say—I think this is part of what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was getting at—this risks blurring the clear and long-established principle that NHS care is determined by clinical priority, not necessarily by employment status or potential availability for service. It opens up all sorts of other possibilities as well. That is why, to answer the noble Baroness’s point, we understand the need to have due regard and to try to understand the particular circumstances of the individuals who may come before them from a reservist perspective.

The Government have been clear about our priority of supporting our health services in reducing waiting lists and improving access to care, but we should be cautious about creating new statutory factors for health bodies to weigh in their decision-making. Through the Bill, the Government have already taken steps to deal with the issue of disadvantage for the reserves compared to the general population. We are imposing a duty on specified national authorities, local authorities, health bodies and education bodies to have due regard to the principles of the Armed Forces covenant, which is the point I was making at the beginning. That is how we seek to address some of the disadvantages that the noble Lord has raised, as I say, on page 2 of the Bill.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

I am really confused about what “with due regard” would mean given the Minister’s comment just now that health services must be based on clinical priorities. In the case of a reservist being called up and failing pre-callout checks because of something such as a wisdom tooth for which they have been on a waiting list for a long time, would “due regard” mean they would get bumped up the waiting list so that they were deployable, or not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will know, the “due regard” point has come up ever since the covenant was introduced. The question of what it means has been a debate all the way through the existence of the covenant, but “due regard” has stood the test of time. It means what it says. We do not believe in compelling a dental practice, doctor’s surgery or hospital always to prioritise that particular person in that circumstance over and above everyone else. Although I understand the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment, it would require preference to be given irrespective of the needs of everyone else.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

That is not right. The amendment expressly says that clinical need takes priority and it is only with two patients of equivalent clinical need that service need would affect the waiting time.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The point I am making is that “due regard” is the way that we try to ensure that the point the noble Lord makes is actually delivered. Rather than compel a particular organisation or body to do X, Y or Z, we require it through the guidance—the previous Government did it successfully and we have extended and developed it—to have due regard. When somebody comes forward in that situation, with the extension of the national bodies required to have due regard and the issues which they have to have due regard to, such as health and social care, that due regard will not exist until this Bill is passed into law. That means that there is a significant step forward in ensuring that the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment is realised, through ensuring and requiring that those bodies have due regard in the way that the term been accepted over many years since the existence of the covenant. That is why we think that is the appropriate way forward. We believe this meets the right balance between health bodies having due regard for the sacrifices of service life and removing disadvantage arising from service where appropriate.

As I said to the noble Lord, although I support the intention behind his amendment, I do not believe that a statutory obligation on health bodies is the right mechanism for delivering the outcome. What is outlined in the Bill about the extension of the covenant to the new specified persons, which include a health body, and the specific matters, which include health and social care, and requiring all of them to have due regard, is the appropriate way forward. With that, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his remarks. I understand the case he is making and standing behind. I am incredibly grateful for the contributions from my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. I think our argument has been more persuasive. If we are meant to be moving to a war footing and war readiness, I think this, “It would be nice if this happens”, with due regard is wrong. That is a cop-out from the Ministry of Defence. It sounds like it is just trying to take up a bit of slack because it does not want to overburden the NHS even more. If we are meant to be moving to a war footing and war readiness, this is not going to cut it and will come unstuck really quickly. This has been a useful debate to open up some more questions and move the discussion on, but I feel like we might return to this on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I feel like sitting down after that, rather than carrying on. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for his views on the Bill. I acknowledge his concerns about ensuring that the expanded covenant duty is properly monitored, understood and supported in practice.

On Amendments 12 and 13, I recognise the noble Lord’s intention to ensure proper scrutiny, but the covenant already has a clear oversight framework. The Secretary of State is legally required to lay an annual Armed Forces covenant report before Parliament, and that will include the areas brought into scope by the extended duty. I hope that is of some reassurance. It will be brought before Parliament, and Members of both Houses will then be able to scrutinise that and ask questions, should they choose to do so. Officials are working to enhance the annual report, strengthening its role as a tool for assessing progress and for holding the Government and local bodies to account.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also alluded to, about the scope of the covenant and Northern Ireland, the noble Lord will know that page 3 lists what parts of the extended duties will apply in different parts of the United Kingdom. That varies not only between England and Wales and Scotland; there are differences between England and Wales and Northern Ireland. So that is obviously part of that. New Section 343AZB(2)(d) refers to

“the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland acting jointly, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department”.

That is part of the definition of a “national authority”. So in the reporting that will have to take place, part of that is included.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness will also know that the territorial extent at the end makes it clear that some of the provisions apply in Northern Ireland. So, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, it certainly tries to make clear what particular parts of the covenant are relevant, given the devolved arrangements within the UK, not only in England and Wales but in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

Will the Minister accept that it is always good to have it in the legislation, but that is not always reflected in what actually takes place on the ground? That is what I am trying to ensure.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is reflected in the legislation. The Bill says specifically what parts of the covenant apply—if we take Northern Ireland as an example, rather than Scotland or wherever. The Bill lays out the territorial extent and what parts of the extended duties apply in Northern Ireland. I am also saying, in answer to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Morse, that there is a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to give an annual report outlining how the covenant has operated. Officials are working to understand how the new duties will be reflected in that annual report. I hope that offers some reassurance to the noble Lord that it is not just a case of passing it and then forgetting about it. Parliament will be informed about it and then people will be able to understand and decide how well they feel the covenant has been implemented in those areas for which different national bodies within the different parts of the UK are responsible.

Sitting alongside that is independent challenge from service charities and families federations, as well as wider parliamentary scrutiny. That provides an established framework for reviewing the operation and effectiveness of the duty in practice, so I do not consider that either a further statutory reporting duty or a separate independent review is necessary. I hope that what I have said is some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Morse.

Amendments 14 and 15 both concern the impact of the expanded duty on local authorities, including in relation to financial costs. I understand that concern, but a new burdens assessment is being undertaken and will be finalised before the duty takes effect. We consulted widely with local authorities to inform our assessment of any potential administrative and financial impacts. The duty is one of due regard and does not require local authorities to provide specific services or incur particular expenditure. We expect additional costs for local authorities to be limited, as many already have established processes in place to comply with the existing covenant duty. Local authorities will also be supported through additional guidance, training and other resources. I take this opportunity to congratulate all the national bodies, but in this instance local authorities, on the work they have done, are doing and will do to implement the various duties that the covenant outlines. As I say, I hope that I have reassured the Committee and the noble Lord, and that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Morse (CB)]

I thank the Minister very much for that, but does he think it likely that local authorities are going to come forward? Has he had any local authorities coming forward and saying, “No thanks, we can’t afford to do that”, or has he just not had that response? Is he saying he has had nothing but positive responses?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I can honestly say that local authorities coming to me, and the various responsible bodies, have all been positive and have all looked at how they may do their utmost to implement the covenant within their responsibilities. Of course, they recognise that that brings certain demands upon them, but they have been positive about it, accepting their responsibility, and I think it is a great tribute to them and to the local councillors involved. I think it has been a very positive response.

[Lord Morse (CB)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

which I take it would mean single living accommodation, the amendments brought forward in this group seem to be describing only service family accommodation. Although, as I have suggested, a lot of the complaints have been about service family accommodation and the nature of the estate, surely single living accommodation should also be brought within the purview of such amendments.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Shall we leave the point about single living accommodation, since, as the noble Baroness pointed out, we will have a discussion around family and single living accommodation in the next group? Without ignoring the noble Baroness, we will come on to her particular questions around that in the next group and answer some of her points on that more directly then, if that is satisfactory to her.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, as always, for the considered and thoughtful way in which she introduced her amendments. Before I get into my formal remarks, and without getting into a game of semantics on introducing a satisfaction criterion in the functions, on page 7 of the Bill, under functions of the Defence Housing Service, new Section 343(1)(d)(ii) talks about the

“continued wellbeing of those communities”

as being an important function of the DHS. I would have thought that satisfaction would be an important part of that. I do not disagree with the noble Baroness, and I will come to this in my formal remarks, but I thought it was important to say that my reading of the functions is that that is perhaps one of the ways in which the Government have set out within the Bill a way of dealing with the satisfaction point.

Beginning with Amendment 16, I first make it clear that the defence housing service—the DHS—will have a service ethos at its heart. We have set up a new customer service committee with representatives from all three forces’ families as members. The DHS will have service family representatives on its independent board.

We are already making rapid improvements. We have delivered our consumer charter commitments to improve our families’ experiences, which includes seeing over 1,250 military homes improved in the last financial year, with more to be upgraded this year. We have modernised outdated policies, giving families greater freedoms to improve their homes, streamlining processes for those who wish to run businesses from home and removing the need for permission to have a pet. We have delivered named housing officers, more photos and floorplans, and a new online repairs service. Promises made to families are now being delivered.

We are seeing results, specifically with respect to satisfaction. Satisfaction with defence homes has risen to 52%, which is the highest satisfaction rate since 2021. Satisfaction with repairs has increased steadily from a low of 23% in January 2023 up to 66% by the end of 2025. As of August 2026, there were 369 active complaints, compared with a high of 4,200 in November 2023. We can never say that satisfaction is done, but we hope that there is some recognition of the improvements being made.

On Amendment 19, the Bill already provides for a robust framework agreement in place, under which the DHS will report directly to Ministers, a point that the noble Baroness was keen to emphasise. I repeat that the DHS will remain accountable to Ministers through its strategic oversight, with increased reporting to Parliament for the performance of the housing services as set out in the Bill and oversight by a non-executive board. The DHS will continue working closely with departmental teams, and this will be covered in the framework document with the MoD in the usual way. The DHS will be operationally independent within the scope of the framework document and the legal powers set out in the Bill.

Our existing plans already achieve the effect of Amendment 20. Work is already under way to establish an independent board and enable preparatory activity ahead of full DHS mobilisation on 1 April 2027. The board will comprise the chief executive, an appointed chair and at least six other members, with representation from the departmental infrastructure functional owner and director-general infrastructure expected at meetings. Strong governance and family representation are already built into the DHS structure, and four forums aligned to the “families first” pillar of the defence housing strategy and reporting directly to the DHS board and executive committee are already established.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I thank the Minister so much for allowing my intervention. I support the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, because it is about well-being and retention. From what the Minister has just said about how the new board is being set up, it does not sound to me that it will include those with lived experience, including those who have recently lived, or currently live, in forces family accommodation. Having that lived experience would aid retention, because if a family is not happy, the member of the Armed Forces will not stay in their role.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We agree with that. Our intention all the way is to ensure that the family’s voice is heard and acted on. The defence housing strategy from 2025, on which much of this is based, was developed—I have examples of this—after having consulted with and listened to forces family representatives. They have informed the very structure that this new DHS body has been set up to achieve.

I absolutely accept the point that the right reverend Prelate has put to us. We would argue that the defence housing strategy was developed with the support of services families and that the legislation before your Lordships has been developed on the basis of that strategy, which has at its very heart the needs and views of forces families. That is essential. It is important to put on the record that we want to see that continue and we believe that these structures will help to do that.

As I said, strong governance and family representation are already built into the DHS structure. Two of these forums are new to the DHS, while two are well established and will continue to operate under the DHS governance framework. These forums are the accommodation delivery forum and the families insight forum, and the newly established defence housing service customer committee and the regional customer experience committees. To go to the point that has just been made, embedding the family voice is fundamental to the DHS. Representatives from the Armed Forces Families Federation, which engages with service families daily and brings invaluable insight into their lived experience, are embedded across each of the four forums to help shape improvements and hold us to our commitments.

The new DHS customer committee places service families at the heart of decision-making, championing lived experience and ensuring that the “family first” principle drives continuous improvement in customer experience and satisfaction, further strengthened by new regional customer experience committees which provide a structured forum for families to share feedback, influence policy and service delivery and shape regional priorities.

With those remarks, I hope the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendments, but I thank her again for the opportunity to put the Government’s view on the record.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and to the Minister for their contributions. I set out at the start that my purpose with these three amendments was not to obstruct the defence housing service but to improve it. I have accepted the political reality that the new body is coming into being, whether I welcome that or not.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the issue of single living accommodation, and I was just checking over the text of my amendments and looking at the section of the Bill that we are trying to amend. There was no desire to exclude single living accommodation, and indeed, if she considers that there is merit in what I am trying to achieve, I am sure that drafting can be deployed to provide for that.

Disappointingly, nothing I have heard this afternoon has shifted my view that these three amendments remain necessary. Amendment 16 simply asks that “satisfaction” be written into the defence housing service’s functions as explicitly as “supply”, “quality” and “regeneration” already are, so that success or failure can be measured against something service families would recognise.

I listened to the Minister’s response and his reference to the specific provisions contained on page 7 of the Bill, but I observe that these are actually subjective tests for the DHS to satisfy. They are not in any way reassuring, objective interventions that can be made by the service personnel being accommodated in this housing, because they have no direct control over the governance of the organisation. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich rightly encapsulated that concern, which I think is a legitimate one.

The Minister referred to excellent groups such as the Army, Naval and RAF Families Federations and other groups that make a tremendous contribution to promoting the interests of our service personnel, but they can only ever be commentators, and to me that is not good enough for the purpose of this new body.

Amendment 19 still awaits the straightforward answer that my right honourable friend Mark Francois sought in the other place. Why does the chief executive report to the National Armaments Director? I would like him to report to the Minister, to the Lords Minister—to any Minister—or to the Armed Forces Commissioner. I just do not get the connection with the National Armaments Director, and I have not received the clarity from the Minister that I sought.

Amendment 20 remains the surest guard against the sort of bureaucratic self-interest that I am afraid so often overtakes bodies of this kind, by putting those who actually live in service housing on the board that oversees it. That is direct governance, direct control and having a voice in the actual provision.

I hope the Minister will reflect further before Report, in the collaborative spirit he has himself invited, which I welcome. He has already offered a meeting, and this is an issue we could fruitfully discuss then. However, on the basis of hoping to discuss this further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled these stand-part notices for Clause 3 and Schedule 1 to probe why the Government have decided to pursue the creation of a new public body to deliver and manage service family accommodation. I indicated to the Chamber that I would pursue this under this group. These provisions would establish the defence housing service as a new free-standing non-departmental public body, taking over responsibility for the provision, maintenance and modernisation of service family accommodation. Nobody on my Benches disputes the scale of the problem that confronts the Ministry of Defence; what I do intend to question is whether the Government are pursuing the best solution.

The defence housing strategy, published last year, offers a familiar formula: it talks of a clearer statutory footing, better focus and an accounting officer with defined responsibility for the housing estate. None of this tells us why the defence housing service, as an arm’s-length body, will succeed where the Defence Infrastructure Organisation has so conspicuously failed. The DIO, too, was created as a discrete organisation with a clear remit, and it has become a byword for bureaucratic unresponsiveness, even, sadly, being nicknamed—not affectionately, I may add—“DI-no”.

The lesson of the failures of the DIO—and, as we must not forget, Annington Homes—is that defence housing needs a different operating model altogether, one genuinely run by people whose entire professional life is housing, and one that is accountable to the families it serves, rather than upward to the department in Whitehall. That is precisely why my party’s alternative is a forces housing association. That would be an organisation modelled on an ordinary housing association, not run for profit, with every pound of revenue reinvested in the housing stock. Its executive leadership would be drawn from the social housing sector rather than the Civil Service, and representatives of each of the three forces families federations would be given a formal seat on its board. That model would give service families something the Bill does not: an institution whose culture, incentives and governance are drawn from the industry that already knows how to run good-quality rental housing well, rather than a new public body. By contrast, a national NDPB brings with it precisely the accountability weaknesses we are all too aware of. I really would appreciate if the Minister could give the House a straight answer to a very simple question: what specific mechanism in the Bill will make service families’ complaints be taken seriously and improve the satisfaction with, and quality of, service family accommodation?

My second point concerns money. I put this to the Committee because a new structure is worthless without the funding to back it up. In their defence housing strategy, the Government promised a 10-year £9 billion programme to upgrade around 43,000 defence homes—roughly nine in 10 of the whole family estate. That was, and remains, a welcome goal. Ministers understandably wanted credit for it; indeed, the Minister for the Armed Forces in the other place repeated these figures with confidence when the Bill was scrutinised in Committee in the other place in the spring. But when the defence investment plan was finally published this summer—nine months late, let us not forget—we learned that refurbishment work on some of the worst properties, the very homes surveyed and found to require substantial work or complete rebuilding, has been pushed back to fund other priorities within that plan. Antony Cotton, the campaigner who had fronted the Government’s own publicity for this programme, said plainly that families would feel let down. He had told them, in his words, that their homes were “on the horizon”. Now, sadly, that horizon has swiftly receded.

My right honourable friend Mark Francois pressed the Minister for the Armed Forces repeatedly in Committee in the other place on exactly this point: the gap between the confident figure given by the Ministers in the spring and the reality that emerged a few months later once the defence investment plan was published. We have seen this pattern all too often with this Government, not least on the path to 3%. They make an announcement with headline-grabbing numbers and reassure us that everything is in hand, but, with depressing predictability, they end up pushing everything back because they cannot get a grip on the welfare budget. In a Written Answer to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Docherty of Milngavie, the Minister stated that:

“The Ministry of Defence will publish its delivery timeline for the £9.2 billion Defence Housing Strategy over the next 12 months”.


Respectfully, this is simply more delay with the money. The housing strategy was published in November last year. Why have the Government not established a delivery timeline already, and why will it take yet another 12 months just to publish the delivery timeline, yet alone begin with the investment?

That matters directly, because we are being asked to approve the creation of an entirely new statutory body to deliver a programme whose funding has already been rewritten within months of being announced, before the body designed to deliver it has even been established. If the Government cannot hold to their own funding timetable under the current arrangements, no amount of institutional reorganisation will fix that. Without funds that the Government promised, this is a chimera—a verbal soufflé. I ask the Minister this again, directly: can the Government confirm today, on the record, that the £9 billion and the 43,000 homes remain their firm commitment on the original 10-year timetable? Can the Minister explain why service families should have confidence that the new body created for the Bill will succeed in fixing the standard of their housing?

I do not oppose the reform of defence housing delivery; I oppose the assumption that the creation of yet another arm’s-length body will solve anything. I did warn of my scepticism on this proposal, but I feel a lot better having shared it with the Committee.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness—and I congratulate her on finding a different way of having a therapy session. She made some very interesting and important points, and I will deal with them as I go through the remarks that I make. I will come to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about single living accommodation a little bit further down.

I begin with Clause 3 and Schedule 1, which create the defence housing service, a new public body dedicated to improving the supply and quality of defence housing and spearheading the regeneration of defence communities. Our defence housing strategy sets out a vision for the future transformation of military homes: 90% of military homes will be upgraded—that work has already started—or renewed or rebuilt, through a record £9.2 billion investment over a decade. The defence housing service is the vehicle to drive this transformation. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked me to confirm again the Government’s commitment to a figure and the time for that. Let me say it again, in direct answer to her question: it will be a record £9.2 billion investment over a decade.

The defence housing strategy recommended establishing the DHS as a professional arm’s-length body focused on the specific needs of service personnel and their families. The direct partnership with the military to support this can be achieved only within a public body. That was the recommendation of the housing strategy. I say to noble Lords that many of the people who drew the strategy up have had years and years of experience in housing. Without reading them all out, noble Lords can see for themselves if they look at the review work and the team that put this together. The Government supported the recommendations that they made.

Given the control required by the Ministry of Defence to meet operational needs, the purpose of the housing, the close relationship with welfare outcomes, and the exercise of housing discretion, transfer outside the public sector to a housing association or other private sector structure is not appropriate in the Government’s view or, indeed, the view of the strategy. It would, in our view, set back the renewal of the estate, increase costs of delivery, hamper the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces and undermine Crown tenancy arrangements.

The purpose of defence housing is to meet the operational needs of the Armed Forces. Central to that is the ability to move service personnel wherever needed and without delay. To support that mobility, accommodation is provided as part of their terms and conditions, at a rate heavily subsidised by the Ministry of Defence through a Crown licence arrangement which manages occupation in accordance with military operational requirements. This requires the Ministry of Defence as a whole to have operational control over its housing stock and who is in occupation of particular homes. That would be hampered by a transfer of the estate to a third-party organisation that is not part of the Ministry of Defence family.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the difference in the single living accommodation and service family accommodation. In my opening remarks, I acknowledged that, clearly, there are not direct comparators, because the approach to single living is somewhat different. I would be grateful if the Minister would be willing to have a meeting to discuss this and explore a little more about single living accommodation and, in particular, the extent of the independent review and what that is covering. Pending that, I may—

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I have committed to that. I said at the outset that I will meet and discuss with noble Lords—indeed, including the noble Baroness—the issues that have arisen. This is Committee. It is about clarifying the Government’s thoughts, with the Government thinking that, perhaps, this is not quite as clear as it needs to be, and listening to the ideas that other Members are having. So of course we can discuss how we take forward the single living accommodation.

The point I am making, and have made, is that what we have before us is dealing with family living accommodation. Single living accommodation is being dealt with, but there is another vehicle being used to deliver that.