Armed Forces Bill

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Committee (2nd Day) (Continued)

20:35

Amendment 48

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

48: Schedule 6, page 134, line 22, leave out paragraph 4
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure non executive board members remain unpaid and therefore genuinely committed to the reserves and cadets.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 48, 50, 51 and 52 in my name.

Amendment 48 is about payment to the new non-executive board members. The members of the RFCAs and all their forebear organisations, commencing with the county territorial associations in 1908, whether acting locally or nationally, have never been paid. The volunteer ethos is of very considerable significance, especially in the world of reserves and cadets. Imagine how it will look to the reservists, who volunteer and put their lives on the line, and to the cadet forces, if the non-executives are to be paid. It is a really bad look and unlikely to attract the best of society who are absolutely committed to the reserves and cadets.

Furthermore, we are living in a time of scarce resources, especially in the field of defence. Yet here is the MoD deliberately adding cost, when it knows there is a ready supply of volunteers who will do, and indeed are doing, this work for no financial reward. One can guess the reaction of those who have shown, over many years, their dedicated and unpaid commitment to the reserves and cadets, to the appointment of paid non-executives with no apparent commitment to the reserves or cadets. It is a mistake to offer money to entice people to apply for these roles.

I turn now to Amendment 50, which seeks to reinstate lords-lieutenant. Lords-lieutenant are the sovereign’s representatives in their respective lieutenancies or counties. It is their foremost duty to uphold the dignity of the Crown. Historically, each lord-lieutenant was responsible for organising the county’s militia. The Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907 established county territorial associations, with the lord-lieutenant as the president of the county association. The relationship of lords-lieutenant with the military today is maintained via their presidency of their county RFCAs. All lords-lieutenant are affiliated to one of the 13 regional RFCAs; one of them is president and they rotate the presidency among them.

This is constituted in primary legislation, most recently in Schedule 4 to the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Removing that would remove the final vestiges of a military role and an important part of the symbolic relationship of the lords-lieutenant to the Crown. Service personnel hold the sovereign in the highest regard. To cut off this link between reservists and the Crown seems, to say the least, inappropriate. Lords-lieutenant have evidenced considerable concern over the review’s proposals and the consequences of breaking this important link. Under the Armed Forces Bill, the involvement of the lords-lieutenant, which was established under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Schedule 4 to the Reserve Forces Act 1996, is to be abolished. Paragraph 4(2)(b) of Schedule 6 to this Bill will omit

“section 111 and Schedule 4 (provisions of schemes for the constitution of associations)”.

It has been suggested, as an afterthought, that the continued involvement of the lords-lieutenant might be achieved through secondary legislation or regulation. The involvement of the lords-lieutenant is currently in primary legislation and to relegate it to regulations is nothing short of insulting. It also makes it much easier to amend, change and delete it. If it is proposed to amend the law in a way that affects a class of persons, it is customary to consult them. Even if there is no statutory duty to do so, there have been cases where the courts have held that failure to consult is a reason for upholding judicial review of the Government. I understand that the Association of Lord-Lieutenants has not been consulted. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment carefully.

Amendment 51 addresses the establishment of a national council. The strength of the RFCAs lies in their embeddedness across the regions. This was not accidental; it reflects the original Haldane model from 1908—a decentralised, citizen-based structure designed to mirror national diversity and ensure societal ownership of the territorial Reserve Forces. It has endured and worked for over a century. What is today described as “connecting defence with the nation” is rooted in this model, so it is right that Schedule 6 of the Bill establishes regional councils through paragraph 14 of proposed new Schedule 4A. What is extremely odd, though, is that the drafters have not understood that the regional councils are irrelevant if their views are not brought together and debated centrally, so that a single considered professional message can be delivered to Ministers.

Abolition of the membership, discussed in the debate on the last group, also presents a conundrum as to where the regional council members will be elected from. When we questioned this, we were told, “Don’t worry, it’ll be dealt with in secondary legislation”. This is a quite extraordinary response. Without a national council, the regional councils are completely irrelevant, and without a membership they will be ineffective. This seems to be an attempt to pay lip service to devolution, while in fact cutting it off at the roots. A national council is fundamental to the functioning of the new structure, and the amendment would establish one.

Amendment 52 addresses the external scrutiny team. The Council of Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations external scrutiny team provides an independent annual assessment to Parliament of the state, capabilities and health of the United Kingdom’s Reserve Forces, identified as fundamental to advising Ministers and the single services on the effectiveness of training, fighting efficiency and leadership of the reserve, thus meeting the FR 2020 proposition to reservists. It was established following the Future Reserves 2020 review and operates with statutory duties mandated by the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

The Armed Forces Bill, in paragraph 5(b) of Schedule 6, introduces the concept that the Defence Council can remove responsibility for producing the annual assessment or report and award it to someone else at stroke of a pen. This is not the case in the current legislation. Will the Minister therefore explain what lies behind this change? To whom might the responsibility for producing the independent assessment be transferred? What would be considered appropriate grounds for transferring it? When might this happen? How will Ministers ensure the assessment continues in future to be conducted properly and truly independently of the MoD? I beg to move.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to these amendments, and I agree with the points that have been so well made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I will start my brief remarks by making just a couple of general points. First, while there have been some criticisms of the arrangements of reserves and cadet forces, particularly in fairly recent reviews, most of these have been attended to subsequently. The general opinion was that, in the round, the Reserve Forces and cadets operated extremely well and were extremely valuable, and the arrangements that had been set in place had served this country extremely well for a very long time. There is, therefore, a burden of proof on anyone seeking to change the current arrangements to show why any proposed alterations will be better than the arrangements that are already in place. I fear that the Government fail on this count in many instances in this particular part of the Armed Forces Bill.

Secondly, the Minister has previously indicated to the Committee that some of the shortcomings might be attended to in secondary legislation, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, just referred to this. That is all very well, but as everybody in this Chamber knows, we cannot amend secondary legislation; we take it or leave it, and usually, we have to take it. Of course, there must be secondary legislation for the detailed implementation of an Act and the measures in it; but issues of principle should be settled in primary legislation, not in secondary legislation, for some of the reasons that the Lord, Lord De Mauley, just pointed out. Quite a number of the issues covered by the amendments this evening are issues of principle and, therefore, belong in primary legislation, not in secondary legislation.

20:45

On the burden of proof, I think that applies particularly to what is proposed about having paid non-executive members. We have unpaid members at the moment, and it works extremely well—they are volunteers. As the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, says, it fits in very well with the volunteer ethos. Why do we want to change it? I simply fail to see the rationale. Perhaps the Minister can explain this in some detail when he replies.

On Amendment 50 and the issue of the lords-lieutenant, there is one point we have not touched on very much to date regarding the reserves—it was referred to fleetingly by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, who is no longer in his place. We need to think about the future employment of the reserves, not just about the past—I agree entirely. It seems clear to me, and I think it was made clear in the Government’s own strategic defence review, that a very important role for reserves in the future will be to deal with issues of national resilience; that is, national resilience in the face of natural disasters—we had a Question on that earlier today, about the flooding we are likely to see in this country as a result of the recent and current El Niño event— and, of course, if we come under attack from an enemy.

The overall co-ordination of national resilience and the resources required to ensure it will of course be conducted at the national level, but the tactical dealing with national resilience will be conducted at the local level. The emergency services will all be dealing at the local level. It seems to me incomprehensible to suppose that the reserve forces will not have a major role to play, particularly when we see severe challenges to our national resilience. That needs to be conducted at the local level. It also seems to me implausible to suggest that the sovereign’s representative in the locality will not be intimately involved in any responses to severe challenges to national resilience. The lord-lieutenant will have a role to play in all this. So the lord-lieutenant’s association with the reverse forces is not just an issue of representation and history—as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley—but a very practical issue in the future role of the reserves.

On the national board for the regional associations, I have been an advocate for regionalism, for allowing authority to local bodies and Reserve Forces within their regions, but clearly there will be an important role to be played in spreading best practice and co-ordinating the various messages of those regional bodies—as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, has pointed out—and representing them at the national level. There seems to be a requirement for some sort of mechanism that enables us to do that—that acts as a bridge between the two.

Finally, if we are to have a report on the reserve and cadet forces, for heaven’s sake, let us have a report we can rely upon and that is produced by an independent body that has no axe to grind one way or the other except to see that this nation is served, as it deserves to be and as it needs to be, by the reserve forces and cadets association.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, again, I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord De Mauley, and in particular to reinforce everything he said about Amendments 50 and 51. On Amendment 51, I will say no more than that it plays into the issues I was trying to highlight in the previous group—to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, referred to just now—about the need to retain a representative and coherent voice for the individual RFCA memberships. My noble friend argued the case for a national voluntary body very well, and I do not intend to repeat the arguments he put forward.

I will, however, make a couple of points on Amendment 50. I mentioned earlier that my wife has the honour of being His Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of Buckinghamshire. In that role, she is ex officio president of SERFCA. We can easily talk about tradition in the context of supporting the work of the Reserve Forces and cadets. However, while I am a great one for wanting to preserve such traditions, I do not regard tradition on its own as the most important reason for maintaining a statutorily based role for lords-lieutenant in the regional councils.

The main argument is that the involvement of lords-lieutenant as honorary presidents or vice-presidents is highly valued by the RFCAs and by the reservists and cadets. Every year, my wife presents meritorious service awards to reservists in Buckinghamshire who have displayed outstanding achievement and commitment to the volunteer ethos. The significance of these awards to the recipients is without question enhanced by the fact that they are presented by the King’s representative. I would go further by saying that the lord-lieutenant’s role in such presentations plays no small part in maintaining the motivation of our reservists and cadets. Exactly the same point can be made in relation to employer recognition scheme awards and how they are perceived by those in receipt of them. The appointment of lord-lieutenant’s cadets is another example. It is an honour that cadets aspire to.

The Minister has said that there will be nothing to prevent lords-lieutenant fulfilling the same kind of honorary function once the Bill has been enacted. However, I for one do not feel that a loose arrangement of that kind would do justice to the well-defined function that lords-lieutenant fulfil in upholding the dignity of the Crown. It is a function that is born of tradition over many centuries, but, much more importantly, it is one that reflects the direct relationship between the Armed Forces and the Crown. Every time the King’s representative meets a reservist on a public stage to recognise his or her outstanding service, it is a reminder that service men and women across the country owe their loyalty, first and foremost, to the sovereign. It is not satisfactory for a statute of this kind to remain silent on that key constitutional point.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and other noble Lords, which seeks to ensure that lords-lieutenants’ involvement as presidents of regional RFCA councils remains enshrined in primary legislation. I support the comments just made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.

I should declare two interests. First, I was a deputy lieutenant for Greater London and for Norfolk for over 10 years, supporting the lords-lieutenant in those counties. Secondly, my wife is the current Lord-Lieutenant of Norfolk and president of the East Anglia Reserve Forces and Cadets Association.

I do not wish to repeat the arguments already made in support of Amendment 50 nor dwell on the historic links, as important as they are, between the Crown and the Reserve Forces and cadets in each county through the role of the lord-lieutenant, but instead to emphasise the leadership role that the lords-lieutenant play in their respective counties—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just referred to that. In Norfolk recently, as in many other parts of the country, we had a lot of fires during the drought period. Norfolk was particularly affected by that. My wife required a number of her deputy lieutenants to visit all the volunteer fire stations with letters of thanks from the county on behalf of His Majesty for their service. Therefore, it is not just Reserve Forces and cadets but the emergency services in the round.

This role is currently enshrined in primary legislation. That is where it should remain. Reducing it to secondary legislation seems unnecessary. As the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, said, it is perhaps even insulting to the Crown and to lords-lieutenant. I understand that, perhaps not surprisingly, neither Buckingham Palace nor, more worryingly, the Association of Lord-Lieutenants have been formally consulted on this proposed change. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.

At a time of increased threats to our national security, every effort should be made to promote our Reserve Forces and those, such as lords-lieutenant, who support them. That support is, of course, freely given and at no cost to the nation. Moreover, our cadet forces are the largest youth movement in the country and provide great character training and personal development for those involved. That many cadets go on to join our Regular or Reserve Forces is a most welcome by-product, and, as has already been mentioned, initiatives such as the annual appointment of the lord-lieutenant’s cadet is a much-cherished accolade in most counties and an incentive to excellence.

The Bill as it stands serves to weaken the hugely important links between the Crown, through His Majesty’s lords-lieutenants, and communities throughout the nation at a time of great insecurity. I strongly urge His Majesty’s Government to think again. I firmly support Amendment 50.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I too support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord De Mauley. I say from the outset that I do not oppose reform in principle and I did not put my name to the notices to oppose Clause 38 or Schedule 6 standing part, which the Committee discussed earlier. However, there are two further things in this reorganisation that we must not lose, as other noble Lords have already outlined. I am not persuaded that the Bill as drafted protects either of them.

The first is independent reporting, which is the subject of Amendment 52. The associations provide annual advice to defence by two formal means. One of them is the external scrutiny team report on the state of the Reserve Forces. That report is at present the only genuinely independent annual assessment of the reserves that this House receives. If responsibility for it passes to a body sponsored by, funded by and accountable to the Ministry of Defence, we do not merely change who writes it; we lose the thing that made it worth reading. We would be losing it in the very Bill that increases our reliance on the reserves. A department expanding its call on a force that it also grades is not a comfortable arrangement and Parliament will need that independent view more in the coming decade, not less.

The second is the standing of the regional structure, which Amendments 50 and 51 address. These associations were established in 1908 precisely to root the reserve in the county. As other noble Lords have said, the lords-lieutenant have presided over them ever since.

Amendment 51 would provide a national council of the regional chairs, so that the volunteer structure has a collective voice rather than 13 separate ones. This is not just sentiment and ceremony, important though they are; the office of lord-lieutenant is what gives the reserve unit in a market town its standing within the county, and it costs the public purse nothing at all. My concern is that efficiency reforms have a habit of removing precisely the parts that look inefficient on a spreadsheet because they are voluntary and unpaid.

That is also the point behind Amendment 48. Non-executive members who serve without payment serve because they care about the reserves and cadets. I would be sorry to see that ethos priced.

I recognise the governance case that the Ministry of Defence has made, and everything in this group and the previous one is offered as an attempt to improve the new body rather than obstruct it. I ask the Minister to tell the Committee specifically what safeguards will preserve the independence of the external scrutiny team report and how the role of the lords-lieutenant will be maintained under the new body. If those assurances can be given from the Dispatch Box, a good deal of the anxiety expressed in these two groups of amendments would fall away.

21:00

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I am pleased to add my name to this suite of amendments that cover a broad area. On Amendment 48, I am sure that any of us who have served as Ministers or council leaders will have appointed loads of people to different bodies over the years. One thing I have noticed in recent times is that a cohort has emerged of people who apply for a lot of different bodies, whether or not they have qualifications for or experience in any of them.

I understand that people are not necessarily expected to do things for nothing, or to be paying out money, and I would be more than content for people to get perfectly fair and reasonable expenses, whether that is for travel or whatever is required. I have no issue with that, but once you move from that level to somebody who, perhaps, almost has a career in sitting on public bodies, that changes the entire ethos and atmosphere around the establishment of these boards.

Therefore, I have not been convinced by what is in the Bill as drafted. Unless there is a complete absence of people applying, or unless there is an obvious shortage of people who are willing to sit on these boards, I cannot understand why we would want to engage in expense to do this. Noble and gallant Lords have far more experience than I have, but if you have an organisation that is working and staffed, what incentive are you giving those who do the grunt work on the ground if board members are being paid? I just think it upsets the balance.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned national resilience and, of course, the Reserve Forces—whether it is a weather catastrophe or something else—will inevitably be part of that. We all know that the Minister could sell snow to the Eskimos if he was put to it, but we have a situation where in the press, even yesterday, there were reports of our training budgets for soldiers apparently being reduced for public expenditure reasons.

We can imagine how, if you were sitting in the Kremlin, you would be looking at that. It sounds so preposterous. The Minister’s right honourable colleague in the other place, the Environment Secretary, is urging us all to stock up on baked beans and candles and to be prepared for an emergency, and in the same breath we are apparently reducing basic training. You are preparing the country for an emergency, urging people to stock up on basics—what is the connection between these two things? I cannot make it out; it seems completely counterintuitive. The Minister knows that I tried to get a PNQ yesterday on that subject but the Falklands won out, quite properly. Still, it is a serious question.

The rhetoric coming from the Government, and from successive Prime Ministers, is that the defence of the nation is the number one priority of government. I do not necessarily want to bring this into it but I gently remind the Minister, if we are trying to save £30 million on training, that we are not trying to save any of the billions that we are spending on the asylum industry, which is just making a mockery of our country. We have to get serious here about what our priorities as a nation really are. This is sending out the wrong message.

With regard to the lords-lieutenant, I remember back home seeing our lord-lieutenant with a cadet, and the cadet was as proud as punch. This was a wonderful opportunity for a young person to take that role. You could see the enthusiasm; that young person was committed to serving as a cadet and it gave that person a wonderful opportunity of a career path moving forward. We would potentially take that away—for what? I do not know.

I ask the Minister seriously to consider that. I hope that, between now and Report, he will talk about these things with the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and colleagues. I am sure that his door will be open. It would be most helpful to the House if that were to happen. I doubt that there is a huge amount of difference between all of us. We all want to see the same thing. I accept that you cannot go for ever without looking at change and so on; it is part of life.

On the issue of the report, we all know how local government works. If you are doing an in-house report, people will say to you in the corridor, “Maybe you should be a wee bit careful about that”, or, “Go a bit easier”. We want an accurate, independent report without any strings attached and without any ability to be pressurised financially or in any other way. I would have thought that that is fairly basic. We are not asking for anything that is not sensible or reasonable. This suite of amendments goes a long way to correcting some of the flaws. The drafting may need to be changed—fair enough—but I hope that, in the discussions between now and Report, some of these anomalies can be resolved.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments to which I have attached my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, pointed out, this is a reasonable set of amendments. Again, they speak to issues around the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations; in many ways, they could have been part of a previous group because they are trying to deal with issues associated with Clause 38.

We have already heard articulately this evening that, at the moment, we have reserves, cadet forces and councils that are not paid. Why have His Majesty’s Government thought it necessary or appropriate to bring forward the suggestion of non-executive directors being paid and even, potentially, having pensionable incomes? Is there a reason for it that is eluding the Chamber? At the moment, why that would be necessary or desirable does not seem clear.

On the role of the lords-lieutenant, as other noble Lords have pointed out, it seems wholly inappropriate that that should be consigned to secondary legislation. If it is the case that the Palace and the Association of Lord-Lieutenants have not been consulted, what does the Minister propose to do to rectify that? Pending any consultation, would it not be appropriate to consider removing those parts of the Bill?

On Amendment 52, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, just pointed out, if we want an independent report, we need clarity that it is going to be produced by people independent of the MoD so that they cannot be subject to any sort of informal pressure to produce a report containing what the MoD or Ministers want to hear. This is a suite of reasonable amendments. Can the Minister give us some suggestion of areas in which the Government might be willing to move?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, much has been said by noble Lords, noble and gallant Lords, me and my noble friend Lord De Mauley about the importance of the continuation of the voluntary nature of the RFCAs. This is not because I wish to sound like a stuck record; it is out of a genuine desire to preserve all that has made the reserves and cadets so successful.

Of those factors, the voluntary ethos is paramount, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, expressed so clearly. These are organisations that, despite being established by statute, do not operate as traditional government bodies. They are more akin to civil society organisations; that is their brilliance. The voluntary nature of the membership brings together such a wide array of people, from ex-regulars who do not want to give up on their military life to those who want to give back to society and those who simply want to help young people step up and get on in life. They are not forced into this. It is not their career. They do it because they want to. This is how we attract the best and most dedicated people.

The new structure envisaged by the Government, however, would create a professional board of independent people with, potentially, no relevant experience, as several noble Lords have mentioned, or links to either the cadets or the reserves. This is why I support my noble friend’s Amendments 48 and 51 to prevent non-executive board members being paid and to enshrine a national voluntary body in statute. Only then can we ensure that those who are involved with the RFCAs remain genuinely committed to, and passionate about, the cadets and reserves whom they put themselves forward to serve.

I have spoken already about my desire to conserve the traditional link to the Crown through the involvement of the lieutenancy in the associations. The severance of that link would be a deeply regrettable consequence of this policy and one that was entirely unnecessary. It is for that reason that I strongly support Amendment 50, which would, in essence, preserve an element of the status quo by ensuring that the lords-lieutenant were appointed as presidents of the regional councils. This would not cost the Ministry of Defence a penny or interfere with its bureaucratic restructuring, but it would help to preserve those traditions that have kept our nation going for so long and which might just make our lives a little more enjoyable.

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for the amendments whose presentation to us he led on.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, as I have said on a number of occasions both to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and to the Committee as a whole, that I will continue to have conversations between now and Report about what we may or may not do with some of the amendments before us. That commitment has already been made. On the points that he made about spending, I am perfectly willing to answer another Private Notice Question or whatever if he is successful at another time, but perhaps not this evening.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their view that the non-executive members of the new RFCA board should be unpaid. That view assumes that unpaid service better demonstrates commitment. I do not accept that. Commitment is not determined by whether a member is remunerated. There is no evidence, in my view, that remuneration reduces dedication to the Reserve Forces or cadet organisations. I take the point that has been made about their voluntary ethos, but, in terms of the board’s membership—

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

I suggest, in answer to that point from the Minister, that what it does is call into question their independence from their MoD masters.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That might be a matter for us to consider in the conversation that we have. I do not want to go on for too long, but I understand many of the comments that different people have made this evening; I agree with some of them to a larger or lesser extent. I have never thought, generally speaking, that, in certain circumstances, unpaid work is the way forward. This is one of those situations, in respect of the board: I do not think it undermines the voluntary ethos as a whole because, here, it is related to board membership. In that circumstance, it is perfectly reasonable, given the new board that we wish to set up, that the position should be remunerated, although I accept the point that, in the broader establishment of lords-lieutenant and others across the wider—

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

The Minister has said that he does not believe that having paid non-executive directors will lessen their commitment. That is not the question, though. Surely the question is: does having unpaid representatives lessen their commitment? It does not. So why do we want to change it?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is the difference. I understand the whole point about the voluntary ethos generally across the reserves and cadet associations; I absolutely accept that. I am saying, with respect to the board members, that, where you are creating a national board that wants to take on certain statutory functions, that position should be remunerated. That is the difference between us. In the end, personally, I think that that is not inconsistent with the belief that you can have a voluntary ethos.

Look—we have voluntary organisations all over the country that display a voluntary ethos of which we are all proud. At the top of those organisations are people, including board members, who are remunerated. We would not expect them to be able to do that job of work without that remuneration. That is the principle and the point that I am making.

We are committed to equality of opportunity and to breaking down barriers that prevent people contributing to public life, so we want public appointments to be open to all those who have the skills, experience and commitment, not only to those with the financial means to do so without compensation. The Government’s objective is to attract the best candidates from the widest possible range of backgrounds, and retaining the option to remunerate supports that aim. I hope that explains the Government’s position while accepting, again, that many noble Lords will disagree with it. That is my point about payments for the strategic oversight board while respecting the voluntary ethos more widely within the reserves and cadets associations.

21:15

I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for their views and for highlighting the important role that lords-lieutenant have long played within the reserve forces and cadets associations. Again, I absolutely respect that; I understand that the wife of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, is the lord-lieutenant in Norfolk, so we have Norfolk and Buckinghamshire represented here today. We can all be proud of and respect that. We value their vital link between His Majesty the King and the communities they serve, while championing reserves and cadets and strengthening links. I remind all noble Lords, as if we needed reminding—which we do not, really—that the lords-lieutenant are appointed by His Majesty, which is also important. It maintains the point that I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made—it may have been the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—about the link between the Crown and the lords-lieutenant across the whole of the UK, which is important.

We remain committed to the involvement of lords-lieutenant in the regional council structure. Detailed governance arrangements, including links with lords-lieutenant within that structure, are more appropriately set out in secondary legislation. Let me just say defensively—I am not often defensive—that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has to understand this: I take the point that noble Lords cannot amend secondary legislation. That is why I said that it is really important that this Committee has the draft regulations, because those can be amended and adapted. People may say that it should be in primary legislation, but at least I am trying to provide the Committee with another step by which noble Lords can try to influence what the regulations should be before they are set in stone.

Again, that will not satisfy everyone, but in this way I am recognising that, although noble Lords cannot amend secondary legislation, having the draft gives people the opportunity to comment. Those Members of the Committee who have dealt with me in many ways know that their involvement has influenced various reports, one of which is to be published next week, where their comments have been taken on board directly. That shows the commitment I have to ensuring that this is not just a talking shop and that we make changes.

In our view, Amendment 50 is not required to achieve its stated objective. The Bill is intended to establish the statutory framework for the new body. We do not believe it is necessary to prescribe these arrangements in statute.

On Amendment 51, the Government agree with the objective of ensuring a strong collective voice for the regional councils. We intend to establish a national council and will set out its role within the governance framework for the new body. The question is therefore whether the detailed arrangements for a national council should be set in primary legislation or provided for through the governance framework. The Government believe that the latter approach is the more appropriate one. The Bill establishes the statutory framework for the new body. Detailed governance arrangements, including the composition and functions of a national council, are better set through secondary legislation and the wider governance framework so that, as a new body, it has greater freedom to evolve and adapt.

I say again to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that although I am not convinced that this matter needs to be settled in primary legislation, I have heard the wide range of views and opinions expressed that do not agree with where the Government currently are. I will take those points away and consider them carefully. I share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that the regional councils have a strong collective voice. I hope that gives him some reassurance, as we are in Committee, and that he will not press that amendment or the others.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for Amendment 52 and the attention it gives to the important issue of reporting on the state of the volunteer reserve force. We agree that Parliament should continue to receive robust and independent reporting. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, asked about accountability. I do not believe there is any greater accountability than an annual report to this House and the other place. That will give all of us the opportunity to read what has or has not happened, raise questions or even call Ministers to account.

The noble Lord challenged me to say how all this will be reported and what accountability there would be. There will be parliamentary accountability. That is a powerful thing to say about a particular organisation. I know there is a difference because, under the Bill, responsibility for producing the report rests with the RFCA or such other person or body as the Defence Council may determine. The responsibility for delivering the report will be given to the new RFCA, but the Bill also gives the Defence Council the ability, if it sees fit, to commission the report from another suitable person or body outside of defence. The Bill does not require it; it just says “if it sees fit”.

As I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and others who asked about accountability, it is right that primary legislation should secure the requirement for annual reporting, rather than fix a particular organisational model in statute. In that way, we protect the outcome of rigorous reporting to Parliament without unnecessarily fixing the means of delivery in primary legislation. With those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendments. I also thank the Minister. He said that voluntary bodies all over the country have paid people at their heads. Of course they do. I am a trustee or president of, I think, seven charities. Outside the Government, those paid are universally the executives, not the non-executives.

My concern on the point about the amendability of regulations is different from the one that the Minister addressed. My concern is that the Government can amend them—not that we cannot—and that they can do so much more easily than with primary legislation. I am sure we will return to these issues on Report, but for this evening, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 48 withdrawn.

Amendments 49 to 52 not moved.

Schedule 6 agreed.

Clauses 39 to 42 agreed.

Amendment 53

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

53: After Clause 42, insert the following new Clause—
“Visiting forces agreements(1) The Secretary of State must publish in unredacted form any part of a treaty, memorandum of understanding or agreement between the United Kingdom and any sending country relating to visiting forces containing a decision about a jurisdictional question, including in relation to the Visiting Forces Act 1952.(2) Alongside the material published under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a document setting out the reasons behind any decision about a jurisdictional question contained in the relevant treaty, memorandum of understanding or agreement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the nature of any agreements reached between the UK and a sending country in relation to jurisdiction over visiting forces, and requires the Secretary of State to set out the reasons behind such a decision.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford cannot be in his place today as he is recovering at home after an operation. We hope that he will be back with us by Report. I have signed his amendment and I will speak to it. I have tabled Amendments 54 and 68, and I have also signed Amendment 55 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. To protect their identities, the victims’ names that I will use are not their own.

I am sure noble Lords will recall the disgraceful case of US spy Anne Sacoolas, who in 2019 was driving on the wrong side of the road in Northamptonshire when she hit and killed Harry Dunn, aged 19. The US authorities then managed to spirit her out of the country to evade justice. We then became aware that the US authorities do not respect our policing and justice systems. She was eventually brought to justice, but only because of Harry’s family’s campaign and then public and governmental pressure.

In recent months, following the brave disclosures made by a victim of rape and sexual assault by a US serviceman on UK soil—not on his USAF base—many more shocking cases have emerged. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Thomas and I spoke of this case. In 2023, Jacob Wulfson, a US Air Force pilot, sexually attacked a Cambridge resident in his own Cambridge property, so not at the Lakenheath base where he worked. His victim, whom I have talked to, was very clear that she was alleging rape and sexual assault.

Under the terms of the Visiting Forces Act 1952, it is clear that, where an offence by an off-duty American serviceman against a British civilian takes place off an American base, the investigation and any subsequent court case should usually be in the UK Crown Court; the rest of the Bill goes on to talk about exceptions to that. What happened in this case was that the Cambridgeshire police waived jurisdiction—and, as I understand it, not at a senior level. The trial took place via a court martial before a US military judge and a panel at the Lakenheath base. All the UK protections that are offered to victims of alleged rape and serious sexual attacks disappeared at that moment. Worse, because the victim is not American, she was not entitled to the minimal victim support that is available to US citizens in US courts, as compared to the victim’s rights here in the UK. Worse still, since the victim was brave enough to talk to the Guardian newspaper, many more similar cases have been reported. So this is now, we understand, not a rare occurrence.

I can see why our beleaguered police forces would welcome the removal of cases from their very heavy workloads, but these decisions are not being made at the right level and it is not clear at all that the CPS is involved. I was astonished to discover that many of the specific agreements between us and other countries on such justice systems are made as secret and confidential between the UK and the country. We in Parliament, the press or even the victims cannot find out the details.

The Guardian exposed another case in July. Rebecca fled the house of an American airman in Suffolk, going to the police to report that he had raped and violently attacked her. She saw specialist health and police staff. They looked after her. She was given an ISVA—an independent sexual violence adviser—to support her in the legal UK process. Then, the USAF at RAF Lakenheath did exactly the same as in the previous case I described and persuaded Suffolk Police to transfer the case to it because justice would be quicker. Then Emily, the wife of the accused—Tyrion Davis—also came forward to say that she had been raped and sexually assaulted by him on a number of occasions. At the subsequent Lakenheath trial, he was convicted of sexually assaulting both Rebecca and Emily. On discovering that the jury panel at Lakenheath would be composed of Davis’s military peers from a small base, by our jury pool for civil court cases standards, Rebecca said:

“It’s like, if I did something wrong outside of work, having all of my nursing colleagues being on the jury … It doesn’t make sense”.


In another case, Hannes Marschalek boasted to his friends that he had exposed himself from his house in the small town of Littleport, near RAF Lakenheath, to a 16 year-old girl and four young women as they went past. When asked why US Air Force authorities had taken over the case, a spokesperson said that they had

“negotiated jurisdiction over this case with the local police using all available facts at the time”.

The accused was able to negotiate a plea bargain in his case and was convicted on a much lesser charge. He later won an appeal in a US military court this year, which quashed his conviction on technical grounds even though the court papers showed that he had texted two friends to say he had

“definitely just flashed a couple [of] ladies walking from the train, LOL”

and later texted:

“I took all of my clothes off when I walked in. I went to go open a window and I was standing right in front of it when they walked by”.


He also admitted in court that he had done this twice before. The US military court sentenced him to two months. If it had been in a UK court, he would probably have received two years. Then, astonishingly, a US military appeal court dismissed the guilty verdict against him, ruling that prosecutors had made an error by charging him under the wrong offence; I suspect that they realised that it should have been a more serious one.

21:30

Since these cases have been publicised, more and more women are coming forward with their own experience of the US military court system taking over their cases in the UK, and we are seeing injustice after injustice like these. Amendment 53 asserts as a matter of principle that a UK victim of a criminal offence perpetrated within the jurisdiction of the UK by a member of, or a person attached to, a visiting force has a right for their complaint to be investigated and tried under UK law. It goes on to say that any attempt by treaty, agreement or memorandum of understanding to create exceptions to such a principle should be open and transparent; and that, where an exception exists, its exercise should be subject to safeguards. In particular, reasons must be formulated and committed to writing, communicated to the victim and judiciable.

This is particularly important in sexual offences cases because the protections given to victims in court proceedings differ between the UK and the USA. For example, under Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, only the accused or someone acting on the accused’s behalf may apply to introduce the sexual history of the victim. Under the US Military Rule of Evidence 412, the prosecution, as well as the defence, may make such an application. In the US system, a ground for admitting such evidence is that it would violate the constitutional rights of the accused to rule it out, whereas our UK system is more restrictive.

On the other hand, the US system permits the victim to have their own counsel to argue admissibility, to make representations on the victim’s behalf and to protect the victim’s rights. However, I have also heard that, if the victim is not prepared to give evidence, sometimes—quite often in American courts, in fact—the case does not proceed even if there is other evidence. So I ask the Minister: where US courts martial involving British victims have taken place, have those victims been advised of their rights under US law to have a Special Victims’ Counsel? If so, how are they informed, and who pays for it? Or is it true, as I have been told by one victim, that a Special Victims’ Counsel is available only in a US court to US citizens?

What is clear is that the present arrangement cannot continue. That is why I tabled Amendment 54, which would add the United States of America specifically to the list of countries bound by the Visiting Forces Act 1952. At present, the USA is bound only by the slightly less formal arrangements of troops from other countries who are here under the banner of NATO forces, which is an even less transparent mechanism than in the Visiting Forces Act’s sections. This is particularly extraordinary because no country other than the USA now has its own bases in the United Kingdom, and it has the largest numbers of visiting forces of any foreign country, so it makes sense for it to be added to the list of countries with which we have specific agreements under this Act. My Amendment 68 is consequential on Amendment 54, bringing it within the commencement provision in Clause 55.

Amendment 55 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which I have signed, makes specific the element of the agreement between the UK and the countries whose visiting forces come here. It is very helpful, echoing my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford’s Amendment 53, in being explicit about a restriction on the relinquishing of jurisdiction without the explicit decision of a relevant prosecutor, as well as the issues that the relevant prosecutor must take into account. Under this scheme, most of the cases that were taken over by Lakenheath airbase that have come to light would most probably not have been transferred from the relevant UK police force. Most importantly, the process under these amendments would be transparent, including by notifying the victim.

All of the amendments in this group are trying to solve a problem of which this country should be ashamed. Once again, the USA has been shown to ride roughshod over our judicial system relating to offences on British soil against British citizens, and our own processes have failed as our police forces allowed these cases to be removed to a US military judicial system that has clearly failed the many victims of rape and sexual assault. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and to thank her for supporting my Amendment 55. I am going to concentrate on that amendment, because this is a carefully worked attempt to deal with an issue that the noble Baroness has already clearly outlined—criminal behaviour by US service people in the UK that is not being appropriately dealt with. There are more than 12,000 US military personnel stationed in the United Kingdom, operating from at least 15 bases and facilities. These are people living, working and socialising in communities across the UK. They will and do commit offences.

My amendment is focused particularly on sexual offences, but of course the noble Baroness referred to the disgraceful, awful death of Harry Dunn, and the fact that his family had to campaign against the entire US Government to try to achieve some kind of justice. However, that is not the focus of my amendment. I also note that, given the current state of the US today, these bases are coming under increasing public attention. However, that is not the subject of this amendment either.

I spoke on Second Reading and said that I was going to table this amendment. In doing so, I have to thank the Guardian journalists—and, indeed, editors—who have put a great deal of resources into uncovering this situation. I should perhaps declare my former position as editor of the Guardian Weekly, but I am not influenced by that. I also want to thank the Centre for Military Justice for its advice and assistance in developing the amendment that I put before your Lordships’ Committee today. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, chose not to name any of the people concerned, but—given that she bravely chose to waive her own anonymity and speak to the Guardian—I am going to put forward the name of Sarah Steele, because she wanted to speak publicly about what she went through.

Ms Steele went through an ordeal that was a result of the failure of UK processes. This was an incident, an attack, that took place on UK soil away from a US military base and while the service member was off duty. Yet the US military police quickly took over the investigation and the whole proceeding subsequently took place through the US military justice system, as the noble Baroness said. Indeed, it was held at RAF Lakenheath, the largest US military base in the UK. Ms Steele described this as “confronting … frustrating and distressing”. The procedures she found were “archaic and bizarre”. Think about what she experienced: the procedure was held before a military courtroom, and at points during her testimony fighter jets were taking off just a few hundred metres from where she was speaking. She described the experience as feeling as if she was in an alternative world.

In Ms Steele’s case the US court martial ultimately convicted the defendant of strangling an intimate partner but acquitted him of the sexual assault charge. He received a sentence of six months in a corrections facility, and the conviction was subject to automatic appeal. You might have views about that—I certainly do—but that is not directly what this amendment is about.

As the noble Baroness said, this is one case on which we have a great deal of detail. I will not go through the others she has already outlined. But I will just mention one of the cases in which the victim recounted that the court martial process took two years, she was forced to drop out of a midwifery degree as a result, and she had to give evidence in the same room as the man she had accused, without the protections that victims would normally have in a UK court.

What is the current legal position here? How have we got to this point? My understanding is that the NATO Status of Forces Agreement provides a framework for determining which country has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. Where the offence is punishable under the laws of both countries, the sending state has the primary right in certain specified circumstances. These include where the offence is solely against the security or property of the sending state, where it is solely against another member of the force or their civilian component or dependant, or where it arises out of an act done in performance of official duty.

However, where an alleged sexual offence is committed against a civilian who has no connection with the visiting force, and the alleged offence does not arise out of an act done in the performance of official duty, the receiving state, i.e. the UK, has the primary right and jurisdiction. So, the question is not about that; the question is who decides that the UK does not use that jurisdiction, which is where this amendment comes in.

In the UK, we have no process for how the decision should be made, what criteria should apply or what role the victim should have; nor, according to the Centre for Military Justice, is there an equivalent statutory framework governing the transfer of jurisdiction to a foreign military justice system. I want to highlight that we have recognised within our own justice arrangements that decisions about serious sexual offences require appropriate safeguards. Where there is a question of whether a serious offence should be dealt with by a civilian or service justice within the UK, there is now a protocol between the DPP and the Director of Service Prosecutions. It provides for senior level consideration of jurisdiction in rape and sexual assault cases, ordinarily treats offences against civilians as matters for the civilian courts, and provides for the victim’s views to be sought. But there is no equivalent safeguard where a foreign military person is involved.

This amendment fixes that situation. It adds a new Section 3A to the Visiting Forces Act 1952, which would create a clear presumption that where a member of the visiting forces is accused of a qualifying sexual offence against someone with no connection to that force, the case should be investigated by UK police and heard in a UK court. It provides for exceptions—though I find it hard to imagine where there would be exceptions, but that is the way the law works. It also provides what specific matters the prosecutor should consider:

“The gravity of the alleged offence … the connection of the alleged victim and of the offence with the United Kingdom … the capacity of the sending country’s arrangements”—


that is particularly important, given what we have heard about all of this—

“including its treatment of victims … any matters relied on in support of a request for a waiver, and … any representations … made … by the alleged victim”.

Furthermore,

“the decision and the reasons for it”

would have to be recorded

“in writing and, so far as reasonably practicable”,

notified to the victim. It would make a huge difference to all the cases we have been talking about tonight, and it would mean that a person who has already taken the difficult step of reporting an alleged sexual offence would not have to adjust to a justice system they never expected to encounter.

Here, I will put a direct question to the Minister. In the current arrangements, there is an exception to question of duty offences. I hope the Minister agrees with me that a qualifying sexual offence would never be capable of being characterised as arising out of and in the course of official military duty. This and the previous Government have had a very good record of addressing issues of sexual violence in conflict, and it is important that that is made clear, perhaps in writing if not now.

I have another question for the Minister. As a starting point, surely the argument has been made, but do the Government accept that there is currently a gap in the process for deciding whether the United Kingdom should relinquish its primary jurisdiction in serious sexual offence cases involving visiting forces?

This amendment is ultimately about confidence in our justice system and the public’s trust in having visiting military forces on our soil. In closing, I stress that this is not an issue I will allow to slip lightly. We owe it to all the victims we have already heard from—and others we do not know about, but who almost certainly exist—that this be dealt with in the Bill. This is clearly the Bill to deal with this situation now that it has come to light. We will discuss the details and the ways in which we might combine the amendments in this group, or look at how they fit in detail, but something has to be done about this utterly unacceptable current situation.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I do not think I need to wind up from these Benches. My noble friend Lady Brinton has said everything that needs to be said.

21:45

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling these amendments. This group gives us an opportunity to discuss a complex but very important area of the law. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I wish him a very speedy recovery. He is a nice guy.

The Visiting Forces Act 1952 establishes the legal framework that governs the relationship between the United Kingdom and those states that send members of their armed forces to our territory. The issue sits at the very intersection of national sovereignty, the rights of victims and this country’s long-standing alliance relationships. It is right that this House probes how this balance is struck.

I turn first to Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It would require publication, in unredacted form, of any part of a visiting force’s agreement touching on jurisdiction, together with the reasoning behind it. I merely observe that a statutory duty to publish in unredacted form is a very blunt instrument to apply to what are, in many cases, live diplomatic and security arrangements with partner nations. It may be useful if the Minister could explain what mechanisms already exist for Parliament to scrutinise these matters without compelling wholesale publication.

Regardless of the amendment’s fate, I hope the Minister will take away from this debate that, whatever one’s view on publication, in any case where a jurisdictional dispute arises between the United Kingdom and a sending state it must be beyond doubt exactly how that dispute is to be resolved, who takes the decision and on what criteria. Ambiguity at that point serves no one.

On Amendment 55, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is right to press the Government on how such cases are handled. Where I part company with her is on the question of necessity, because the outcome she seeks already exists in law. The Visiting Forces Act 1952 does not hand jurisdiction wholesale to sending states. Section 3 of the Act states that the sending state’s military authorities have the primary right of jurisdiction only where the offence arises out of official duty, is against another member of the visiting force or corresponding civilian component, or is against property belonging to the force, its members or dependants. In any case where a member of a visiting force commits a criminal offence against a dependent British citizen, the jurisdiction lies with British authorities. Thus, such an offence would be investigated by the territorial police force for the area and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the case would be heard in a British court. This is the case for all offences, however serious, including sexual offences. This position is unambiguously clarified in the Crown Prosecution Service’s published guidance.

Furthermore, where the NATO status of forces agreement is also engaged the position is, if anything, even stronger. The CPS guidance notes that, taken together with the 1951 NATO agreement, this produces dual jurisdiction in any case where the victim is a dependant who is either a UK national or habitually resident here. A dependant, rather than a fellow service member, is precisely the category of victim that I believe the noble Baroness’s amendment is designed to protect.

Where cases have an international dimension going wider than the visiting forces framework—as, for example, in dealings with the United States—the mechanism for resolving concurrent jurisdiction is also already in place. The guidance governing such cases between our two countries commits prosecutors to weighing each case on its individual merits, guided throughout by a commitment to fairness and objectivity.

I will not detain the Committee further on the remaining amendment in this group concerning the list of countries in Section 1(1)(a) of the 1952 Act, save to say that I believe that the United States is counted as a visiting force. The Visiting Forces (Designation) Order 1954 exercises the power in Section 1(2) of the 1952 Act to designate Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Norway and the United States of America as visiting forces. The US is also covered under the NATO SOFA. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm whether this interpretation is correct.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Bennett, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for their important contributions on an incredibly important area of law, in relation to which a number of matters have been raised, recently and not so recently, that cause us all concern. For legal reasons, I will read verbatim the information I have before me; this is such an important area, and I do not want to be misquoted as that would not help the various people we wish to see being helped. Noble Lords will notice that when I get towards the end of my remarks, I will make one or two important comments that I hope will offer some, if not total, reassurance to your Lordships and to those who read our proceedings about how we are trying to move forward.

The legal framework governing the allocation of jurisdiction between the UK and a visiting force is set out in UK domestic law through Section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952, with further reference to Section 12. This framework applies both to states that are party to the NATO status of forces agreement and to non-NATO states that have bilateral arrangements with the UK and are designated under Section 1 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952. In all such cases, visiting forces remain subject to the provisions of the Act. Any other agreements or arrangements are modelled on the provisions of the NATO status of forces agreement and reflect the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act 1952. The Visiting Forces Act is already publicly available and the principles within it are applied by UK prosecuting authorities on a case-by-case basis when questions of jurisdiction occur. I hope that provides some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her views on the Bill and acknowledge her concerns, and those of others, about the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and why the United States is not explicitly referenced as being subject to the legislation. I reassure her and others that the United States is already included as subject to the Visiting Forces Act by virtue of Section (1)(1)(b). This specifically explains that, along with the countries individually named in Section 1(1)(a), a country will be subject to the Act’s provisions if it is designated by Order in Council. The United States, along with Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Norway, were included in the Visiting Forces (Designation) Order 1954, Statutory Instrument 634/1954, and so fall under the Visiting Forces Act 1952.

On Amendment 55, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Brinton, for their views on the Bill and acknowledge their interest in the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and the proposal to restrict and regulate how requests for transferring jurisdiction are determined in cases involving qualifying sexual offences. I begin by reassuring them that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that alleged sexual offences perpetrated by visiting forces are treated with the utmost seriousness and that jurisdiction for such cases is decided in accordance with the extant legislation.

I am aware of recent cases highlighted in the media, most notably the case concerning US airman Jacob Wulfson, which raised concerns regarding the extent to which the right decisions regarding jurisdiction for prosecution had been made. Section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 already sets out the limited circumstances in which jurisdictions should be transferred from the UK to a visiting force. The decisions on whether or not to do so are made independently by the relevant police force or the Crown Prosecution Service in response to any request from a visiting force. The Government are committed to identifying and applying the lessons arising from the issues raised in these cases. This includes the application and operation of jurisdictional arrangements under the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and how these are implemented across the criminal justice system.

In particular, I welcome the action taken by the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, who has written to all chief constables in England and Wales to remind forces of their responsibilities under the Visiting Forces Act 1952. I understand that the National Police Chiefs’ Council is also considering whether further formal guidance for police forces is required to reinforce the principles of the existing legislation.

As I said, I am deeply concerned by the reports of how jurisdiction was handled in the Wulfson case. Victims of such serious offences need to be supported, and their cases treated with the seriousness, dignity and compassion that they deserve. This includes ensuring that jurisdiction for alleged offences is only ceded to a visiting force where absolutely appropriate under UK law and the Crown Prosecution Service’s guidance. I have directed my officials to work with the Home Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and any other government departments as required to ensure that the Ministry of Defence is assisting in that outcome. I hope that provides some assurance to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Bennett, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. I have no doubt that these discussions will continue, but we understand the seriousness of the topics that have been raised and the need for us to consider how we can deal with this.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I wonder if I could ask a brief question, because it is relevant to my response to the Minister’s contribution. Is there currently an agreement between the UK and the USA, as is described in the Visiting Forces Act and referred to elsewhere? Other countries have it. Is there already such an agreement about protocols for the sort of case we have been discussing this evening, along with other details that are not relevant? I will leave my question at that.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am concerned about misinforming your Lordships on legal matters. When I take legal advice, I will write as to the correct answer to that. I will copy in other Members of your Lordships’ House and place a copy in the Library.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I understand if the Minister will want to write in answer to this question as well. He referred to the National Police Chiefs’ Council considering further formal guidance and writing to forces. What will that be based on? What is the legal basis of this? Where is it coming from? Surely, it is a matter for Parliament and not just for the police chiefs to work out the way forward. Where is the framework coming from?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am not sure if I totally understand what the noble Baroness means. I thought it was a pretty important step that the National Police Chiefs’ Council was taking in looking at whether the current guidance was appropriate or further guidance was needed to ensure that some of the issues that have arisen and some of the concerns that have been rightly expressed were avoided in the future. That is the normal practice of the National Police Chiefs’ Council on a whole range of very difficult issues. It reflects on the law and the guidance with respect to the law when considering whether any of its guidance needs to be changed or adapted. That is my understanding of the guidance to be issued to the various police forces: it is to ensure that questions of jurisdiction are properly answered within the context of the law as it stands.

22:00

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who spoke in this debate. Earlier, I should also have thanked the Centre for Military Justice, the Guardian and the women I spoke to. I was glad to hear the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Unsurprisingly, we agree almost entirely on the problems. I also agree with her that we will not let this go, whether it goes beyond the passage of this Bill or not. I am grateful too, to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his comments. I am particularly pleased that he agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and me that it is clear that sexual attacks on UK soil are not part of Section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act, where the exceptions might be. That is extremely helpful and I am very grateful to him.

I particularly want to thank the Minister for his extremely well-constructed and considered speech. What is really important is that we find a solution. I agree with the Minister that there is provision in the Visiting Forces Act, so his exposition of that was really important. Our problem, as a Parliament, is that we need to resolve the problem that the victims faced. That is why I am very grateful for his comments about the Police Chiefs’ Council and the guidance it is looking at offering. The one organisation that does not seemed to have a role in any of this at the moment is the CPS. It clearly needs to, as there are issues other than taking the statement of the victim, making sure they seek medical help, and all the other issues I outlined in that specific case. There is also the question of charging levels, which would then affect what happens and whether there might be a reason why the case should be considered elsewhere.

I will conclude, because these were only probing amendments on my behalf and that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I wonder whether it would be helpful to have a meeting between Committee and Report with the Minister, somebody from the Home Office who can talk about the policing side and the Police Chiefs’ Council, and somebody from the CPS. What both the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I are trying to achieve is a formal framework that means that one police force cannot do something different from another, and that, as the decision goes up the CPS, the more serious it gets, it should not necessarily stand with a junior prosecutor at the CPS in a particular area. That is how it becomes easy to say, “Yes, okay, take over this case because it will decrease our workload”. That is clearly the argument the US Air Force at Lakenheath were using. On that basis, and given the hour and the number of groups we still have to go through, I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 53 withdrawn.

Amendments 54 and 55 not moved.

Clauses 43 to 46 agreed.

Schedule 7 agreed.

Clause 47 agreed.

Clause 48: Protection of military remains

Amendment 55A

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

55A: Clause 48, page 68, line 15, at end insert—
“(8) After section 230(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (salvage claims against the Crown and Crown rights of salvage and regulation thereof) insert—“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to any vessel, including Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels, cargo or equipment which has sunk or been stranded while in military service.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends section 230 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, so that subsection (1) does not apply to military or Royal Auxiliary Fleet vessels.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 55A stands in my name. It is rather a late amendment, and this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for inadvertently gazumping his amendment on Clause 48 standing part of the Bill. I look forward to hearing his contribution on that in a moment. I read with interest his comments on that issue at Second Reading, and I am glad to have the chance to take part in this debate on that issue as well, since I do believe that Clause 48 should be in this Bill.

At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, mentioned the “Gloucester”—not HMS “Gloucester”, for she was built and launched in that dark period of our history when we temporarily cast aside the monarchy. The “Gloucester” was lost off the Norfolk coast on 6 May 1682. On board, and thankfully not lost with her, were James, Duke of York, who went on to become King James II, and John Churchill, who went on to become the first Duke of Marlborough. As the noble Lord rightly said, had they been lost, the course of not just British but global history would have been changed. Such is the power of our maritime heritage.

I had a solemn and more recent reminder of this over the Summer Recess, when I had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands with the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. I found it profoundly moving to see the buoy in San Carlos Water, which marks the resting place of HMS “Antelope”, one of the Royal Navy warships that was lost in that conflict—along with HMS “Ardent”, HMS “Coventry” and HMS “Sheffield”, as well as RFA “Sir Galahad”, SS “Atlantic Conveyor” and the landing craft Foxtrot 4.

The Falklands War and those who gave their lives in waging it were among the spurs for the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, which Clause 48 seeks to amend. I support the ways in which it proposes to do so. While the 1986 Act gave immediate and automatic protection to wrecked aircraft, it requires wrecked ships to be individually designated in order for them to be protected. This means that shipwrecks remain vulnerable to disturbance, souvenir hunting, salvage activity or archaeological interference before formal designation has occurred. That process requires secondary legislation. Noble Lords across the Committee know how long it can take to obtain legislative slots. Indeed, it took 16 years—until 2002—for the first designations under the 1986 Act to come into force. Those who have been lost at sea in the service of our nation should not have to wait for secondary legislation to deliver the protection that they deserve.

Clause 48 also seeks to remove the restrictive time constraints which apply to protected places and controlled sites—broadly since the First World War for the former or within 200 years for the latter—to ensure that historic military shipwrecks from before these rather arbitrary cut-off points can also be protected. There should be no temporal limit to our gratitude to those who have died to preserve the freedoms that we enjoy today.

Clause 48 will not change the system which has been well understood by responsible divers for many years. Diving in protected places will continue to be permitted on a “look but don’t touch” basis and diving in a controlled site will continue to require a licence. However, the changes in Clause 48 will help to deter unauthorised salvage, damage to our shared underwater heritage and the desecration of the final resting places of brave service personnel.

I hope, therefore, that Clause 48 will remain part of the Bill—also because I seek to amend it. My Amendment 55A seeks to add to Clause 48 and clarify a worrying confusion in the law which pertains to military shipwrecks. The UK has long asserted that sunken state vessels enjoy protection through the principle of sovereign immunity. This means that they cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of another state. Crucially, the ships cannot have salvage services conferred on them without the permission of His Majesty’s Government.

As a proud seafaring nation with a history as long as ours, the UK has a considerable number of sunken state vessels—currently estimated to be over 5,000—lying at the bottom of seas and oceans across the globe. The principle of sovereign immunity is used to protect these vessels, their heritage significance and the last known resting place of the sailors who went down with them. Without the principle of sovereign immunity, our underwater cultural heritage would be extremely vulnerable to salvage, since consent to salvage sunken vessels is not required in law except in very limited circumstances.

It ought to be as simple as that, but it may not be. The Crown Proceedings Act first muddied the waters in 1947, modifying the application of sovereign immunity to His Majesty’s vessels by stating that the civil law of salvage would apply to them. In effect, this removed the protection of sovereign immunity from sunken state vessels. This provision was subsequently restated in Section 230(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which brought the 1989 International Convention on Salvage into force in the United Kingdom.

In the decades since, the Ministry of Defence has taken the view that Section 231 of the Merchant Shipping Act applies only in UK territorial waters—out to 12 nautical miles—and that sunken state wrecks beyond our territorial waters remain protected under the principle of sovereign immunity from unauthorised salvage. That is certainly the interpretation reflected in the most recent guidance published in 2014 by the MoD and DCMS. Although it pre-dated my time as Heritage Minister, that was the guidance in place when I served at DCMS in the last Parliament.

Since then, I have been alerted by the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee to legal research conducted by academics at Plymouth University’s law school, which suggests that this interpretation may not be correct. Their finding is that the effect of Section 230(1) of the 1995 Act is to remove the protection of sovereign immunity from all state vessels wherever they are located, leaving sunken ships from the Royal Navy and other state vessels vulnerable to salvage without the permission of the United Kingdom.

The academics who conducted that research are naturally concerned to have reached that conclusion, but they are convinced of it and very keen that action should be taken to remedy it. Even if their conclusions are debatable, as points of law often are, I hope the Minister will agree that this is not the sort of matter where there ought to be any doubt or scope for unseemly legal disputes.

The remedy I have suggested in Amendment 55A is not the perfect one—I am limited somewhat by the scope of the Bill—but I ask the Minister whether he will look into this matter carefully, consider the legal research that has been conducted and see whether there is the possibility of using the Bill to put the matter entirely beyond doubt. I would certainly be very glad to discuss this further with him, in concert with the legal experts who have looked at this in greater detail. I beg to move.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

I oppose Clause 48 standing part of the Bill. There are two issues here. One relates to the wrecks that contain military remains; the other relates to diving activities related to those wrecks, which the Bill will describe as protected places. My contention is that insufficient detail has been provided in relation to the nature and definition of the wrecks themselves, and that there has been a lack of consultation with the diving community, whose hitherto legitimate activities could be constrained or rendered illegal by Clause 48 as it stands.

With regard to the wrecks themselves, which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, spoke about at length, there can be no issue with the principle that warships that contain the human remains of service men and women who lost their lives carrying out their naval duties should remain undisturbed, as is the case with aircraft or bodies recovered from battlefields. However, there is an issue about which wrecks qualify to be covered by Clause 48.

The Minister will be aware, from correspondence that he has received and which I have seen, that many believe there is considerable ambiguity on what is proposed to be covered under Clause 48 and what is not. Many believe the definition of “military service” is too vague. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, has proposed one alternative. There are many other alternatives, one such being, “A commissioned military vessel or vessel under direct Admiralty command at the time of loss”. My point is that there are several definitions that could apply and that the “military service” definition is too vague.

Fortunately, time precludes a detailed scrutiny of the concerns raised, but my request on this aspect is that further consideration is given to the ships to be covered by this clause and that clarification is provided, ideally by Report—or, indeed, that this clause does not stand part of the Bill pending further consideration and fresh legislation proposed on another occasion.

With regard to diving activities in and around designated wrecks, I declare an interest as chair of the Gloucester 1682 Trust, although I am not a diver myself. The Minister knows, as do the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, as former Ministers, that I have been raising the issue of the wreck of the “Gloucester”, lost off Norfolk on 6 May 1682, for several years. I will not detain the Committee now with the otherwise fascinating story of the “Gloucester”—the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred to it and its history is now a matter of interesting public record—but it has drawn me into an understanding of diving and the problems that Clause 48, as drafted, creates for the hobby diving community, which has tens of thousands of participants in this country. I touched on some of those issues at Second Reading.

I will try to be brief. The diving community has a number of concerns. Among the issues is that the prohibition on the use of grapnels, anchors or shots should be removed, as their use is essential on health and safety grounds to protect scuba divers, particularly in the uncertain waters of the North Sea. The grounds for rejection of this objection pose a situation which, in practice, does not really exist. The damage that could be caused by such grapnels and anchors is absolutely minimal and not going to be of a major nature as the Bill rather suggests.

22:15

Another issue is around the entering of a wreck. There needs to be a sensible definition of what access is legal and what is not. Overproscription will not stop diving but it will make illegal diving of some nature, which would render the diver’s insurance useless and therefore place divers at further risk.

The third thing is with regard to artefacts. A complete prohibition on removing anything will undermine the current system of reporting finds to the Receiver of Wreck and will probably not stop removals, as this cannot be policed. It is better that fixtures are left intact but that loose items can be recovered rather than being lost to the currents and sea.

I submit that Clause 48 raises many issues on which there has been insufficient consultation. The implications for the diving community are significant. I believe that it should be withdrawn pending further consultation with the communities concerned.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, we have had two fascinating speeches from noble Lords who have considerable expertise and interest in the questions of military remains. I will be interested in the Minister’s responses, particularly to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, that further work be done on this clause. Again, as with the previous group of amendments, it would be helpful to know what consultation His Majesty’s Government have undertaken on the implications of the clause for divers.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am probably about to provide a less fascinating speech. I endorse everything said by my noble friend Lord Parkinson and, as such, I am pleased to support his amendment. Clause 48 will automatically expand the protection provided by the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 to every vessel lost in military service, rather than requiring each one to go through a separate designation order. That is a welcome and overdue reform.

However, the issue that my noble friend has raised, while related, pertains to a slightly different problem. The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 currently applies the ordinary civil law of salvage to His Majesty’s ships in much the same way as it would to a vessel in private ownership, subject only to a narrow procedural safeguard on how any claim may be brought. In practice, that treats the wreck of a Royal Navy vessel, which very often will be the final resting place of Royal Navy sailors, as well as the property of the Crown, as though it were, to be honest, fair game for private salvage.

Amendment 55A is an attempt to rectify that situation by restoring the principle of sovereign immunity and aligning the law on salvage with the spirit of what I think Clause 48 is trying to achieve. In setting out the case for his amendments, my noble friend has referenced a group of academics who have highlighted this issue with the application of civil salvage law in relation to Section 230(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. I would also be grateful to the Minister if he could confirm the Ministry of Defence’s interpretation of that position.

The Government may very well believe there to be no problem and the Minister may not agree with the interpretation of the law by the academics mentioned by my noble friend but, whether or not the Government agree, is not the key issue that the law can even be questioned in the first place? The fact that there exists sufficient legal ambiguity to allow academics to come to this view means that there is a risk of people attempting to salvage and recover military wrecks, believing that they are allowed to do so. I hope that the Government will agree to meet my noble friend and those others who are concerned so that the legal position can be clarified.

The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, proposes to remove the clause entirely. I remember with pleasure our extensive exchanges on the “Gloucester”, but I most respectfully do not entirely agree with that proposal. It is my interpretation that divers will remain free to visit sites on the same “Look but don’t touch” basis that already applies to protected places. I remember numerous letters as a Minister in that context. What becomes unlawful is the disturbance, damage or entry into enclosed parts of a wreck without Ministry of Defence authorisation. I believe that the intention is to prevent poor behaviour by the minority who treat these sites as a source of souvenirs, which is not the ordinary conduct of responsible divers. We have a duty to prevent the desecration of the final resting places of all our war dead. They gave their lives and service to our nation. That is the least they deserve. If these measures can prevent such desecration by unlicensed diving, I suggest that they deserve our support.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I will start with Amendment 55A from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I thank him for bringing that forward in relation to salvage claims against military and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels via the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which is the principal piece of primary legislation in the UK that governs maritime law, ship registration and safety standards. We will investigate the noble Lord’s concerns and comments about Section 230(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 before Report and come back with appropriate comments with respect to that. I hope that that is a reassurance to him about all the various comments he helpfully made for your Lordships’ House.

Moving to Clause 48 and the debate on that, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for his views on the Bill and acknowledge his concerns about Clause 48 and the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. Clause 48 of the Bill addresses the existing disparity between the protection of military aircraft and vessels under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. The 1986 Act secures the protection from unauthorised interference of the remains of military aircraft and vessels that have crashed, sunk or been stranded, and of associated human remains, making it an offence to enter or interfere with a military wreck site without an authorised licence.

The Act provides for two types of protection: protected places and controlled sites, as designated through a statutory instrument in tranches. To date, a total of 129 wrecked vessels have been designated in eight tranches, the last coming into force on 30 March 2026. However, the Act does not currently allow designation of a vessel that was sunk or stranded on or before 4 August 1914 as a protected place, or designation of a site as a controlled site if over 200 years have elapsed since the crash, sinking or stranding of the vessel or aircraft. As a result of these time limits, older military shipwrecks lack protection. For example, the “Gloucester”, which sank in 1682, carrying the future James II and with a loss of around 200 lives, which I know from our discussions and correspondence is of particular interest to the noble Lord, is currently unprotected.

Clause 48 amends Section 1 of the 1986 Act so that all military shipwrecks which are the last resting places of serving personnel are automatically designated as protected places. This ensures alignment with the protection already afforded to military aircraft. The clause also removes the restrictive time constraints that apply to both protected places and controlled sites, ensuring that the nation’s historic military shipwrecks, which are currently excluded from inclusion by virtue of the time limits specified, can be protected. By providing automatic protection to all military shipwrecks, the MoD will enable a significant improvement in the way our maritime military graves and underwater cultural heritage are protected.

Significant advances in underwater technology and technical diving are leading to more of our military wrecks being discovered. That is good news, of course, but it also requires us to do all we can to protect them. The noble Baroness alluded to the reasons why we are doing this; those advances in technology are one of them. We need to do all we can to protect them once they have been discovered and identified in order to prevent them being disturbed or damaged and to prevent interference with military remains.

The recent discovery of HMS “Tiger” off the Isle of Wight is a prime example of why the amendments are being sought—again, this goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. HMS “Tiger” was discovered 118 years after she collided with HMS “Berwick” during a training exercise and was cut clean in two. Currently, she can be designated only as a controlled site simply due to the fact that she sank in 1908, effectively restricting access to divers. Through the changes in the Bill, HMS “Tiger” will become a protected place, permitting non-intrusive activities such as diving without a licence. It is important that we protect UK military shipwrecks in UK territorial waters and international waters. I hope that there is no doubt that our intention is to do all we can to offer better protection in order to prevent the unauthorised desecration of these historically important sites, which are often the last resting places of our serving personnel.

I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that many of the provisions already contained in the current Act will remain. Clause 48 simply seeks to strengthen it. Diving in protected places will continue to be permitted—again, to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—on a “look but don’t touch” basis, while a licence will still be required to dive on a controlled site. Giving all military wrecks “protected place” status will help deter unauthorised salvage and the desecration of the wrecks of military remains of service personnel; where appropriate, it will enable the MoD to prosecute those who flout the law in this respect.

I assure the Committee that there are already provisions in the Act to permit diving on UK military shipwrecks in UK territorial and international waters. However, to assist divers in navigating their way around the changes proposed, the MoD will be updating and publishing its policies on underwater cultural heritage, should the Bill be passed. I also assure the Committee—it may have been the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who asked about this—that the MoD, in consultation with the British Sub-Aqua Club, which is the UK governing body for sub-aqua diving, has produced a set of questions and answers designed to inform its members and the diving community of the proposed changes, which were published on 2 September 2026.

With those necessary reassurances, I hope that the Committee will see the need for Clause 48 and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. As he rightly says, the technology and its increased availability to many more people is the reason why the broader changes that the Government are seeking to make through the Bill are so timely and needed.

On my Amendment 55A, I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to investigate the position in detail before Report. I understand why, before that investigation takes place, he does not want to say any more about it now, but I reiterate my offer to speak to him further if I can be of assistance or put him in touch with those who have conducted the research that led me to table this amendment. If, as he mentioned at the end, his department and DCMS are going to update their guidance documents in the light of it, that will be necessary so that there can be absolute legal certainty for those who wish to dive and enjoy the investigations and the sport that they do, but also for those, including divers, who care deeply about the sanctity of these sites and their heritage significance.

With gratitude, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 55A withdrawn.

Clause 48 agreed.

Clauses 49 and 50 agreed.

22:30

Amendment 56

Moved by

[Lord Craig of Radley]

56: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or children of serving or discharged members of the armed forces(1) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/330) are amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 (applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom), in 9.18 of table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications)—(a) after (b), insert— “(c) in a case where the application is made by a person who is a spouse or child of a member or previously serving member of the armed forces who has served for four or more years”(b) in the closing words, leave out “and (b)” and insert “, (b), and (c)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 56, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for adding his name in support of it. I also thank the Royal British Legion for its guidance in drafting this amendment.

Amendment 56 proposes amending the nationality fees regulations of 2018 to waive fees for certain Armed Forces veterans who have been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Noble Lords may be interested to learn that the terms of my amendment featured in all three major party manifestos for the 2024 election. Let me quote them briefly. Labour said:

“We will … scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years, and their dependents”.


The Conservatives said:

“We will extend the visa fees waiver introduced to cover Commonwealth personnel, to include their direct dependants”.


The Liberal Democrats said that they would:

“Secure a fair deal for the armed forces community … by … Waiving application fees for indefinite leave for members of the armed forces on discharge, and their families”.


Nothing has happened since except that, in response to follow-up Written Questions last year, a Home Office Minister said this on 13 March:

“We continue to keep this policy under review in the context of our wider considerations of various aspects of the immigration system”.


The Ministry of Defence responded a week later, saying that it was

“actively working with the Home Office to take this forward”.

In short, prevarications apart, nothing has happened. To have a reply saying:

“We continue to keep this policy under review in … our wider considerations of various aspects of the immigration system”


is surely classic Sir Humphrey-speak. The Home Office should be ashamed of itself.

The immigration system must be under constant study, not a one-off difficulty. What wider considerations are implied? The Government have recently been priding themselves on their reduction in illegal arrivals of over 40% and an increase in repatriations. There seems to be no crisis or wider aspect so great that the Government cannot immediately introduce this universally manifesto-promised arrangement.

Families of service personnel who have qualified for indefinite leave to remain are faced with visa fees that were £155 in 2003 but have risen to no less than £3,226 per person as of 8 April—a staggering increase. So a spouse, their partner and two children applying for ILR now have to find almost £13,000, on top of their fares and relocation costs, to move to the UK. This is no way to treat veterans and their families.

Such prevarication and inertia does not seem to be even related to the present Government. For more than 10 years, I and others pressed the Home Office to grant ILR to members of the Armed Forces who had been recruited and served in Hong Kong. All were members of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps. Repeated Home Office answers were varied ways of saying, “It is under active consideration”, or, “A decision will be made as soon as possible”. I once christened this Home Office foot-dragging as repetitive inactivity syndrome. The Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans had to wait over a decade for their approval.

Of course the Home Office faces pressures over immigration arrangements, but it flies in the face of the Government’s commitment to the Armed Forces covenant and to treating veterans fairly to have not yet honoured their manifesto pledge. It has cross-party support. Will the Minister take this back and quickly resolve it with the Home Office? I beg to move.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 56 from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, which would waive fees for indefinite leave to remain applications for spouses and immediate family members of serving personnel and veterans. I have tabled Amendment 66, which seeks to achieve the same outcome through a slightly different route: by requiring the Government to bring forward secondary legislation within a specified timeframe. My amendment is designed to address some of the concerns raised by Ministers in the other place around specific approaches and wording.

Frankly, I do not mind what legislative approach is taken provided the issue is resolved. I do not need to add to the noble and gallant Lord’s exposition of the issue, but I say to the Minister that, typically, the Immigration Rules are changed twice yearly, with the next set expected in October. Can he provide greater clarity on the Government’s timetable for action? Can he reassure military families that this commitment—by all three major parties—will finally be delivered in the forthcoming changes this autumn?

I turn to Amendment 57 in my name and that of the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lord Harlech, to whom I am grateful for their support. At the heart of this is how we support military families, but it is also about military capability. The strategic defence review identified a workforce crisis. When our Armed Forces depend so heavily on experience and invest so much in their personnel, retention matters as much as recruitment. That is why I welcome the many provisions in the Bill designed to strengthen service life. Amendment 57 proposes a relatively small change, but one that could make a meaningful difference to military families and retention.

The recently published Tri-Service Families Continuous Attitude Survey underlines the reality for families. Some 78% of service families have children, and one in five have children who are under two years old, yet a quarter of service families live apart during the working week, rising to almost 40% in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. Nearly three in 10 families experienced separation of three months or more during the past year.

At present, serving fathers receive two weeks of paternity leave at full pay. However, for military families, returning to work after two weeks is not a return to a normal commute; it means returning to a posting many hours away, or to months of separation. That is why this issue matters so deeply to those who serve. One serving soldier told the Dad Shift:

“Being posted 4 hours away from my child when she was born was tough, only having 2 weeks to bond before I was back to being 200 miles away with limited time to travel back and see her was tough and has definitely caused irreparable damage to our relationship, ultimately leading to the collapse of my relationship with her mother too”.


These challenges are reflected further in the Tri-Service Families Continuous Attitude Survey: 52% of spouses disagree that they feel valued by the service, 34% say they would feel happier if their partner left the military, while 44% have at some time in the past year encouraged their partner to leave.

The factors driving dissatisfaction are revealing. The impact on careers, the amount of separation from spouses and the effect on children are the top three reasons. Improving paternity leave is not a silver bullet, but the evidence consistently shows that it supports maternal employment, strengthens family relationships and improves outcomes for children. At a time when retention is a strategic issue, we should take seriously reforms that strengthen the family life of those who serve. The experiences of serving personnel illustrate why. One RAF officer recalled:

“Both children saw us remain in hospital with our newborn for 3-4 days due to challenges with feeding and jaundice ... With only two weeks available, time spent dealing with complications or hospital stays can consume a significant proportion of the leave itself”.


The Minister may point to shared parental leave or the possibility of additional compassionate leave as options to resolve this. However, service families often describe those options as difficult to access and inconsistently applied. One army officer reported:

“I pushed and took Shared Parental Leave but I had to threaten a Service Complaint to do so with my work at the time”.


He added that if the process was difficult for a senior officer, it would likely be much harder for more junior personnel. Likewise, a RAF corporal told the Dad Shift:

“I’ve had my paternity leave handled three different ways for my three children; it does come down to that reoccurring line manager lottery issue unfortunately”.


That inconsistency in itself is part of the problem. Families should not have to rely on confidence, rank or managerial discretion to receive adequate support at such a significant moment in their lives. Soldiers, sailors and aviators should not have to worry about explaining to their commanding officer that their wife and baby are struggling with breastfeeding and need more support, or that their wife’s stitches are infected, or that they are worried that she might be suffering from postnatal depression but cannot even be sure because they are not home enough to tell.

Of course, the impact of leave on operational readiness must be taken into account. Unlike maternity leave, paternity leave is not exempt from the provision in JSP 760 that

“the granting and timing of all forms of absence … is to be at the discretion of the Service and is subject to operational requirements and the general exigencies of the service”.

Nothing in my amendment changes this.

The sacrifices made by those serving in our Armed Forces are shared by their families. When a child is born, those pressures are felt even more acutely. Two weeks of paternity leave is increasingly out of step with the realities of modern family life, the practices of leading employers, and the approach taken by many of our closest allies, with Australia offering eight weeks of paid paternity leave and the United States offering 12 weeks to its military personnel. When Congress extended that entitlement, bipartisan supporters from both Houses described it as a matter of military readiness and national security.

I hope, therefore, in responding to this group, that the Minister will recognise not only the family case for reform but the strategic one. Supporting military families at the moment they need it most is the right thing to do, but it would also be an investment in retention, morale and the long-term strength of our Armed Forces.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and to attach my name to Amendment 57, which would provide for six weeks of fully paid paternity leave for servicepeople. The Committee will see that this is perhaps not the broadest alliance across the political spectrum that you might find, but it is certainly up there in the spread that you will typically see in your Lordships’ House.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, has powerfully outlined, the arguments for the amendment, which I will not repeat, are twofold. First, it is about the welfare of children. It is about children being able to establish a proper relationship and foundation for family life—something that will be with them through their lives. It is also, of course, a big issue for retention and recruitment of servicepeople, so it is an issue for the effectiveness of our Armed Forces.

At Second Reading, I addressed this issue with a number of quotes from the survey. I will just add one here. Think about what two weeks is like. This is an RAF officer from the Dad Shift survey:

“Both children saw us remain in hospital with our newborn for 3-4 days due to challenges with feeding and jaundice … even low-level complications might result in the first week of paternity leave being spent in hospital”.


Those are not circumstances in which, for one week, you will establish a stable relationship—they are extremely stressful, extremely difficult, extremely unnatural circumstances. Then maybe you will have one week or no weeks after that. I know that the Minister said at Second Reading that there is a broader government review of paternity leave, but I do not think, given that we have this Bill before us, that there is any need or any argument for waiting. Action can be taken—and clearly needs to be taken—now.

Amendment 67 in this group is in my name. It is a fairly simple amendment which would put into the Bill that the Government must establish a concessionary travel scheme for veterans’ bus travel. The amendment does not specify the exact detail of what concessionary bus travel might be provided, how it might be set out or what level it might be set at; that is clearly the sort of thing that is appropriate for a statutory instrument. If we think about the situation of veterans, some may qualify for concessionary travel because they are older or because they have a qualifying disability, but what about the veteran at the age of 30, 40 or 50 who has no qualifying disability but who returns to the UK, perhaps after many years of service, not having a stable base here in the UK?

22:45

We know that a significant number of veterans have real difficulty establishing themselves and finding a stable place within civilian life. Being able to afford bus travel might mean being able to get to work, attend training, access services, get an appointment, visit family or just remain connected in the community. This would potentially be a meaningful part of the support we could provide for veterans making the transition back into civilian life. Some might say, “This is too difficult, too complicated”. Well, we have concessionary bus travel schemes operating right across the UK at a very significant scale. In England alone, there were 8.9 million older and disabled concessionary travel passes in the year to March 2025. Those passholders made 624 million concessionary bus journeys in the year. The Government reimbursed bus operators £795 million for those journeys. Of course, the scale we are talking about here would be a tiny fraction of that, but these systems already exist; there is no need to create new systems.

We know that these schemes work in other parts of the UK. I have previously noted with great pride in your Lordships’ House the fact of free bus travel for the under-22s in Scotland. That has been a hugely popular and successful scheme, so the question is not whether the Government can administer a concessionary travel scheme, but who should be entitled to benefit from one. This is a small, modest measure that could really help our veterans and our communities.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly in support of the amendment in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and that in the name of my noble friend Lady Penn. The shared aim of these amendments is to improve morale among our Armed Forces and, as we have heard, to improve recruitment, but also, crucially, to improve retention, which has really suffered over a long period.

It is important to recognise that service personnel understand that operational need will come first. When they sign up, when they swear that oath, they accept that there will be times when they will be away on a deployment. They will miss birthdays, christenings, weddings—it comes with the territory. They might not always like it, but they accept it. What this gets at is not having that parental time in the crucial early stages of a new life when you are not at home, when you are on base. That is the difference, and we should be doing something to bring ourselves in line—I remember saying this earlier today—with our Five Eyes counterparts. I think there is a trend here, across the different groups and amendments, whereby we are way behind what the rest of our allies are doing in these categories. With that, I will sit down.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has held His Majesty’s Governments, of whichever complexion, to account over the years, particularly, as he mentioned earlier, over the rights of the Hong Kong military. He rightly reminds us that all the main parties gave commitments to waive fees for the families of service veterans who served with our Armed Forces. Will the Minister commit to look into this? My suspicion is that when he was on the Opposition Benches, he would have been speaking quite loudly in favour of reducing the fees; it is clearly something we should be doing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, eloquently explained the importance of extending paternity leave and the reasons for that. I will not go any further. There is no need to rehearse that at this time of night, other than to express the views of these Benches in support of the proposals and to ask His Majesty’s Government to think carefully about the importance of extending paternity leave, especially for reasons of retention.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 56, tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and supported by my noble friend Lord Harlech. I am pleased to be able to say that we on these Benches support this amendment. We have already waived the fees for indefinite leave to remain for Commonwealth citizens who have served in our Armed Forces, in recognition of the sacrifice for our nation that that service represents. It is difficult to see any principled basis for stopping short of extending that same waiver to their spouses and children. These are, after all, the families who have supported that service, often at real personal cost to themselves. As has already been said, extending fee waivers of this kind to service families was a manifesto commitment at the last election made by my party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. Given that shared commitment, I hope the Minister will explain today why it has not yet been implemented, and when the Government intend to act.

I now turn to Amendment 57, in the name of my noble friend Baroness Penn among others. I hope she will understand why, unfortunately, I am not able to support this. The current scheme already provides two weeks of paid paternity leave with the ability to agree further paid leave on a unit-by-unit basis where circumstances allow. We believe that flexibility matters. Operational necessity varies enormously from unit to unit and deployment to deployment. Decisions about what additional leave is achievable are, in our view, best worked out between the individual serviceman and his commanding officer. It is that commanding officer who understands the operational picture on the ground best.

I am aware of the obvious drawback to this policy of flexibility—that it will create unequal and disparate outcomes. Some units may be more generous than others. However, I think that that is an unfortunate fact of life, and is eminently preferable to a centrally set period, fixed in statute at six weeks regardless of circumstance and operational necessity. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to both amendments.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, given the hour, let me deal with this head on. I shall start with Amendment 56, tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. The Government, the Opposition and all of us, it seems to me, are committed to scrapping visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four years or more and their dependants, building on the existing fee waiver in place. Home Office and Ministry of Defence Ministers are working closely together to deliver this commitment in a way that is fair, comprehensive and achievable. I understand that the noble and gallant Lord will have heard that language before. He asked me to have an urgent conversation with the Home Office to see what progress has been made, and I will certainly do that. That is the important commitment to make. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, asked for that as well, so let me follow that up, and I will certainly talk to the Home Office. Those there, too, will have heard the well-constructed speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asking when this will happen—and it is about time it did. I hope that, with that reassurance, he can see the importance of putting amendments at Committee stage.

I turn to the powerful speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, on her Amendment 57 and the various points that she so eloquently made about childcare, family life, parental leave and all those various topics. She will know that there is a government review going on around parental leave, pay and many other issues. The review is considering costs, benefits and potential reforms across the system as a whole and principally covers civilian parental leave and pay entitlements. The MoD will consider the outcome of that review and its applicability to the Armed Forces. It would be premature to prescribe a specific six-week model for the Armed Forces, for example, before the wider review concludes. But the review is expected to conclude in early 2027, which may be of interest to the noble Baroness, so that might start to give us some reassurance about where we are going to with regard to the various points she has raised.

These are extremely important points that need to be heard. But as well as being heard, they need to be acted upon. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that her continued tabling of these amendments and continued challenges to the system to ask what more is going to be done to ensure that people get the entitlements that are needed are important. She will know that when it comes to paternity leave for all eligible personnel within the Armed Forces, there are the concerns about its impact on operational effectiveness. But surely, as we move forward, there ought to be a way of matching the desire for better family arrangements with maintaining the operational effectiveness and particular needs of the Armed Forces. We have to find a way of better balancing all those demands that she quite rightly made through her amendment, and I will certainly do that within the department as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised an important point through her Amendment 67, that is continually made, about the need for subsidised travel for veterans. A number of years ago, there were very few concessions, but gradually, concession after concession was made, quite rightly, with respect to children, family tickets and all those sorts of things. We need to see what more we can do with respect to our Armed Forces and whether there are additional concessions that can be made which will be of benefit to them, to reflect the service they have given. For example, in London there is a veterans Oyster photocard, which entitles people to free travel on a range of transport services, including buses. That demonstrates to us that progress can be made, whether on transport, various family entitlements or the point made by the noble and gallant Lord on the fee waiver for leave to remain. Even to my own Government, I sometimes say, “Can we get a move on?”

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, very briefly, the Minister answering my question in such a positive way is very encouraging. It certainly made my day—or perhaps I should say it has made my night. I also thank the noble Baronesses and the two noble Lords who spoke in favour of my amendment, which I thoroughly accept as very supportive.

Amendment 56 withdrawn.

Amendment 57 not moved.

Amendment 58

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

58: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights(1) The Human Rights Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) For section 7A (limitation: overseas forces proceedings) substitute—“7A No proceedings for overseas operations(1) No proceedings may be brought under section 7(1)(a) in respect of any overseas operations by His Majesty’s forces.(2) “Overseas operations” means any operations outside the British Islands, including peacekeeping operations and operations for dealing with terrorism, civil unrest or serious public disorder, in the course of which members of His Majesty's forces come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance.(3) “His Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).(4) A member of the regular or reserve forces who has been deployed on an overseas operation under this Act may not be subject to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of that deployment.”(3) After section 14 (derogations), insert—“14A Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must authorise for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1) of the Convention.(2) In this section “overseas operations” has the same meaning as in section 7A.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to make provision for the members of the regular or reserve forces who have been deployed under this Act to be exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights for that period of deployment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, there may be some among your Lordships who looked at this amendment in my name and had a flash of déjà vu. That is because, of course, we have in some manner been here before, except that I was the one facing a grilling from noble Lords, rather than the Minister.

During the passage of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, this House voiced its strong opposition to what was Clause 12 of the Bill, which stated that where the Secretary of State considers an overseas operation to be significant, they must keep under consideration the appropriateness of making a derogation under Article 15(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

23:00

There were many prescient points and much legal analysis made in our deliberations in Committee on that clause. After those debates, I informed the House that the Government had agreed to accept the amendment to remove the clause. The amendment I am moving today bears some resemblance to the clause which the Government at that time agreed to remove, but it goes much further. In that regard, I believe I have taken the sting out of one of the more damning lines of criticism which troubled the last attempt—which was the argument that the clause was simply unnecessary because Article 15 already permits member states to derogate from certain convention rights in time of war or public emergency threatening the life of the nation. However, that is on the basis of “could” or “may”.

The difference with my amendment today is that it places a duty on the Secretary of State to derogate from the ECHR where our Armed Forces are engaged in a significant overseas operation; in other words, we have moved from a “may” to a “must”. This, of course, does not alter that fact that the United Kingdom could make a derogation under Article 15 regardless. I submit that, for the sake of our Armed Forces, we have to move from “could” to “must”.

As a former lawyer, I have always had sympathy for law which protects individuals in the pursuit of their legitimate activities, particularly when they are confronted with the might of the state. I am in no doubt that the architects of the ECHR were driven by honourable and noble motives because these rights and freedoms are very important. What was not anticipated was that, increasingly, the ECHR would obtain a status which challenged the right of sovereign states to conduct their affairs as democratically elected Governments might determine and that vital national activities, such as the operation of our military forces in a conflict situation, would come within the reach of the ECHR—hence the emergence of the term “lawfare”.

I have concluded, particularly as a former Defence Minister, that this evolution of the ECHR in this manner is undesirable, unworkable and unsafe for our national security. Whatever the former merits of the ECHR, even its most ardent advocates accept the need for reform. Indeed, I understand that the new Attorney-General has reportedly updated legal risk guidance to government, softening the approach counselled by her predecessor. If the Minister is able to share more information with us about this, I think the Chamber would be very interested to hear his comments.

The second aspect of my amendment would insert a new Section 7A into the Human Rights Act 1998 to prevent proceedings from being brought under that Act in respect of any overseas operations by His Majesty’s forces. Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause would also exempt members of the Armed Forces from the convention for the period of their deployment.

I should be clear that my amendment is something of a compromise because, as has been said, the preferred position on these Benches would be to leave the ECHR altogether. This is not a debate for tonight and is clearly not in scope of this Bill. It is not going to happen until we have a change of Government. Given that, I believe that my amendment is the only solution to prevent a potential calamitous wrong that demands to be put right. I am, of course, talking about the appalling vexatious legal claims, based largely on creative interpretations of human rights law, made against our veterans and serving soldiers. Such claims have led to brave members of our Armed Forces being sued by lawyers, hounded by journalists and hauled through the courts. In many cases, the torment lasted for years.

All this has happened despite the fact that the Human Rights Act and the convention were not originally intended to apply to operations outside a state’s own territory. During our debates on Clause 12 in 2021, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, whom I am very pleased to see in his place, gave a detailed history of how we got to a position where the convention was held to apply extra-territorially as a result of the Al-Skeini ruling in 2011. In my view, that was a decision which has warped the application of the convention to such a degree that it has permitted the deployment of the convention to launch wholly unjustified attacks on our troops serving in conflicts.

The reason this is so serious is twofold. First, the lawfare directed at our Armed Forces over the past decade has had a serious impact on morale, recruitment and retention. We know that the SAS raised concerns about recruitment as a result of this Government’s—I am sorry to say—shameful decision to restart prosecutions of the Troubles veterans. Further high-profile prosecutions and civil proceedings relating to more recent conflicts have exacerbated the problems.

Secondly, we live in a world where the Secretary-General of NATO is warning that we face the prospect of a major conflict with Russia by 2030. If that does indeed happen, we cannot go into such a conflict with our hands tied behind our backs. Russia is not a party to the ECHR, and we have seen how ruthlessly it prosecutes its wars. To be clear, I am absolutely not arguing that we should match Russian brutality, particularly given the appalling reports of the widespread use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and the barbaric treatment of civilians. However, this is not a binary situation with clearly delineated and neatly drawn lines of what constitutes right and wrong. Those who argue that it is black and white would have us believe that either you are in the ECHR and abide by it even during times of war or you act like the Russians have in Ukraine. I reject that binary classification entirely, for between these two positions there exists a huge grey area. I am arguing that, if we have any hope of fighting on a level footing in any future war, we cannot have the possibility of lawfare hanging over the heads of our soldiers.

I appreciate that we will not reach a point of agreement on this issue tonight, but can the Minister at least tell me how the Government plan to prevent human rights law being weaponised against British troops in any potential future conflict? How will the Government give them the certainty that they will be able to do their jobs in an environment of conflict requiring immediate decisions, often of potential lethality, without fear of years of ensuing harassment and investigation? The present situation is unsatisfactory. The ECHR is jeopardising our war-fighting capability and security. I beg to move.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I think we generally agree that our country needs our Armed Forces, including the reserves and the cadets, more than ever. We need to encourage people to join, and we need to look after them when they do. We ask them to risk their lives on our behalf. If we do that, we should ensure that they have the appropriate legal protection.

There used to be a common-law principle of so-called combat immunity. That meant that the courts did not get involved in measuring the responsibility for what occurs in the heat of battle. Aggression that may, with the benefit of hindsight, be seen to be excessive should not be analysed, many years later, in the studied calm of a courtroom, with lawyers employing slippery words such as “proportionality”. This is to say nothing of so-called blue-on-blue or friendly-fire incidents, which are inevitable from time to time.

I would not want to give our Armed Forces a free pass legally; they would not want one. The law of armed conflict is necessary and well established. The Geneva conventions and the accumulation of international conventions and treaties are generally described as international humanitarian law, which is generally respected. What worries me, as it does the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is the ECHR and its incorporation into our law by the Human Rights Act 1998. It has brought the law into places where it has no business.

The Strasbourg jurisdiction in this area has become exorbitant. It has held, for example, as the noble Baroness said, that the European—yes, European—Convention on Human Rights applies to theatres of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Reference was made to Al-Skeini. There is also a case called Al-Jedda. These cases brought about, among other things, the persecution of our troops by lawyers such as Phil Shiner, a lawyer eventually imprisoned for his deeds but not without causing immense damage expense before his imprisonment. The causation, I fear, is clearly established by the decisions of human rights lawyers to rely on the convention in an inappropriate way.

The rights embodied in the convention are in themselves wholly unexceptionable, but the living instrument approach has meant that judges have approached its application in what might be described as an open-textured way, resulting in real uncertainty as to what our troops are entitled to do legally. Article 2, on the right to life, has, for example, been held to justify a claim against the Ministry of Defence in connection with the supply of Land Rovers: it is the case of Smith v Ministry of Defence.

For some time now, the think tank Policy Exchange has focused on the so-called problems of lawfare. Tom Tugendhat MP, now shadow Foreign Secretary, wrote a paper some time ago, entitled The Fog of Law. It remarked on all these facets, which are causing such a difficulty for our troops.

We have now reached a position where our troops are embarrassed in front of allies, and we are accused by our allies of legal freeloading when lawyers try to explain our legal position. Lawyers are conservative in the advice that they give, if not in their politics. The result is that our troops are vulnerable to legal attack, and their leaders may well become inappropriately circumspect in their approach, in the light of the legal advice that they receive.

The amendment attempts to give our reserves and all our troops proper protection from the incursions of the ECHR. I ask the Minister, for whom we all have great respect, to explain whether the Government consider that the current state of the law is justifiable and whether it is truly in the interests of our servicemen and servicewomen or, indeed, in the public interest.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for their introduction to the amendment and for explaining it in detail. I am not a lawyer, so forgive me for not being able to respond to some of the cases that the noble Lord raised. From these Benches, we have complete sympathy with the principles of sorting out this lawfare issue, because it is clearly a problem.

Having listened particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, our concern is whether, under the terms of Article 15 of the ECHR, even this level of derogation is permissible. She quoted from paragraph 1 of Article 15 but not from paragraph 2, which says:

“No derogation from Article 2”—


the right to life—

“except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7”—

torture, slavery and retrospective criminal penalties—

“shall be made under this provision”.

That paragraph means that it is not possible for the UK to derogate.

I just wondered whether, when the noble Baroness was Minister, there were any discussions with the Council of Europe on this issue, rather than a particular court case. We cannot be the only country affected. It may be that it is particularly bad in the UK. I understand that—not just from Article 15 of the ECHR itself, but from the Government’s independent review of the Human Rights Act in 2021, which referred to the progress of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, referred to. It is explained that the amendment was withdrawn partly because of the very strong feelings in your Lordships’ House. It referred specifically to this point in Article 15 of the ECHR, and the then Government decided that they could not continue with the amendment. Having asked the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the question, which is perhaps slightly unfair because she is no longer a Minister, I ask the Minister whether any further discussions have been had with the Council of Europe on this problem. As we know, the ECHR is a living document, and if there are issues it is quite probable that the members would agree to some changes—perhaps expanding the level of articles that can be covered by a derogation.

23:15

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for introducing her amendments, and acknowledge the points she has made. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his contribution to the debate. I say to him that clearly—not only in the context of this Bill but also within a whole range of other Bills, debates and topics—many of the cases that he mentions will be raised. There will be a more extensive debate on a whole range of those issues, and we need them to be discussed.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the Council of Europe, the debate about the ECHR goes on continuously. Whether anyone has raised the specifics of this amendment with it, I am simply unaware.

The ECHR provides for legally enforceable rights within the jurisdiction of the state. In some circumstances, that jurisdiction can extend beyond the territory of the state—namely, extraterritorial jurisdiction. Extraterritorial jurisdiction does not apply uniformly in relation to the various ECHR obligations, and the position has evolved over time through the case law of the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I understand the concerns about how extraterritorial jurisdiction of the ECHR has been interpreted, but I want to make this very important point, which gets to the heart of why this amendment should not be made. Amending the Human Rights Act directly does not change the UK’s international law obligations under the ECHR, to which this Government wish to adhere.

For instance, new Section 7A seeks to restrict the territorial extent of the Human Rights Act in relation to overseas operations. However, Article 13 of the ECHR requires the UK to provide an effective domestic remedy for anyone with an arguable claim that their convention rights have been violated. In other words, if the extraterritorial application of the Human Rights Act is removed, the UK will still need to ensure that there is a domestic remedy in respect of arguable ECHR breaches occurring in an overseas operation. Additionally, the existence of a domestic remedy separate from that provided for by the Human Rights Act would not prevent the European Court of Human Rights hearing a case where an applicant had exhausted that domestic remedy.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. He is right up to a point, in the sense that it is true that, provided we remain a member of the European convention, there is potentially a remedy if there is considered to be a breach of the convention right, at Strasbourg. But we chose, in 1996, to incorporate the convention in our domestic law. What this amendment is doing—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, may correct me if I am wrong—is amending our domestic law to restrict the remedy. Of course, ultimately, it might be possible to go to Strasbourg to pursue a remedy, but what this is concerned with doing is limiting the possibility of anybody relying on a statute passed by this Government—that is, the Human Rights Act—and seeking a remedy in our courts relying on that.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand the point, very well made, by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—but that is the debate we are having. The argument the Government put forward is that the disapplication of the Human Rights Act does not prevent the application of the ECHR. That is the point that is being made, and that is the point of difference between us.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

May I simply say this one thing? Until we had the Human Rights Act, we were a member of the European convention. We did not initially even have the right to go to Strasbourg. We then allowed those who wanted to bring an action to go to the Strasbourg court, but it was completely unnecessary. It was thought by the then Government—the Labour Government in fact—to incorporate the convention. So, this is considerably diluting the right, and it is an important difference. The Government may say that we need this right incorporated into our law in the United Kingdom, and that is a different point. If the Minister is simply saying yes, we are a member of the convention, and there is always a right to go to Strasbourg, then I agree with that. But that is not quite what the amendment is focusing on.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Government would make both points; I am just speaking to the amendment. If I was not responding to the amendment but putting the whole point around the Human Rights Act and the ECHR, I would say that the Government are proud to have the Human Rights Act, which a Labour Government passed, and the consequent ability to go to the ECHR. However, I am speaking to the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has moved. In doing so, we see that the disapplication of the Human Rights Act does not work as the noble Baroness wants because you can still go to the ECHR. That is the point that I am making.

For example, before derogating, an assessment must be made of whether the circumstances amount to a

“war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation”;

whether derogation is necessary; which convention obligations require limitation, noting that some rights are absolute and cannot be departed from; and whether any measures adopted are

“strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”.

These assessments are inherently context specific. By seeking to make derogation mandatory whenever an overseas operation is deemed significant, the amendment risks replacing the individualised assessment that is required by Article 15 with a blanket statutory presumption of derogation. On the basis of this, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I promise the Minister that this is the last intervention that I will make. It is to deal with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Her understanding was that the Government cannot derogate. I understand the Minister’s answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that we want to consider the position and whether it is appropriate. However, from what I understand from the Minister, it is accepted that the Government have the right to derogate but they do not want it to be mandatory for it to be exercised in overseas operations because it will be context specific. Is that the position?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

In all the time that I have been in this House, that is the first time that I have not understood what the noble Lord means. I have said what I have said and I will leave it there.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I will give it one more go; it is probably my lack of clarity. Do the Government have the right to derogate at all? That was the issue that was being raised; maybe I have misunderstood it. The Minister’s understandable answer is that the Government have the right to derogate but do not feel that this ought to be automatic because they need to consider the circumstances to decide whether it is appropriate to derogate.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Government can make the laws and derogate should they wish to do so. I have pointed out the inconsistency of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gouldie, which would require us to derogate from the Human Rights Act but would not achieve her objective because it still leaves us liable to the ECHR, which would allow people to pursue it in that way.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I think that the Minister understands fully what it is like to be grilled at the Dispatch Box in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their contributions. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his elucidation of the legal aspects of this. It is complex. There are interwoven components. I was following his interrogation of the Minister with a rather selfish interest as the Minister nobly endeavoured to respond. I am intrigued by what is emerging. I gleaned from the contributions that there is a subject here that merits debate. The conundrum is that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has articulated what the problem is, particularly for our troops in conflict. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said that there is a problem; there is. The Minister himself conceded that this whole issue needs a more extensive debate.

Herein lies the conundrum. We all, I think, now recognise it as a problem and acknowledge that, however we have arrived this situation, the combined effect of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act is creating a challenge for our troops in conflict, which, in 2026, is a much more foreseeable prospect than perhaps it was even five years ago. I am encouraged that there seems to be a willingness to engage in this debate. This is a serious matter; I suggest to the Minister that it is not one about which either his department or his colleagues can remain passive or inert.

I am very grateful to all who have contributed, and I appreciate the Minister’s response. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 58 withdrawn.

Amendment 59

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

59: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Impersonation of service police(1) Section 90 of the Police Act 1996 (impersonation, etc.) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “force” insert “including service police”.(3) In subsection (2), after “force” insert “including service police”.(4) In subsection (3), after “force” insert “including service police”.(5) In subsection (4), at end insert—“(c) “service police” has the same meaning as in section 375 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (definitions relating to the service police and other police forces).””Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment seeks to amend section 90 of the Police Act 1996 to make impersonating a service police officer a specific offence and afford service police the same protections against impersonation given to their civilian counterparts.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 59, I will also speak to Amendment 60 in my name; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for their support. I declare an interest as the father of a soldier.

The amendments that I am proposing aim to give the same protections to service police in the conduct of their duties as those afforded to their civilian counterparts. Amendment 59 would include service police in the offence of impersonating a police officer in the Police Act 1996. Amendment 60 would give service police the status of “emergency worker” within the meaning in the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. Both amendments are structured to amend the existing civilian criminal legislation, rather than to create additional service offences. The purpose of this is to ensure that these protections apply to both military and civilian offenders.

Service police operate both behind the wire and on the streets of Britain, where they respond to incidents involving both the military and civilians. They police high-profile events such as significant military funerals, large-scale ceremonial occasions and, for example, the Edinburgh Military Tattoo, as well as Friday nights in garrison towns, when things can get quite lively. They do not have a choice as to what incidents they come across on their patrol and must be prepared to act, including using lawful force, to prevent crime and harm to others, no matter who is involved. This inevitably puts service police at risk of being assaulted when on duty.

Few service police officers know colleagues, if not themselves, who have not been assaulted while on duty. Currently, if a member of the service police is assaulted on duty, there are none of the enhanced sentencing powers afforded through the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which would be used if a civilian police officer had a similar assault. Service police are asked to face similar risks as civilian police and other emergency workers, yet they are not protected in the same way. That strikes me as unjust.

Amendment 60 would add service police to the definition of “emergency worker”. The adoption of this amendment would act as a deterrent against assaulting service police, and, where assaults do occur, would give enhanced sentencing powers to deal with offenders to the same standard as if the assault were against a civilian police officer.

Similarly, Amendment 59 aims to give service police protection against impersonation by both military personnel and civilians. At present, it is not a specific offence to impersonate a service police officer. Service personnel who do so are currently prosecuted under the military offence of “conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline”, while there is no equivalent legislation to deal with civilians who impersonate service police officers.

For both military and civilian offenders, this is a gap in legislation that could allow—and does allow—for the abuse of service police powers by impersonation without appropriate consequences. In recent years, offenders have avoided prosecution due to this gap in legislation, which I believe needs to be closed through an amendment to the civilian criminal legislation in the Police Act 1996, rather than through additional service offences. I beg to move.

23:30

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate, to which I have appended my name. As the right reverend Prelate rightly pointed out, there are disparities in the provisions for service police versus civilian police, which seems wholly wrong. For the reason of expediting business this evening, I do not propose to speak any longer other than to say that we on these Benches wholly support these amendments.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, have signed both of the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich because I believe that they have identified two important gaps in the law.

Section 90 of the Police Act 1996 creates the offence of impersonating

“a member of a police force or special constable”.

The Act is concerned with civilian police forces in England and Wales established under it and related legislation. The definition of “special constable” is limited to one appointed for a police area. Members of the service police forces are not members of the territorial police force and are not special constables; they are members of the service police under the Armed Forces Act 2006. As a result, the person pretending to be a service police officer would not obviously fall under the wording

“members of a police force or special constable”

in Section 90. I believe that this is clearly an omission and needs to be rectified.

On Amendment 60, I believe that I am correct in saying that the definition in Section 3 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 could include service police officers. Subsection 1(b) states that

“a person (other than a constable) who has the powers of a constable or is otherwise employed for police purposes or is engaged to provide services for police purposes”

is included within that definition. Service police officers are clearly engaged to provide services for police purposes; it might be useful for the Minister to confirm whether that is the Government’s position.

However, more importantly, that Act applies only to England and Wales, not to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Scotland has a corresponding law: the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, which creates specific offences of assaulting, obstructing or hindering emergency workers and those assisting them. The protected categories include constables, fire and ambulance personnel, and, in certain circumstances, prison officers, coastguard personnel, RNLI crews, social workers executing child protection orders and mental health officers. Like the English and Welsh equivalent, the Scottish Act does not expressly mention service police officers. However, service police can sometimes be treated as constables when exercising powers conferred by service law or civilian legislation. Whether the 2005 Act applies to a particular service police officer will depend on the precise capacity in which they were acting at the time, thus the position regarding service police is not clear.

Northern Ireland does not have a direct equivalent of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 that creates a single overarching offence of assaulting emergency workers. Instead, it has a mixture of general assault offences and occupation-specific offences. A member of the Royal Military Police, Royal Navy Police or Royal Air Force Police would not automatically fall under any general “emergency worker” definition in Northern Ireland because there is no equivalent statutory definition. The problem here is that the service police work across the United Kingdom, so the differential treatment under the law of the different jurisdictions causes confusion and uncertainty.

This, coupled with the fact that service police officers are not expressly covered by the relevant treaties of legislation, means that service police are not treated as equivalent to civilian police. I think that this requires some thought from the Government; I welcome an opinion on these matters from the Minister.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and I particularly thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I have had a number of conversations with him about this outside the Chamber. I have asked my officials to look at his Amendment 59, with respect to the impersonation of a member of the service police, and at Amendment 60, which would add service police to the list of emergency workers regarding assault. I will take those forward but to be clear, I cannot promise what the outcome will be. I personally think there is a problem with these two issues, and I look forward to continuing the discussion with him to see whether we can come forward with something at Report to plug what appear to be two gaps in the legislation.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her brevity at this late hour when many of us want to be tucked up in bed. It was worth staying up to hear the analysis of the noble Earl, Lord Minto. That was particularly helpful regarding the different jurisdictions around these islands, especially the potential for amending laws in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am immensely grateful to the Minister for all his hard work on this Bill and for giving the commitment that he has to your Lordships’ House to look at this in further detail. My understanding is that the Service Protection Authority has given legal advice that it does not believe that service police fall under the definition of emergency workers. That is all part of the conversation to go on as this Bill progresses towards Report. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

Amendment 60 not moved.

Amendment 61

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

61: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the processes for recruitment and retention across His Majesty’s forces.(2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider—(a) the efficiency and consistency of recruitment processes across the Royal Navy, the regular army, the Royal Air Force and the reserve forces,(b) the effectiveness of steps being taken to improve diversity and inclusion within His Majesty’s forces,(c) the impact of the quality of defence housing (including single living accommodation) on the retention of service personnel, and(d) the impact of the medical discharge process on retention and transition to civilian life.(3) A report of the review must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Government to commission an independent review into recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces and lay the report of the review before Parliament.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to the first three amendments in my name, which are in group 12: Amendments 61, 62 and 63. I am not going to do them justice at this time of night, because the first amendment is calling for an independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention and in order to do that justice, I need to rehearse the difficulties we have seen in Armed Forces recruitment. Capita was mentioned earlier in proceedings today. Issues of retention have also been raised.

Given the lateness of the hour and the hope that noble Lords, Hansard, doorkeepers and officials in the box will get home at some point in the wee small hours, I will simply express the view that it is important for His Majesty’s Government to have an independent review of recruitment and retention. Each time there is an SDR, we hear that we need to look at the size of our Armed Forces and the size of the reserves, yet there is very little clarity on the recruitment process and retention. We have heard proposals this evening from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about increasing paternity leave entitlement precisely as a way of enhancing retention. The country needs clarity on recruitment and retention. As Parliament, we need to be able to scrutinise the current provisions and perhaps give suggestions to His Majesty’s Government about ways in which we could be improving the system. I am raising that issue, but I am not going to go into any further detail this evening.

I hope that Amendment 62 will be seen as uncontroversial, even by someone sitting where the Minister is—even though it is an amendment. It suggests a duty to provide medical records on discharge, simply to ensure that anyone leaving the services is able to go straight away to register with their GP. In particular, if they have issues—perhaps they had a medical discharge or, even if not, they might be at risk of undiagnosed PTSD—then having those medical records will be crucial for them, and it seems only right that their record should be provided as soon as practicable.

Amendment 63 ought to be self-evident, although I realise that the Minister may feel that it is not purely an MoD matter but is perhaps more for the DWP. It would insert a clause introducing a personal independence payment assessment exemption for amputees. The logic is that it seems odd to keep requiring PIP assessments and reassessments when, if someone has had a limb amputated, that is not going to change between assessments. It may be that robotics or other medical innovations change someone’s capacity to work; but given that we are talking about someone who may have had a limb amputated as a result of their service, relieving them of PIP reassessments would appear to be a more appropriate way of acknowledging the reasons why they have lost the limb, while ensuring that we do not put them through unnecessary repeat medical assessments. I beg to move.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

I support Amendment 61 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, requiring an independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention. At this late hour, I will just say that, at a time when there are nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training, we cannot even recruit 10,000 a year, and our Armed Forces are well below the relatively tiny strength at which they are funded to be. This suggests that something is seriously wrong with the recruiting process, and the report needs to be done.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I shall briefly speak to Amendment 62. My noble friend raised the point about it being important for veterans to be able to have their details in their hands. The NHS guidance for veterans specifically notes that it takes several months for the full records to follow the veterans, and if veterans have complex health issues but no information, the GPs that they see are in deep trouble.

On amputees, importantly, unlike many amputees in the civilian world, most amputees in the military world also have a significant number of other injuries. There is already an issue about amputees in the civilian world having to have repeat PIP tests, but it seems sensible to look at this area.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

Briefly, my Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has raised some important issues in these amendments. Between 1999 and 2025 there were only seven years in which more people joined the regular forces than left them, and the strategic defence review was blunt enough to call the result a workforce crisis.

I might add one further point on retention. Retention in the Armed Forces will not be improved by prosecuting veterans who served in Northern Ireland fighting the IRA. My noble friend Lady Goldie has already mentioned the adverse impact that the Government’s policy is having. Retention will also surely be improved by delivering the investment in the forces housing that the Government have promised. These are two actions that the Government could take immediately to improve retention and recruitment: drop the widely despised Troubles Bill and deliver the housing investment now, rather than pushing the funding further back, as they have done in the defence investment plan.

I completely concur with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about medical records. That needs tidying up pretty quickly and would definitely help. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

23:45

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, let me just say this: none of us is going to do justice to the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has brought forward. She made a couple of important points, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I also need to respond in positively to some of what the noble Earl, Lord Minto, said; on other points, perhaps not. The important thing is that, to do this justice, I need to write a letter which looks at some of the issues raised on retention, at the transfer of health records and at the point that was made on PIP. They are important points and for me to say just two sentences on this and two sentences on that would be inadequate. With the Committee’s permission I will write a letter, copy it to Members of the Committee and place a copy in the Library. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed, particularly the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who cosigned Amendment 61, and my noble friend Lady Brinton. We look forward to the letter from the Minister and with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 61 withdrawn.

Amendments 62 and 63 not moved.

Amendment 64

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

64: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Reporting on the Defence Investment Plan(1) Every six months after the day on which this Act is passed for the duration of this Parliament, and every year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan. (2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would compel the Government to publish and lay before Parliament a regular report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan every six months during this Parliament, and annually thereafter.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, this very small group, unfortunately numbered group 13, is about the defence investment plan. In particular, it felt appropriate to bring forward amendments that had been laid in the other place by my honourable friends; I think it was James MacCleary who tabled them. Essentially, they suggest that Parliament has an interest in ensuring that we hold His Majesty’s Government accountable on the defence investment plan.

In particular, I noted that, in his earlier response to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, the Minister said that continued challenges are important. I suggest that Amendment 64 is by way of a continued challenge: that it would be beneficial to His Majesty’s Armed Forces and to the country to have a report on the defence investment plan. Clearly, this is not something where one needs the Minister to respond in any detail today, because we are calling for it to be six months after this Act has been passed. The key thing is that the defence investment plan took a long time. It is still unclear whether the funding will be forthcoming, so accountability and scrutiny seem appropriate.

The final amendment, Amendment 65, calls for a

“Report on the impact of Defence Investment Plan delays”.


The suggestion here, or the request, is that we have a report within six months of the Act being passed. Again, this is very much about accountability. The defence investment plan was hugely important; it was also significantly delayed. Even for the primes the delays have been significant, but for the smaller defence companies, particularly dual-use companies, there are significant questions about the impact of the delays. Therefore, we have specified clearly what we would want to see in a report.

I do not think I need to go into any more detail, other than to ask the Minister whether the Government might indeed provide the reports—in particular, the annual reports requested in Amendment 64, because earlier on the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out on another part of the Bill that there is no greater accountability than an annual report to Parliament. Please may we have one? I beg to move.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, is once again highlighting an issue that we have spent a significant amount of time debating in your Lordships’ House. The glaring hole in the funding of the DIP has to be addressed. The funding issues have not yet been resolved. Can the Minister please confirm that his former boss, now the Chancellor, will find the necessary funds in the upcoming Budget to fill that budgetary hole? Further, we have also recently heard that the Government will not set out the plan to hit 3% of GDP on defence spending until the spending review next year, so another six months of preparation will be lost—another six months of stasis. It is not acceptable. I hope that the Government rethink.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will finish with an upbeat message: I have never felt that I have lacked scrutiny on the defence investment plan or on accountability with respect to defence spending. I have answered numerous questions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. I have not felt at all that there has been a lack of scrutiny. That is as it should be, so I am perfectly happy to stand here. The amendments are completely unnecessary in terms of holding me and the Government to account. The noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and most Members of this House find it extraordinarily easy to bring me to this Dispatch Box to tell me how bad the Government are, and to get me to say how hard I am working to ensure that we deliver the defence that this country needs. These amendments are completely unnecessary; there is absolutely no need for them. At this late hour, that is my answer to the noble Baroness’s amendments.

I have a couple of serious points. On the annual report, in the DIP we have committed to an annual update to Parliament before the Summer Recess each year on progress against the DIP and any changes to financial investments. The first report, which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about, will be audited by the National Audit Office and published by July 2027. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Minto—I have a fresh burst of energy now—that, unlike when we were talking about the establishment of the national reserve forces and cadets associations, where the noble Earl did not take too much notice of what the National Audit Office said because it did not fit his argument, if the National Audit Office comes forward and says that the Government’s defence investment plan is not going according to plan and that what the Government are doing is an outrage, I bet that the noble Earl will quote that report at length. That is the nature of politics; I understand that. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the first annual report will be published by July 2027.

Finally, the Chancellor will lay out in the Autumn Budget how the remaining £4.7 billion announced in the DIP will be found. Noble Lords will also have heard the Chancellor say that further plans will be set out in the 2027 spending review. I will finish with this: I do not know why it is a surprise to everyone in this Committee that that was said, because, if they check Hansard, they will see that I have stood at this Dispatch Box and said exactly the same thing in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on a number of different occasions. With that, I hope the noble Baroness sees fit to withdraw her amendment. If not, she should bring it back on Report so that we can have another debate on defence spending.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his support in challenging His Majesty’s Government and to the Minister for his ever-ready presence to respond at the Dispatch Box. We may well come back to the impact of DIP delays, particularly in terms of supply chains, because there are some very significant issues there, but whether they are appropriate for an amendment to this particular Bill is another question. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 64 withdrawn.

Amendments 65 to 67 not moved.

Clauses 51 to 54 agreed.

Clause 55: Commencement and transitional provision

Amendments 68 to 70 not moved.

Clause 55 agreed.

Clause 56 agreed.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

House adjourned at 11.55 pm.