Armed Forces Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.