Lords Chamber

Monday 6th July 2026

(began 3 weeks, 1 day ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
-
-
cannot have British citizens being complicit in violations of international law and the purchase or investment in settlement, land and property would be complicity in the public gallery. Today, sitting the public gallery. Today, sitting there behind the bar, we have Justice Ted Mahon, who was the president of the Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal, and he's one of Crimes Tribunal, and he's one of the world's most distinguished international lawyers. He was himself a child survivor of the himself a child survivor of the Holocaust.

His grandparents and mother were taken out of a Polish ghetto and shot dead by the Nazis. His brother killed in the Treblinka concentration camp uprising, and Judge Meron became the chief lawyer in Israel's Foreign Office before becoming a judge. And in 1968 he advised the government of Israel. He advised the government of Israel to that the creation of settlements in the occupied territories would be contrary to international law then and now, and it is only the. If only the Israeli government had listened, and I listened to this, to this cabal shouting out what is happening is unlawful.

And we are seeing it, and we are seeing that it is becoming impossible for the Palestinians ever to have a state of their own because of the actions that are currently taking place. The question is this the UK banned the purchase of land by Russians in the occupied territories of Ukraine. Does the government have the political will to do the same in the West Bank and Gaza? Yeah.
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:57
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
As the noble Lord knows, for generations communities have lived side by side in the West Bank and side by side in the West Bank and throughout Israel. And that is the aspiration that we all share. I, I do not think that reducing this. The reason we haven't done this is because of pragmatic issues around implementation and how you enforce it, and what the good of it would be in the end. There is no point as embarking upon measures that actually turn us back and further away from peace and prolong this conflict any longer.

But I have to say, it's becoming increasingly difficult to hold back from some of the things that we're being encouraged to do because of the behaviour and the settler violence and the increased aggression that we see. And I know the noble Lord to be a man of integrity and of great care for his fellow human beings, whatever their faith. And I know that some of the things that will have been happening that he will be aware of will be distasteful to him as well as they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are to me. Although, as we move on to the third question, can I remind all third question, can I remind all noble Lords the question and answer should be short, sharp, succinct, to the point. That's what the House to the point. That's what the House wants. Please, all members, please adhere to that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adhere to that. Third Oral Question Lord Carlile of Berriew. Leave to ask this question. Standing on my name. In my name on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Order Paper. The IPP sentence is a stain on our justice system. I believe the
14:59
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
None Portrait Business of the House Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
-

My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Order Paper. >> The question is that this motion be agreed to as many as are of that opinion, say, content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, Legal Aid, Antisocial Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures Miscellaneous Amendments Order 2026.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Levitt. I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Order Paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to, as many of that be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. West Midlands Combined Authority Key Route Network Amendment Order 2026. Lord Hendy of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Richmond Hill. My Lords, I beg to move the motion. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to, as many of that be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Register of overseas have it. Register of overseas entities. Protection and trust and limited liability partnerships. Application of Company Law Application of Company Law Amendment Regulations 2026 Lord Leong.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Leong. My Lords, I beg to move the motion. Standing my name on the The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it Social Housing Bill order of consideration.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move the order of consideration. Motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order of consideration. Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The the contrary, not content. The contents have it, my Lords, I. I'll give a minute for the. For people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions Questions on Questions on a Questions on a statement Questions on a statement made Questions on a statement made in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Tuesday, the 30th of June, on National Maternity and Neonatal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

investigation. My Lords. Can I thank the Minister for
15:23
15:23
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-
compassion with which they have conducted this important investigation, but above all, our thoughts must be and are with the women, babies and families whose experiences lie. At the heart of this report, many have had to revisit the most painful moments of their lives when someone to simply move on. But after years of fighting must be heard. Their courage, dignity, determination and persistence place responsibility on all of us in this House, noble Lords, we owe it to them not simply to listen, but to ensure that their experience is finally lead to lasting change.

But only last week, the House considered Donna Ockenden's devastating findings in Nottingham. Here, Baroness Amos presents us with a wider national picture and once again we see the same troubling themes emerge women whose concerns were dismissed, staff who felt unable to speak up, inequalities that remained unchallenged, and organisations that fail to learn from previous mistakes. And, as Donna Ockenden herself observed, much of what is contained in this report is sadly already known to us and to governments of all political colours in previous years, and that is perhaps the most disturbing and sobering conclusion of all.

So the challenge before us is no longer one of evidence. We have had inquiry after inquiry, report after report and recommendation after recommendation. The challenge now is implementation, because families have every right to expect that this report will become the catalyst for sustained improvement across maternity and neonatal services. My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords welcome the fact that that work is beginning immediately in a number of critical areas, including maternity triage, tackling discrimination, strengthening staffing and addressing, addressing urgent estate risks.

And it is right that today's expectant mothers are given assurance and reassurance about what will change immediately, not only at the end of the year when the wider plan is due, but there are a few outstanding questions arising from the statement. So firstly, can the noble Lady, the Minister, update the House on the timetable for the leads in Sussex reviews, and how will the government ensure that concerns that have already been identified in those services are acted upon before these reviews conclude? Secondly, it is welcomed the Secretary of State will publish the new maternity triage standards next week.

But by when does the noble Lady, the Minister, expect every NHS trust to have implemented these standards and will the. Will Parliament receive regular updates on trust by trust progress so that families can see improvements are genuinely being delivered? Thirdly, the government proposes establishing a statutory maternity and neonatal Commissioner. So could the noble Lady, the Minister, explain what powers the Commissioner will have to hold trusts, regulators and national bodies to account, and how will local leaders themselves remain accountable for the safety of the services that they are supposed to oversee? My Lords, the additional midwifery posts announced today are also welcome.

But the noble Lady Baroness Amos report, like those before it identifies workforce pressures as a fundamental challenge to safe maternity care. So can I ask the Minister, is the government's intention to address this issue immediately, or will we have to wait for the long awaited workforce plan? And if the latter is a noble Lady, the Minister able to update the House on when it will be published and whether it will also specifically address maternity and neonatal services? I can understand, noble Lady, perhaps raising an eyebrow here, because the noble Lady Minister indeed did challenge me rightly and persistently when I was a Minister in her place.

And finally, since the report's publication, there have been concerns raised by doctor Bill Kirkhope about the removal of references to so-called normal birth ideology. From the final report and previous maternity inquiries have identified this as a contributory factor. Now, it would not be fair of me to ask for comment on the editorial process, but can the noble Lady, the Minister, reassure the House that all relevant evidence, including from Morecambe Bay, which found that midwives were pursuing normal birth at any cost, will be fully considered? And finally, my Lords, the Secretary of State is right.

That culture lies at the heart of this challenge. Now, while policy changes and restructures are often visible, it can often be more difficult to bring about cultural change. So where the government acts with urgency that this report demands, they will have our support. But women and families will judge today's statement not by new structures, new titles or another report. They will judge it by what happens when a woman says that something is wrong. Is she heard? Are warning signs acted upon its help from senior colleagues available when it is needed, our maternity units safely staffed and can staff speak up without fears? Do families receive honest and honesty and compassion when harm occurs? And above all, are fewer mothers and babies coming to harm? And are we going to reduce the number that will come to harm? My Lords families have told their stories.

The evidence is clear and we will support, but also, where appropriate, challenge the government and the NHS as they seek to bring about the much needed change. But a good start has been made by the noble Lords, but by the Minister in the other place, and we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hope that we will see further progress. Well said. My Lords, another week and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, another week and another traumatic and difficult to read. Report about the state of maternity services and behind it thousands and thousands of women and families deeply affected by and families deeply affected by these service failures. I'd like to thank them all for their contribution to this report. And contribution to this report. And Baroness Amos. Women not being listened to, heard or believed with serious consequences for safety and quality of care. Racism and discrimination embedded throughout the maternity and neonatal system.

Services. Not responsive to the changing profile of women giving birth and the increase in medical interventions during birth, antenatal birth and labour, neonatal and post-natal services just not joined up. From Somerset
15:30
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
to Blackpool, the safety of having a baby has become a lottery. Women silenced and staff who raised the silenced and staff who raised the alarm on unsafe care or systemic discrimination crushed by a culture discrimination crushed by a culture of fear. We need to see genuine accountability throughout the NHS and the investment needed to make and the investment needed to make Britain the safest country in the world to have a baby. I have a number of questions for the number of questions for the Minister.

I welcome the government's commitment to a national Maternity Commissioner. But can the Minister confirm that this post will be an independent expert and not a political appointee? Will the noble Lady, the Minister, reassure us that action will be taken before December, rather than waiting for the task force to report on its plans? And will the government guarantee safe staffing at all hours in every maternity ward in the country so that no woman has to give birth in an unsafe unit? But this inquiry has once again raised poor bereavement support across the NHS after pregnancy or baby loss.

The National Bereavement Care Pathway seeks to resolve this by ensuring high quality and consistent bereavement care across the UK. The trauma of baby death and pregnancy loss can last a lifetime. Parents memories of the care they received at that moment will stay with them forever. Good bereavement care can help parents and families navigate their bereavement journey, while poor care can just add to the trauma of loss and the first moments after a baby dies can be the only opportunity.

Parents have to make memories with their baby, and there is only one chance to get this right. After a baby dies, parents often face really tough decisions, and they can't make those informed decisions about their baby without clear and compassionate communication from healthcare professionals. I therefore ask the noble Lady, the Minister, Will the government roll out all five national bereavement care pathways, including for miscarriage, and actively monitor implementation across the health system? And will the government ensure that suitable bereavement rooms are available in all trusts? Not as a nice to have, but as part of dignified, trauma informed care? This would be a step change for so many families.

I think there is so much more I could say on this topic which has shocked us all, all families, wherever they live and whatever their ethnicity, must be supported to have their babies safely. This has clearly not been the case for too many years. This is the point where things must change, and I really look forward to the noble Lady. The minister's response.
15:32
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, we know and we can never. Acknowledge it enough that women, babies, families all across the country are being harmed, traumatised and let down by what is a broken system. And I'm grateful to both frontbenchers for their their way in which they have received this report, and also for their support and acknowledgement of the role that we have taken in government. I'd like to emphasise the noble Lady Baroness Pidgeon talked about trauma lasting a lifetime.

That is indeed the case, and certainly while I have met families, women who've been affected, that is the thing that stuck with me. That trauma never goes away. I also accept the correct challenge from the noble Lord Lord Cromwell, that the judgement will be on what has changed, not on what it is written. And we're very conscious of that, and I'm grateful for him reminding me of that. I'd just like to make a few comments before turning to the helpful questions I felt from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.

I also want to express my gratitude. First of all, to every woman, to every family and member of staff who came forward to give evidence to Baroness Amos and her team, that team and Baroness Amos in her role, heard from thousands of people who show great courage and determination to share their experiences. Painful though they were. And I also want to thank Baroness Amos and her team for conducting this investigation with immense sensitivity and care.

She diligently brought together evidence from families, staff, 12 local investigations and also all of the past reviews. And her review does show systemic, repeated failures by our maternity and neonatal system. And it's also given us the opportunity and the determination to break that cycle. I think it's also important. I know your Lordships House will agree that we should acknowledge the very positive role that so many staff, so many families have made in providing the care that is necessary.

I. I thought it was most helpful that some of our immediate actions were acknowledged, but I would also like to say that on top of those immediate actions, some of which have been mentioned today, we had ongoing actions. We have been tackling avoidable brain injuries and maternal deaths through dedicated programmes and packages. We'd already begun the expansion of Martha's rule to all maternity and neonatal units to give families and patients the right to request a second opinion where they are concerned.

We also have,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amongst other things, introduced to perinatal culture and leadership program that's important to develop. program that's important to develop. What is a safety culture? A learning and support culture for learning and support culture for leaders across the leadership, across all units, and an early across all units, and an early system to better identify safety concerns. And importantly, I think concerns. And importantly, I think because continuity of care is something that's been highlighted a lot, £10 million of recurrent funding provided to Icbs for this very purpose, particularly providing midwifery continuity of care for those women who live in the most deprived neighbourhoods and who are at risk of poor outcomes.

But let me turn to some of the questions. I will do my best to refer to them. The noble Lord, Lord Carmel, asked about the timeline for Leeds and Sussex. I can say that Donna Ockenden, who will be chairing those, is currently engaging with the families about terms of reference and that will include timelines. And I should say we won't be waiting for the publication of the findings to make changes as they emerge. Those issues will be shared with us so that we can act.

The question from Lord noble Lord, Lord Carmel about the implementation of a new maternity triage statements that will be by June 2027. There must be clear board oversight in place about the operation of the triage system, including regular reviews of waiting times and actions to improve the necessary services. The maternity commission. Their role and remit is being urgently considered by the National Maternity and Neonatal Task Force, and the commissioner will co-chair the task force, which will drive all of the change, as well as setting out the change on workforce pressures.

We're not waiting. There is £10.6 million investment funding in an additional 1000 temporary roles to help newly qualified midwives to join the NHS. I think that's extremely important and so we're not waiting for the ten year workforce plan, but the task force will take into consideration wider work, including the ten year workforce plan, with regard to concerns raised by Bill Kirkup about what's referred to as normal birth ideology, women have to be able to make the right decision about what is safest and what is best for them.

No woman should ever feel pushed into a particular type of care. The word normal, natural, and not actually perhaps particularly helpful in this setting. We're talking about vaginal births. What matters is what's best and what is safest. And certainly I'm very grateful to Bill Kirkup for all of his work. The noble Lady Baroness Pidgeon asked further questions about the commissioner, which were helpful, and the selection and appointment process is still will be considered as part of the process of establishing the role on action being taken before December, when the report of the task force will be available.

As I mentioned, immediate actions are already being driven forward. Actions that are already underway over the last two years, but also since an immediate response to Baroness Amos recommendation. So where we can, we have already actioned and where we need further work done that will be developed over the next few months developed over the next few months and at pace. The roll out. It's a good point about bereavement pathways, including for miscarriage, that the noble Lady raised.

And yes, we are rolling out all five strands of the National Bereavement Care pathway, and all trusts in England have signed up to implement the core standards of the National Bereavement Care Pathway. So that's very relevant in this case and also will be across other areas of bereavement. It's something of particular concern, perhaps, as I draw my remarks in this section to a close, perhaps I can say, to give a sense of urgency that the task force and its supporting expert reference groups are meeting tomorrow to discuss the findings of both the Donna Ockenden report that we had a statement on last week, and also the Baroness Amos report.

So that is tomorrow. And then next Tuesday, the task force, which is spearheading all of this, personally chaired by the Secretary of State, will be meeting next week to discuss next steps for the action plan. And to the noble Lady Baroness Pidgeon question about questions about the Commissioner's role. Certainly one of those roles the Secretary of State has already said is that he would wish that the Commission, the maternity and neonatal Commissioner, co-chaired that task force with him.

I think that will be a very welcome move, but I hope that I have been able to deal with the questions. But more than that, give a sense of pace, but also a sense of seriousness, as well as the action that I know we all seek.
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:48
15:48
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
Well, I'm fully aware of the difference of a tactfully put it the difference of opinion in this regard. I was speaking with one of our main advisers this morning who didn't feel that it was necessarily an answer to go down the road of. And I know the noble Lady hasn't said this of midwives being nurses. I bow to that experience. But more than that, it raises for me the complexity. Lord Whitty. And I do think actually it's important to emphasise the point.

I have been concerned for some time. About a third of student advice had no role to go to, and the noble Lady's right, but some of it is just basic experience and nobody can gain experience without putting the years in. It's it's it's a fact. But that is why I think getting the new funding in, which is up to ten 000 per post, does mean that we will keep students in the profession, but also give them the chance to develop the very important expertise that the noble Lady is referring to.

Also, multidisciplinary teams and the right people there mean that you can manage whatever complexity, because there's no way that every one person is going to be able to deal with all complex cases. Every case has a high degree of individuality. As I know the noble Lady is aware.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, welcome is. Not quite. The right term to use about these reports, but they are indeed absolutely essential. I need to declare that I am the maternity leave and the. As a non-executive member of the Whittington Hospital and also actually will be at the conference as one of them a member of one of the reference groups tomorrow, several years ago, when tomorrow, several years ago, when Donna Ockenden produced her first reports, we set up what we called the Ockenden cafes in the Whittington, to which we invited all the multidisciplinary teams, plus mums and patients and people who have been involved over a period of time, and it was an
15:50
15:51
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:57
Lord Winston Portrait Lord Winston (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I listened to this short debate with a bit of amazement. Really. We're looking at the the end results. What we need to do is to look a little bit further up the channel. And I think my noble friend Baroness Blackstone, Blackstone, Blackstone has touched on a very important point, as has indeed Baroness Pidgeon, which really is actually much more crucial than perhaps we understand. First of all, as has been said, people who come in to hospital, they don't come to excess maternal services.

They come to have a baby. They actually, of course not ill. And that is different from the rest of the NHS, even though they're in the NHS. And so what we're seeing here, actually, I think partly is something which is a cultural situation, which is a problem throughout the NHS. This is not just maternity services, it's bad maternity services for the obvious reasons that these people are healthy people in the main. Of course, some are not terribly fit and we're actually losing the plot a bit.

For example, when Baroness Pidgeon says that there is this need for much better psychological support, I agree. But what we tend to forget is that a woman having a baby, actually, even when it's a normal baby and fully alive, is losing a life within her uterus. She feels a loss when that happens. It may not be expressed as a loss. It's expressed as happiness. But there is an extraordinary change of feeling, which psychiatrists know very well very commonly in maternal. In maternity, this also affects.

We forget it's not just women, it's men as well. By the way, in case we've forgotten that. And the other thing is that sometimes we assume, as we have done in this report, that certain things are obvious, that it's much better not to have a caesarean section. That's been suggested, actually, of course, it turns out that caesarean section, if you really want to be absolutely safe, is actually safer than a vaginal delivery, as has been shown through various studies. I'm not advocating caesarean section, of course, but I'm trying to point out that sometimes we we deplore it when actually it is a very useful thing to do.

And I think we have to understand really that what we're looking at is here. It's not a broken service, it's a service which is obviously under great stress. And what we have to do is to deal with that. And one of the things that Baroness Blackstone has pointed out is that the Manning is very, very inadequate because you have to have a consultant led service. People have to stay in overnight when they do that. And also, of course, there is no always not enough conversation between midwives and the the obstetricians.

There needs to be much closer understanding between the two. And above all, the culture should be one of kindness. Kindness is what we have to ensure.
16:00
16:01
Lord Patel Portrait Lord Patel (Crossbench)
-
-
now describing the tragedies that are occurring in maternity services, and I hope this report will be the and I hope this report will be the final report. Before we go back to delivering the best maternity care that we used to have and was a that we used to have and was a world leading maternity care. I've been privileged to have been an been privileged to have been an obstetrician nearly 40 years of my life, having delivered many thousands of babies, both normally as there people refer to, but also having to do caesarean sections because caesarean sections are done when there's an indication to do a caesarean section.

Otherwise, we expect the mothers to enjoy normal deliveries, but also to enjoy when they have to have caesarean section. The greatest privilege I had was to hand the baby to a mother, and the first look on the mother's face, which is unbelievable. And I had the privilege to witness that first hand long before the partners would see it. So it is important that we deliver maternity services that are world class. Therefore, what the task force comes up with as the standards to be delivered, and I hope those standards will be mandatory to be followed and monitored and audited against.

I think it should be possible. For the first visit. The mother attends the antenatal clinic to have a plan of how her pregnancy would be managed by midwives and obstetricians, and to have an audit in every maternity unit as it used to happen. When some things do go wrong involving the mother in the and the families and how that would be tackled. So I hope that will be the answer.
16:03
16:05
16:05
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
interest that I have declared that my son in law is an active reservist? It's a great honour and a pleasure to be speaking to the Armed Forces Bill today, as I know Armed Forces Bill today, as I know it is for all of us. We should be reminded about the Armed Forces Bill, the current Armed Forces Act Bill, the current Armed Forces Act 2006, the legislation that provides a system of command, discipline and justice for His Majesty's Armed justice for His Majesty's Armed Forces, could not continue in force beyond the end of this year.

Since 1688 and the Bill of rights, it is a constitutional requirement that Parliament has had the authority to exert control over our armed forces, rather than the King or the executive and its Parliament, through our common consent and the act of renewal, which ensures that there remains a legal basis for the continued existence of His Majesty's Armed forces. As such, this bill is for the armed Forces, though it goes beyond simply providing the legal framework for them to continue to exist as disciplined bodies.

It is an opportunity to renew the nation's contract with those who serve. This substantial bill does much for our current and former personnel and the Armed Forces community as a whole to provide better support, better housing, better protections for victims of crime, and to provide greater resilience for the nation by increasing the size and availability of the strategic reserves. It does this by delivering meaningful reform across four key pillars the Armed Forces Covenant, that pledge between the nation and those who have served will be strengthened by delivering on the manifesto commitment to place it fully into law, establishing the Defence Housing Service to properly manage, develop and improve the defence housing estate and make it fit for purpose for our armed forces personnel and their families.

Providing the service courts and the service police with new powers to provide improved victim support and protections. In line with the ten year strategy to halve violence against women and girls, and reforms to boost the size and availability of the strategic reserve to reinforce the UK's defence forces. At a time of increasing global threats and uncertainty. To say a little more about each of these four pillars, the Armed Forces Covenant was introduced 15 years ago and has made a real difference to many in the Armed Forces community.

At its heart is a promise between the nation and those who serve, those who have served their families and the bereaved. Recognising the unique demands and sacrifices of service life, it has already helped to reduce disadvantage for our Armed Forces community across the three areas of housing, health care and education. But we recognise that it must go further. Clause two, therefore delivers on the government's manifesto commitment to places the Armed Forces Covenant fully into law.

It does this by broadening the covenant legal duty to 12 policy areas and for the first time, the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and UK government departments will be subject to the duty. This also. This means that in addition to housing, healthcare and education, the covenant will also apply to areas including social care, childcare, employment, taxation, social security, criminal justice, immigration and citizenship, pensions, transport and armed forces, compensation. On defence housing the government has a moral duty to provide safe and decent homes to service personnel and their families.

They have been previously let down with homes that are not fit for purpose, and we are determined to change that. The under-investment in defence housing over decades led to record lows in satisfaction with defence homes, and the 1996 sale of tens of thousands of defence homes to Annington led to taxpayers picking up the bill for maintenance and rent to the tune of 600 zero zero £0 a day. However, just six months after being elected, the government transferred 36,000 defence homes back into public ownership, reversing a privatisation which the Public Accounts Committee described as disastrous.

The next task is therefore to bring homes up to a decent standard, a standard that our service personnel and their families deserve. The government, therefore commissioned an independent review and in November last year we published our Defence housing Strategy, our plan for the wholesale renewal of defence housing, backed by a by a £9 billion investment over the next decade. Clause three delivers on one of the recommendations of the Defence Housing Strategy, which is the creation of a new standalone public body, the Defence Housing Service.

This will serve as a single point of accountability for defence housing, staffed by experts and with forces families represented as part of its governance. As such, it will put the needs of the forces and their families first. My Lords, with a clear strategy, unprecedented investment and a dedicated organisation in the Defence Housing Service. We will deliver on this once in a generation opportunity. The safe and decent homes our forces and their families deserve. Through this bill, we will also deliver important reforms to the service justice system, especially especially in the area of victim support and protections.

Clauses 5 to 10 provide a comprehensive package of protections measures with clauses 11, 12, 26 and 27 providing improved support and assistance to victims of offending. We would also like to add that while these measures will strengthen the service justice system, we recognise that not all unacceptable behaviours reach the threshold of a criminal offence and that is why the Ministry of Defence continues to develop policies that seek to address unacceptable behaviours. Through the Raising Our Standards programme, we are tackling unacceptable behaviour and driving and driving lasting cultural change across defence, with better training, clearer reporting systems and greater trust in leadership and the new Protection Prevention Task Force has been deployed to Catterick and to the South West to assess lived experiences, tackle root causes of unacceptable behaviour and roll out effective interventions.

Immediate initiatives are already being deployed, such as the recruitment of additional sexual assault referral nurses who will cover the South west and the roll out of an independent legacy advocacy pilot that will support victims of sexual offences. To understand their rights and what to expect from navigating the service justice system. These policies, together with the separate service complaints process now overseen by the recently appointed Armed Forces Commissioner, will also help ensure that unacceptable behaviour is challenged and addressed appropriately.

And can I just say to the noble Baroness Goldie, in tune with Baroness Smith and indeed Baroness claim, of course, this improvement in culture also includes the Whistleblower Review and we'll be meeting with her in due course before the publication of that review, which is now ready, subject to their comments to to be published. Moving on to the package of measures relating to the reserves, clause 32 will enable regular personnel at Warrant Officer level or equivalent and below to seamlessly transfer into the Volunteer Reserve and vice versa, without having to leave one force and then rejoin the other.

Clauses 33 to 37 Amend the Reserve Forces Act, 1996 in relation to call out and recall liability, ensuring that it is fit for purpose. This will help to ensure that defence has access to more people with the right skills and experience it needs at times of need. It will harmonise liability across the services, widen the pool from which we can draw resources and allow us greater access to both our volunteer and strategic reserve pool. And it's good to see Lord Lancaster here, who heads up the reserves.

And I know how hard he's been working, as many other noble Lords have done with respect to this. And I just say to just to digress slightly, I know how many noble Lord Sandhurst and everyone across the chamber are particularly concerned around resilience and homeland defence, all of those sorts of things. And I think this particular aspect, I look forward to that debate in committee as we move forward around how we make the best use of our reserves. All of that further clauses 33 to 37 of the bill will make it easier to mobilise personnel earlier, ahead of the outbreak of any war, and increase the maximum age at which reserves can be recalled from 55 to 65.

And can I just say I welcome that increase? Because if one considers that there are many people who may who would be eligible for this, who are 64, who would be brilliant doctors, brilliant accountants, brilliant cyber analysts, brilliant in many ways, which would be of interest. And I know some of the reporting that was initially when that announcement was made. But I think if you look at it in that light, you can see the significance of the contribution that many older reservists could make to the defence and security of our country.

And I think looking at it in that perspective, one understands the importance and the reasons for raising that age limit. So I think that was just an important point. I wanted to reiterate at the start of our discussions on this bill. These measures align with the direction provided by the Strategic Defence Review to allow for a whole defence approach to re-energise the relationship with the strategic reserve. And, as I say, increase our readiness for war or potential conflicts.

My Lords, beyond these four main pillars, the Bill also contains other important measures that cover such areas as protecting the defence estate from drone activities. I know again, something that has been particularly of concern to to many noble Lords to provide increased protections for military shipwrecks, to extend ING cross-border powers for the Ministry of Defence Police. My Lords, this Armed Forces Bill makes important and positive changes for the armed forces, their families and the wider defence community. And can I say, I look forward to the detailed scrutiny which will give the bill in committee and the challenge that there will be to aspects of it.

Whilst noting the general support there was in the other place, and I know from conversations I had there is within this place. Such challenge and scrutiny can only improve the Armed Forces Bill and can only make it a better bill for which our armed Forces, and indeed which is what we would all want our armed forces and our Armed Forces community to be proud. I beg to move.
16:18
Earl of Minto Portrait The Earl of Minto (Conservative)
-
-
This bill, be narrowed a second time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his engagement with myself and my label friend with myself and my label friend Baroness Goldie, on the measures of the Bill, and I would also like to extend my thanks to the officials for their professional and insightful briefing on the bill. May I reiterate at the outset that May I reiterate at the outset that His Majesty's most loyal opposition fully supports this bill? We recognise the legal requirement for recognise the legal requirement for the renewal of the Armed Forces Act 2006 for the continuation of our armed forces.

And so I share with the noble Lord the Minister the desire to see this bill reach the statute book promptly. My Lords, before I turn to the substance of the Bill, I want to put on record our deep admiration for the men and women of our armed forces, whether deployed on operations overseas, protecting NATO's eastern flank or supporting the civil authorities at home, they continue to do an exemplary job, and they do so at a time when resources, manpower and equipment are all being stretched to the very limit.

Recruitment and retention remain a challenge, but time and again, our gallant service personnel rise to meet the task they face. Whatever disagreements I may have with the government about resource, I hope the Minister will accept that they take nothing away from our sincere respect for all of those who serve. However, my Lords, I cannot ignore the elephant in the room. This government's continuing unwillingness to properly fund our armed forces. The government has spoken of making tough choices, but they have not, or at least not yet.

Perhaps our NATO allies in Ankara will change minds. The Defence Investment Plan is effectively unfunded. A third of the extra money is to be allocated in the autumn budget, meaning it is not available now and the rest of it is to be financed by as yet unknown efficiency savings that, yeah, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Concur that I'm one that's on the record as saying that the Defence Investment plan needs the Defence Investment plan needs the money. We need to get that 3% as quickly as possible. But does he quickly as possible. But does he also agree that when the conservative coalition government was in between 2010 and 17, they actually cut the defence budget by 22%, made people compulsorily redundant? At least this actually does increase the defence budget does increase the defence budget over the next seven years by 27%.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we're dealing with a very different situation globally than we were then. There's not a country in the Western world that country in the Western world that wasn't making savings on defence at wasn't making savings on defence at that time. Well, yes. It's not that time. Well, yes. It's not available now and the rest has to be financed by as yet unknown be financed by as yet unknown efficiency savings. The departments that have apparently been required to reduce their capital spending have not yet identified what they will cut, and the government has not yet told us what asset sales they will follow through with, or rather unconvincing and unsatisfactory.

There are, of course, ways to increase defence spending without more tax rises and more borrowing, the required funds could be found by a sensible and sustainable reduction in the welfare budget. Scrapping the now discredited Chagos deal, appropriately reducing the size of the civil service or reprioritising some of the more extreme and costly net zero projects. The depressing reality appears to be that this government has not been willing to grasp the nettle and take the genuine, hard choices to give our armed forces the funding they so desperately need and are pleading for to keep us safe.

My Lords, I now turn to the Bill. This side of the House welcomes the further incorporation of the Armed Forces Covenant into law. It was a conservative government through the Armed Forces Act 2021, which my noble friend Baroness Goldie took through your Lordships House, who first placed the covenant on a statutory footing, requiring specified bodies to have due regard to its principles in the fields of housing, education and healthcare. That was a significant and hard won step, and I'm glad the government are building on it.

But support in principle does not exempt the government from scrutiny in practice. And I must ask the noble Lord, the Minister, a straightforward question. What assessment has been made of the impact on those bodies newly brought into scope, and what extra costs will this impose on national authorities, local authorities, education bodies and health bodies up and down the country? I have been assured that the cost implications of sending this legal duty are expected to be minimal. While I am grateful for this reassurance, the House will forgive me for wanting it tested more rigorously as the bill proceeds through committee, particularly given the number of new bodies being brought within the statutory duty and the breadth of new subject matter involved.

What financial consequences, if any, does the ministry anticipate falling on the Ministry of Defence itself as a result of this expansion, and has the Treasury sign off been secured for any downstream costs that may arise? My Lords, I think, in fact, I know that we are united across this House in our belief that those who serve our country should never have to live in substandard accommodation, regardless of their familial status. I think we can also all agree that the current state of much service housing ranges from below standard to abysmal, and exposes the immediate need for significant structural expenditure and reforms to bring all forces housing up to the expected standard for the 2020s.

It was my hon. Friend the Shadow Secretary of State for defence, James Cartlidge, who initiated the buyback of the housing estate from Annington homes as the noble Lord has referred to its welcome that this government has now completed that purchase. But I do believe there must be an acknowledgement of who actually started it. My Lords, clause three and schedule one give legislative effect to the second pillar of the government's Defence Housing Strategy, published last November. By establishing a new body corporate, the Defence Housing Service.

I understand why the government wished to create a dedicated body with the supply, availability and quality of defence housing at its heart, and the forces first approach to its work is one. These benches can readily and fully endorse. But the creation of a new statutory body inevitably raises questions about what happens to the old arrangements. What precisely is happening to the Defence Infrastructure Organisation? What functions will be transferred to the new Defence Housing service, and will there be an overlap in responsibility during a transition period? If so, for how long and at what cost to the taxpayer? Clear accountability will be critical to the success of both organisations in the future.

My Lords, I'd also be grateful if the Minister could set out clearly how this new body differs in practice from the alternative that my party has proposed, which is the establishment of an Armed Forces Housing Association. This would be a private, independent but crucially not for profit organisation that would reinvest all revenues back into maintaining properties and building new homes. It would have an oversight board, allowing for representation of those living in service family accommodation. It would allow servicemen and women to benefit from different property ownership models, for example part ownership, allowing those of all ranks to realise the dream of owning their own home.

And it would allow us to reduce the reliance of the Mod on the private sector renting, which costs them 80 million a year. Before I leave this point, there is a widely circulated rumour that to fund the dip, investment in service housing is to be deferred. My Lords, this matters. May I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, to clarify the position? Lord Stone I turn to a matter that does not appear on the face of this bill, but which this side believes to be fundamental to the war fighting capabilities of our armed forces, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has expanded the application of the European Convention on Human Rights so that it now applies Extraterritorially, as this House will recall from the judgement in.

And the United Kingdom, there is absolutely no question that British troops must abide by the Geneva Conventions and the law of armed conflict that is not and never has been in dispute. And we are not arguing for a complete prospective immunity from legal accountability. However, we do need to ensure that our troops feel confident in taking necessary action and must be clear on the limitations of that action in law. They must be on a level playing field with the enemy they face as to be in doubt or at a disadvantage, could, in extremis, be fatal at the critical moment.

Whilst the preference of my party is to leave the European Convention of Human Rights entirely, that is not within the bounds of this Bill. So we will be bringing an amendment in committee to place a duty on the Secretary of State to derogate from the convention during armed conflict. A switch from May to. Must. My Lords, I hope the Minister will engage constructively with that amendment in the spirit in which it is offered, not as an attack on the rule of law, far from it, but as a recognition that our troops must be able to fight and defend this country without the fear of endless retrospective litigation for decisions taken in the heat of combat.

My Lords, I turn now to the provisions on the reserve forces which these benches broadly welcome. Clause 32 removes the requirement for a service person to formally leave the regular forces and realist in the Volunteer Reserve, or vice versa, in order to move between the two. We are pleased about the greater flexibility. This clause allows for movement between the regulars and reserves, and we hope it will remove a genuine source of friction for service personnel who wish to serve in different ways at different points during their careers.

The Strategic Defence Review, published last year, sets out the aim of increasing the active reserve by 20% when funding allows. This is a laudable aim. Nobody on this side of the House will quarrel with the ambition to build a larger, more resilient reserve capability at a time of growing geopolitical uncertainty. But name is not a plan, and I must press the Minister on the timeline by when does the Ministry of Defence expect to achieve that 20% increase? What recruitment targets have been set year on year to get there? And crucially, given the funding caveat built into the review's own language, how does the government intend to fund it? Given everything I have already said about the state of the Defence Investment Plan, might I suggest one way of doing this to the noble Lord, the Minister incentivise more people to join the reserve by introducing a tax free reserve service, whereby, for the first 30 days of reserve service in any one year would be completely free of income tax.

Such a measure will cost the Exchequer relatively little. Would send a clear signal that this country values the commitment reservists make alongside their civilian careers, and might do more to improve recruitment. I hope the Minister will take that suggestion back to his department, even if he cannot commit it today to it today from the Dispatch Box. My Lords, I've covered a good deal of ground this afternoon and there is more in this Bill that we will wish to probe in committee, not least the reforms to the service justice system.

We support the principle of aligning the powers available to service, police and service courts, where there is already available in the criminal and civilian criminal justice system. But there are questions to be asked about how these provisions will operate in practice, and my noble friend Baroness Goldie will address those in more detail. In closing, I will simply say this in conclusion, this is a bill these benches support because the renewal of the Armed Forces Act is a constitutional necessity, and because much of what sits alongside that renewal the covenant, the housing reforms, the modernisation of the service justice system, and the flexibility of our reserves represents sensible and positive progress.

But the support for the Bill is not the same as satisfaction with the government's record on defence. Our armed forces deserve a government willing to match warm words with hard funding decisions. Until this happens, this House will continue to ask the difficult questions the government would rather not answer, and I look forward to the minister's response and to the scrutiny that lies ahead in committee.
16:31
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The Earl of Minto has attacked the government, not spending enough on defence when the Conservative Party is still calling for tax cuts, as well as economies in other areas, and we are still discovering just how thin our armed forces had become in the last five years and more, and how much now needs to be done to repair where we are. The message of the Strategic Defence Review last year, now 12 months ago, was that we are now in a difficult situation.

We are now facing different and more serious threats of different sort to this country, and that we need political leadership from the highest levels of government in a national conversation to carry the public with it, and explicitly to spend undermined by those who are still calling for tax cuts, without quite explaining how those cuts paid for. My Lord. Others on these benches will address housing, military justice and other aspects of this bill. I want to focus on the issues covered in clauses 32 to 38.

The reserve forces their role, recruitment and retention and conditions of service. The emphasis on this bill appears to be primarily on regular veterans as the key to a strategic reserve, even into their 60s. I am conscious that there was a long history of Britain's peacetime forces undervaluing volunteer reserve units. Our army and navy were designed for long term deployments in other continents, not for defence of the homeland, neighbouring waters and countries, but, as the SDR clearly sets out, we are now facing different threats, many of them very close to home.

And as it states in chapter six, we need to integrate homeland defence with Britain's contribution to the defence of our continent, which is now again the chief priority.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Another of the traditional arguments of regular forces, as Against short term service

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Against short term service preserves or volunteers has been that it takes a long time to train that it takes a long time to train an effective soldier again. The SDR questions this with its comment. I quote that the finance sector, quote that the finance sector, civil society, academia and others all have much to contribute to countering the hybrid threats we countering the hybrid threats we now face. This isn't new. I recall 15 years ago when I was in government, the Ministry of Defence, worrying about how to attract into the forces personnel with digital skills to combat the development of cyber warfare, and then discovering that one service unit, the Honourable Artillery Company, already contained a large number of workers in the financial sector with the advanced skills that were needed.

I note the impressive contribution of one Territorial Army officer, Tom Tugendhat, in Iraq and Afghanistan, a volunteer officer whose language skills proved invaluable. The experience of the Ukraine war has confirmed that civilian skills can now be immensely valuable in wartime circumstances. Hybrid threats have to be faced with hybrid skills, many of which are often to be found more easily in civilian life than in the traditional military. We've also seen in Ukraine how quickly people can be trained to high effectiveness in fields where existing skills add value.

The armed forces will, in this respect, falls far short of the vision set out in the SDR. It prioritises extending obligations to existing reserves up to the age of 65. Rather than expanding and transforming the reserves, both for the defence of our homeland and UK waters, and transforming the relationship between reserves and our broader national society. The cautious phrase the reserves might usefully be expanded, I quote, by at least 20% when funding allows, most likely in the 2030s declares how limited a role is still foreseen.

I've gathered some impression about current dependence on reserve personnel from association with the London Scottish, a territorial unit to which my father served a very long time ago, which has now been transformed into a reserve company of the Scots Guards. I was struck when invited some years ago to a unit dinner by its honorary Colonel Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, by how many of its members had been mobilised individually for short periods to fill the ranks in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a sign of the current shortage of regular soldiers that individual reservists are also mobilised to make up the numbers for ceremonial events, including Trooping the Colour.

One of our doorkeepers was marching round Horse Guards Parade ten days ago. I understood chapter four of the SDR to be saying that the authors would have loved to recommend expansion and greater integration between regulars and reserves, but hesitated to push that very far, given more urgent priorities for limited funding. They praised the Australian military's gap year model for short regular service with continuing reserve commitment. They note the positive relationship between skills training for military service and for civilian tasks, and suggest that military partnerships with further education colleges could provide a way forward in civil and military apprenticeships that should become a major part of the government's reskilling agenda through cross-departmental cooperation.

I welcome the noble Lord Lord Coaker, saying more about how that is to be implemented. Chapter seven, I note, recommends that I quote the Royal Navy should adjust its personnel balance to include greater numbers of reservists to generate efficiencies, and release regulars for frontline and operational roles. That seems a highly practical way of reinforcing defence of our maritime waters. So far as I'm aware. Little follow up has been taken on any of this in the 12 months since the SDR was published.

There's been nothing on the whole society approach to defence that should more closely associate civilian skills and responsibilities with military. The authors recommended the national conversation to alert the public to new threats and how they might share in responding. The noble Lord Lord Coaker told us recently that he has been designated the responsible Minister for the National Conversation. No offence to him, but it should be the Prime Minister who leads this, and perhaps a new Prime Minister will realise that he must.

The ISS, for example, has just published a report detailing Russian use of drones to overfly British military installations and airports. But it should have been Ministers who told us that to alert the public that we are facing real new threats and that we do need to respond. When I asked which government department would be responsible for the proposed Homeland Defence Force, a new iteration of what the Territorial Army was originally organised for, I had the impression that Ministers did not know before they told me that it was most probably the Cabinet Office rather than the Mod, which I suspect is a mistake.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, in his speech, will be able to cheer me up by telling me that I'm underplaying what has so far been done, and that cadet forces and others are already helping to build a new relationship. I'd rather struck the other week when talking to one of Britain's major public schools about how political education will be adjusted when votes at 16 come in to be told that they had abolished their cadet force some years ago. Because of the costs and the feeling that it was not a vital part of their educational process.

On my reading, this bill confirms that the government have not reflected on the changing value of reserve and volunteer forces, and have not followed the recommendations of the SDR. They have not learned the lessons of the Ukraine conflict or of the changing nature of hybrid threats. Veterans in their early 60s will do their best to fill the ranks when called on, but there's so much more that should be done to recruit and mobilise reserves to contribute to national resilience and security, and to link our armed forces more closely to our civilian national community.
16:40
Lord Craig of Radley Portrait Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, it's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Wallace of Saltaire. We share the honour of fitting a military Covenant report into the Armed Forces Act, 2006 and 220 11. My Lords, this bill does deserve credit for finally setting out a more adequate statutory treatment of the military Covenant, but it has been a long, slow process. Nearly 20 years ago, in 2008, a command paper first introduced an undertaking to treat the military covenant in statute.

Three years later, as I mentioned, the 200 2011 Armed Forces bill was the start. It introduced a single minimalist clause entitled Military Covenant Report. While welcoming this inclusion, I objected to it being thought inserted towards the tail end of the miscellaneous sections of the 2006 act as lacking appropriate prominence. I also said that for it to be inserted as section 359 A in the Act immediately following section 359, implying a contents list that the two sections were related would be an unfortunate juxtaposition.

Why my Lord? Because section 359 granted pardons to veterans executed in World War One for desertion and other disciplinary offences. My Lords, the government accepted these criticisms and after further discussion, a whole new part, part 16 A for the covenant Report was proposed by the government. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, kindly invited me to put my name to their formal government amendment, and indeed to be the first speaker to introduce it.

Only in later bills was the concept of due regard by some local authorities, introduced and initially in a much restricted way. Attempts by myself and others in 2021 to require due regard by national authorities were resisted, but an agreement to consider this further was given by Ministers in order to get the bill passed in time. And this, my Lords, brings us to the present Bill, which does now require due regard by national authorities when appropriate. In other words, the covenant is finally more fully international as well as local level law.

I am also pleased to note in clause two brackets, two brackets two, little C. A significant consideration is now present, namely that special provision for service people may be justified by the effects of such people. Being a member or former member of the Armed Forces. So far, my Lords, good news. But there are a number of issues and queries by the Royal British Legion and other charities about yet to be resolved details, for example, about care home, responsibility for due regard.

I sense, too, that there will be inevitable disagreements between local and national authorities about which should be responsible for taking action, and the temptation to play ping pong over it. Maybe where this occurred might be with the armed forces or veterans Commissioner to resolve, and perhaps the noble Lord Minister might like to comment about the possibility. One particular issue about moving immigration fees for close dependants of non-UK personnel granted leave to remain because of their former service in the armed forces will be an amendment to return to.

In committee. The 2024 minister's manifesto commitments by the three parties undertook to waive the current and increasing immigration fees for families of non UK armed forces. Personnel are required to pay before being allowed indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom with their spouse. Two years have passed, but there is still nothing but empty assurances that this waiver is to be honoured. It is time for action to correct this unfairness. My Lord, I'm saddened that there is no further attempt to deal with the incompatibilities between this act and human rights, frequently exposed in examples of lawfare.

Well, further consideration of some form of better combat immunity for service personnel on operations. I sense, however, that this is not a field that this government wishes to enter, and we may be rather fruitless to raise it now. May I finished with repeating of complaint. Some might call it a wind. I've made in second readings of previous armed Forces bills. A complaint about the way this constitutionally important 2006 act has to be renewed. The present 2026 has to be renewed.

The present 2026 bill, like its 2011, 2016 and 2021 predecessors, is in effect a 150 page Marshalled List of amendments to the 2006 act, an act itself of almost 350 pages. I commend the official the efforts of officials to produce in the bill before the House a master class in amendments to the 2006 act and many other acts. Unless a major change of approach is found, my successors would be dealing with bills besides measure not by page numbers, but in kilograms.

And finally, one issue covering over 32 pages at 10% of the 2006 act. Is defence, housing and other property. Noble Lords will be aware of the government's commitment to improving living accommodation for service personnel. This is clearly meant as a key step towards achieving that ambition. The Defence Housing Service is being given wide powers in clause 343 F, the only Treasury consent being required if the housing service is to borrow money. Other functions, such as entering into contracts or agreements, or forming or investing in a company or a partnership, do not appear to need Treasury agreement.

Such freedom and freedom does seem to me unusual. Is MoD to be responsible for the size of this service and to pay for it as the government make any estimate of the cost and manpower required for this new organisation. Bearing in mind the difficulties facing MoD because of the shortfall in defence, investment planning, funding and the expectation that living accommodation expenditure will fall to the back of the queue, what rate of improvement is to be accepted expected from this new Defence Housing Service? As the noble Lord, the Minister, any figures for the House?
16:49
Lord Bishop of Norwich Portrait The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)
-
-
I thank. bill. It's a privilege to follow the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Craig and I look forward to hearing further contributions from noble and gallant Lords with their wealth of experience. When I read in Hansard the record of the Second Reading debate of this bill's predecessor five years ago, I couldn't help but notice that the noble Lord Lord Coaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, have simply swapped places. When they come to sum up this debate.

In my remarks, I'd like to focus on three areas. First, the Armed Forces Covenant. Second, the whole society approach around civil preparedness. And thirdly, some niche comments related to the service police powers. Covenant is an ancient word with deep resonances in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. It's about gifts offered and received, about commitments made and honoured, lived in mutual reciprocity. When we ask much of our armed forces and God forbid, we might need to ask more of them and their families in the years to come, pledging a commitment as to what they can expect in return for all that they give and for veterans have given, is the mark of a grateful society.

Gratitude is perhaps an old fashioned word these days, but when we lose it, recruitment drops, morale drops and retention drops. At its heart, the Armed Forces Covenant seeks to embed gratitude, not special favours or jingoistic patriotism, but a simple commitment to understanding, fairness and opportunity. That's why I'm pleased that His Majesty's Government are proposing in this bill to enshrine the Armed Forces Covenant fully in law by extending it to central devolved and local authorities, and expanding the issues to which these and certain public bodies must have due regard.

So much flows from that mutual responsibility. Protecting the vulnerable, providing hospitality and integration, including appropriate housing at a good standard. And whilst the focus is rightly on family housing, I hope that the new proposed Defence Housing Service will also ensure that single person's accommodation is of a standard that can create a sense of home, and I hope consideration will also be given to fitting housing with good insulation and solar panels. So reducing energy costs and contributing to His Majesty's Government's net zero commitments.

The Armed Forces Covenant was signed on behalf of the Church of England by the then Archbishops of Canterbury and York in February 2015. Since then, a number of English dioceses have also signed, working in partnership with local veterans, reservists and military bases. I confess that the Diocese of Norwich needs to catch up, though I value my own engagement with RAF Marham with the Queen's Dragoon Guards at Swanton Morley and those who serve at the training ground.

At the latter, I've witnessed the valuable work being done by the British Army in collaboration with the forces with forces of other nations in training Ukrainian conscripts to fight for the freedom of their country against Putin's tyranny. I believe that churches and church schools have a particular role to play in supporting the 120 000 children of military families who are likely to have to move school more often than others, and to have parents away on deployment, sometimes for long periods with limited contact.

It strikes me that the conversations around signing the covenant, the engagement that that involves with His Majesty's forces, and the prompt that this gives to think more through the eyes of service personnel and veterans, is as much importance as the ceremony of signing. Through good conversations, understanding is fostered and the gift of concern and care can be extended. I imagine that I'm not the only father of a soldier who stood at the Central Memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire, and run his hand over those panels of carved names on Portland stone, only to reach our contemporary era for where the stone becomes smooth, smooth stone awaiting chiselling the names of those who will be prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our nation.

In whatever will unfold in the years to come. And there are other people, each also treasured by God, who carry or will carry the scars of conflict and war in body, mind and soul long, long into the future and often impacting those around them. Amongst those who support and care for them are our armed forces, chaplains, men and women, both regulars and reservists, whose calling is to serve alongside being with and being there at both joyous and tragic moments, offering hope, peace and prayer.

Presence. Being the bearers of spiritual, moral and pastoral support and the Armed Forces covenant is, in a sense, a continuation of that pastoral care shared by us all in wider society. My second point is about whole society preparedness. The recently published 2026 Global Peace Index has found, and I quote, that the world has continued its long standing trajectory of deteriorating peacefulness, stating that there are now more active state based conflicts that are that than at any point since the end of the Second World War.

While the number of countries involved in external conflict has nearly doubled since 2008. Given the troubling and dangerous times, we live in, the Church of England's General Synod has been considering how we might be called to be the church in a time of war. Last July, we heard from the Lutheran Archbishop of Tallinn, Urmas Vilma, about how their preparedness is significantly advanced. Now, this does not sit easily with the Jesus proclaiming peacemaking that I encounter in the Gospels and that most difficult of commands about love of neighbour and love of enemy.

But I note that Bishop George Bell, in November 1939, when faced with a terrible impending European war, said, it is the function of the church at all costs to remain the church. The church's task is therefore to work and pray for peace, but also to shape and form peacemakers, peace builders and peacekeepers. And I would argue, whilst not scaremongering, we need also to prepare for the threats we face to the church and other faith groups would play a key role in supporting communities in the event of a major conflict.

Resilience, community, solidarity and hope are all key Christian virtues that people have valued in previous wars and would and which would be much needed in any future conflict. As Saint Paul's letter to the infant church in Rome puts it, hate what is evil. Hold fast to what is good. Would the noble Lord the Minister outline then what preparations are in place and what resources are being made available to meet the strategic Defence reviews goal of a whole society approach to the review's implementation, including wider participation in achieving national resilience.

My final point, and I declare a familial connection with the Royal Military Police is a concern that within the Armed Forces Bill service, police will not be able to authorise Pre-charge custody for schedule one offences, i.e. battery. Even when there is a domestic context. This is because the legislation is drafted for all serious offences to be in scope, which does not include schedule one offences and does not articulate the context of domestic abuse offences. The issue of commanding officers dealing with domestic abuse offences has also been brought up by the centre for Military Justice in their evidence.

In response to the Armed Forces Bill, where they are recommending an amendment to the relevant schedules to prevent commanding officers dealing with any domestic abuse matter at summary hearing. Whilst the Military Police have a strong policy position that where there is a domestic abuse context to offences that the commanding officer could investigate, it is very clear that such cases should always be referred to the relevant policing authority, so that they can consider investigating. This isn't articulated in legislation.

Will the noble Lord, the Minister, commit to look at that, please, more broadly? I raise the issue that the additional requirements of meeting the threshold of a serious offence adds additional bureaucracy for service police during the arrest of suspects. This could be reduced by giving complete authority to authorise Pre-charge custody to the Provost marshals. The definition of a serious offence is noted as being similar, but different to the definition of a serious service offence given in part one of the armed forces powers of stop and Search, search, Seize and Retention Order 2009.

The added complexity of this definition will inevitably slow down the process of suspects in arrest and risk. Incorrect authorisation of Pre-charge custody, giving the Provost Marshal's Authority to authorise Pre-charge custody in all offences will reduce these risks and give greater parity to service police with their civilian counterparts, who can authorise custody in such cases. And whilst mentioning service police. I have been made aware that service police currently have no legal legal protection against impersonation, either by civilians or persons subject to service law as the service police as forces are not constituted under the Police Act 1996, the offences of impersonating a police officer and the linked offences in section 90 of the Police Act do not create an offence of impersonating a service police officer, nor a service police currently protected by the enhanced sentencing powers of the Assaults on Emergency Workers Offences Act 2018.

Service police officers are regularly assaulted on duty, yet are not given the same respect and protections afforded to civilian police officers and other emergency workers. So would the noble Lord, the Minister, commit to looking at these anomalies around impersonating and assaulting service police so that there can be parity with their civilian counterparts, with a view to potentially introducing a government amendment to bring clarity to these current anomalies. I look forward to engaging with this bill as it progresses through your Lordships House.
17:01
Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, it's a real. >> Pleasure to follow the right Reverend Prelate in this debate, and this is my first contribution, I think, in this House on the I think, in this House on the matter of defence. And I think the reason that's come now is is twofold. First is the time that we're living through in my time in government, in the Home Office, in number ten, we dealt with terror attacks. We dealt with the Novichok poisoning, cyber attacks, the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

But the scale of the threat and the response we need to that threat is of a different order of magnitude today. And as we've heard in this debate, that means a whole of society response to that. And that, I think, means that we need to widen the debate that we have in this House and the people that engage in it in this House, not least when it comes to the question of funding meeting 3% of GDP towards defence and 3.5% will be incredibly challenging.

It's important we get there. I don't envy the current government in trying to do it in in their role, but it's a long term task and the trade offs are real, and I don't think we should pretend that we're not. And that does mean a wider conversation about what we have to sacrifice in order to meet those funding commitments. And the same is true when we think about the contribution that we want people to make to our defence, beyond our forces, and I think we need to hear more about that national conversation.

And I think the thing that I would encourage the government to do, and again, it's a difficult conversation to have, but I'd encourage the government to try and be more open in how it's tackling and thinking about approaching this question. It's not something that we've done for a very long time, and I don't think it's something that we can kind of come up with the answer to behind closed doors without kind of an ongoing period of engagement. The second reason I'm speaking now is my participation in the Armed Forces parliamentary scheme.

That has given me a much greater insight into the people that serve within our armed forces, particularly the RAF, which is the branch that I am doing the scheme through this year, and it is very clear that we will only deliver on our commitments in the SDR and the Defence Investment Programme if we deliver for and through our people in the military, and therefore I welcome the measures that are in this Bill that will improve conditions for people, the measures to strengthen the Armed Forces Covenant, to take further action on housing, to strengthen and expand the role of reservists.

And given the premium that the military places on experience, it means that retention as well as recruitment will be more important than ever. And in that context, I'd like to raise two particular issues that I think touch the lives of armed forces families in particular. The first is paternity leave for dads in the military. So in the UK, we give dads two weeks full paid paternity leave. In Australia, that's eight weeks. In Canada, it's a share of up to 35 weeks.

And in the US, that well known bastion of parental rights and pay, it's 12 weeks at full pay. And I think the US example is pertinent because I think this is about a hard nosed approach to what we need to retain the very best people in our services. And I've made the case before about changing our statutory provision in the civilian world and how it's good for dads, and it's good for mums and it's good for kids. But all of those reasons, I think, are magnified in a military setting because of the demand on which we place on the people serving in our military and the absences that they often have from their families.

That opportunity early in their families formation, to spend time together, to bond, to establish ongoing relationships, is even more important. And I think it's also worth reflecting on the dynamic for couples who are both within the armed forces at the moment. Mums get 26 weeks at full pay under their occupational provision, and dads get two weeks and think about the effect that that has on the career of both of those people as they have each additional child and the balance of how they approach care is different.

And I'd also like to recognise that armed forces are not kind of employees with traditional employment rights, in a sense, and the provision for the occupational scheme is is different, and that leave needs to be subject to and is subject to operational demands. And nothing that I would propose in changing it would change that fact. But I think we can and should go further. I'd also like to raise a specific case with the role of the Minister of an Army Reserve Sergeant, denied statutory paternity pay after his mobilisation to support Ukraine, was treated as a work break from his civilian job.

Now, my understanding is that this is not how the current system is meant to work, but that this particular member of the reserves issue has not been resolved and we don't know whether others are being also affected by perhaps a misunderstanding of the rules. So I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, could commit to looking further into this and getting it resolved. If we're going to expand the role of reserves in our country, we need to make sure that the move between mobilisation and deployment and civilian life is smooth and works for them.

And the second area I'd like to raise is the same as the noble and gallant Lord Craig of Radley. And that's the fees for indefinite leave to remain for family members of service personnel with service of four years or more. Removing these fees is a Labour manifesto commitment. It's supported by the Royal British Legion. In the other place, it had a very vocal supporter in my colleague Ben Jetty in the Commons, who tabled an amendment to this bill to introduce those changes that are a government manifesto commitment.

Now, sadly, they were voted against in the other place and the Minister responded by saying work is underway, but no timescale has been given. And as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig said, it's two years since the election. In that time, the fees for indefinite leave to remain have risen by almost £350. For a family of four to get indefinite leave. To remain for all four will cost well over £10,000, and the increase is for that family will be over £1,000 since 2024.

Now I recognise that this requires work with the Home Office. Both the noble Lord, the Minister and I have worked in the Home Office, and we know that it can maybe be hard to get things done on occasion in that very great department, but two years is long enough and we change our immigration rules twice a year. The next changes are due in October, and it would be fantastic to hear from the noble Lord, the Minister, that the fulfilment of Labour's manifesto commitment in this area will be contained within those changes.

My Lords, there's the old saying that you recruit a soldier but retain a family, and I hope that alongside the measures in this bill, the noble Lord. The Minister can signal some progress on both

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the issues that I have raised today. I'm happy to follow Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm happy to follow Baroness Penn because I too, have been trying to understand defence, both personally and professionally, over personally and professionally, over the last year. I declare three interests that have helped me like her. I too am taking part in the her. I too am taking part in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, so ably chaired by Lord Stevens, who's in his place but as part of the Navy. In parallel, I have become the proud sponsor of HMS Achilles, the last of the new astute class nuclear submarines currently being built in Barrow.

And finally, I'm an adviser to the Lake Resilience Fund, which invests in defence and societal resilience technologies. So I'm lucky enough to have spent time on bases and in ships, in classrooms and in boats and in service accommodation. I feel as though I've met hundreds of different service people, but I've also been thinking about the technologies that sit beside our national resilience. The two experiences are different, but they reinforce the same thought. When we talk about defence, we often talk about platforms procurement capability.

Yet much of our resilience depends on more practical questions. Can we recruit and retain talent, talented people? Can they build a stable family life? Are they learning quickly enough to keep pace with technology? And what happens when they take the uniform off? Until recently, like many people in this country, perhaps my understanding of what armed forces actually do is embarrassingly shallow. I could not have explained what we ask a submariner to endure on a nuclear deterrent patrol, or
17:11
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho Portrait Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (Crossbench)
-
-
what it means for a Royal Marine to operate in the High North, where a minor mistake can become life threatening. That has changed through my time with the Royal Navy. It has put faces and human cost behind phrases I once skimmed over, behind phrases I once skimmed over, and it is with these perspectives that I approach this bill. I'd like that I approach this bill. I'd like to focus on two areas housing and skills. The contrasting housing between what is often expected at between what is often expected at entry and what some individuals still experience is striking.

I've seen good accommodation, but I've also seen damp, broken heating, long waits for basic repairs and heaven forbid they should ever be any Wi-Fi. The creation of the Defence Housing Service is one of the bill's biggest challenges. The real test is simple will life improve for the families living in these homes? I'd like to understand how Parliament will know 3 or 5 years from now whether these arrangements have worked. What standards will the new service meet? How quickly will repairs be fixed? Will performance be published, and how will service people influence the system if it's not delivering poor housing affects morale, retention and families.

If we ask people to serve their country, we must ensure they have a decent place to live. The second area is the Armed Forces Covenant. Every five years. It allows us, as we've heard, to ask, whether we are keeping our side of the bargain with our armed services. I welcome the bill's decision to strengthen the covenant and extend the statutory duty more widely. But the Bill raises a wider question what does no disadvantage really mean in 2026, the world of work has changed irrevocably.

AI technology is reshaping recruitment, jobs and skills. Every year, thousands leave the armed forces and enter the labour market. The armed forces are exceptionally good at teaching people how to learn under pressure. In a world of constant technological change, that ability may be one of the most valuable things we leave our service. People leave with judgement. Teamwork, adaptability and leadership are becoming more valuable, not less. And these are qualities that the armed forces develop every day. So I hope perhaps the Minister could say how the government could see the covenant evolving alongside these changes.

If the labour market is shifting, should no disadvantage include helping people develop their skills more during service, make it easier for employers to recognise them as well. The Bill also updates arrangements for reserves and recall. As we've heard, recognising these skills of the former personnel remain valuable long after full time service. But if we really do value those skills enough to maintain that relationship, are we also doing enough to help people keep them up to date, especially facing the hybrid world that Lord Wallace talked about earlier? To me, that is part of what conditions of service now mean.

Of course, they still include pay, housing, family support, but they could also include the chance to keep learning and keep moving confidently into civilian life. I don't suggest this bill become a workforce strategy, but it is reasonable to ask whether the Covenant transition support and reserve policy reflect the world. The people now leaving now who leave the armed forces go into, including the impact of AI and automation. One of the privilege of spending time with serving personnel has been seeing the skill and determination across the forces.

We invest heavily in developing those qualities. While people are in uniform, we should be just as determined to ensure they continue to benefit after they leave. We should all welcome this bill and support it. And as Baroness Penn had said, we should all make sure it's widely supported outside this House as well and part of a national conversation. If in a few years time, we can look service people in the eye and say they are living in better homes, that veterans are finding it easier to build good civilian careers and people feel better supported to keep learning throughout their careers and beyond, then this bill will have done something significant alongside its constitutional importance.
17:15
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, Baroness Brinton is taking part remotely, but I'd just like to warn noble Lords that there has been problems with the connection and should the line go down, I'll then call Lord Lancaster. And meanwhile I invite Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Brinton to speak. My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho as follow Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho as she spoke eloquently about the need for improved housing for servicemen and women and their families. And I'm grateful to to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for his Lord Wallace of Saltaire for his his introduction to the bill. In my contribution today, I want to focus on the sections on protection from on the sections on protection from sexual and violent behaviour and domestic abuse, stalking and harassment.

That's clauses 5 to 10. Support for victims of service offences, clauses 11 and 12 and Service Courts clauses 21 to 27 and schedules two and three. All of these clauses and schedules have a direct impact on the victims of offences perpetrated by servicemen and women, and I have some concerns that the proposals, as they stand, do not give parity with the non-military administrative, police and court systems. And I also want to ask some questions about the protocols in relation to visiting forces.

Clauses 41 and 42. In the light of the recent case in Cambridge, my frontbench portfolio of victims and vulnerable people is more usually found in home affairs and justice legislation, and it's good to work with Lady Penn again. It's also good to see that this bill is trying to strengthen the arrangements inside the military criminal justice system to match those elsewhere. And I particularly want to thank both Aurora new Dawn and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for their briefing on this bill and also for copying their letter that they've sent to the Secretary of State for defence.

Both groups are very concerned that at some key gaps, there are some key gaps in the Armed Forces Bill that will mean that victims in the military system will not get the same level of support and protection. And I really hope that the Minister will agree to a meeting with them and those who speak today on these issues, preferably before Committee stage, if possible. It might be helpful if Baroness Levitt could be present at the meeting because, as Courts Minister, she has recently been dealing with the equivalent in the non-military world.

I know from my own experience two decades ago now, as a victim of sustained, nearly three year stalking campaign, that the effect on victims of an obsessive, manipulative stalker are awful. But worse victims are revictimized when those in the criminal justice system just don't understand how serious it can be. Since 2012, the laws relating to stalking have slowly changed, but those changes are only partially covered in this bill. I note that the effectiveness of service stalking protection orders spots will depend on the ability of military personnel, not just military, police and courts to recognise stalking, assess risk and respond appropriately.

And this is reflected in the report of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, which included an official recommendation that, quote, the introduction of the restrictive orders under clauses five and six should be accompanied by extensive training across the system in order for the measures to be properly understood, implemented and enforced, end quote. So one thing is clear the need for training to identify and respond to stalking will be even greater within the armed forces setting than in the civilian world.

And that's because the nature of service life presents unique challenges, including hierarchical structures, close knit communities, shared accommodation deployments, and overlapping professional and personal relationships, as well as opportunities for community surveillance. We know already from domestic abuse cases in the military world. These factors will increase opportunities for perpetrators to maintain unwanted contact and try to exert control, as victims may continue to live, work and serve alongside perpetrators. So effective implementation of Pspos will therefore depend on specialist training delivered by independent experts, as in the civilian world, so that any personnel can recognise stalking behaviour, understand patterns of escalation and respond appropriately, as well as fully understanding all the SS provisions, including the possibility of placing positive requirements on perpetrators.

And it's important to note that the independent stalking advocate in the statutory guidance requires specialist stalking responses and should not be subsumed within broader domestic abuse frameworks. Over a third of stalking cases are nothing to do with domestic relationships. This is also reflected in the recommendations arising from the police super complaint on the police response on stalking that was led by I see FRS, the Iopc and the College of Policing, which highlighted the need to draw on specialist expertise in the development and delivery of all stalking, training.

Failure to identify stalking can result in victims being directed into responses that just don't adequately address stalking related risk, and allowing behaviours to escalate. So can I ask the Minister why there is no provision in the Bill for this important training? The second area I've got concerns about are the arrangements relating to the service stalking, protection notices themselves. Early intervention is particularly important in stalking cases where behaviours may escalate over time and are associated with an increased risk of serious violence and homicide.

While the introductions of the SSP is very welcome, there remains a significant gap between identifying risk and securing an order within the civilian system. The bill addresses this challenge in the domestic abuse context through the provision of Domestic abuse Protection notices, which provide immediate protection while interim orders are being pursued. So, my Lords, it's shocking that there is no equivalent mechanism in the bill for stalking, introducing service stalking protection notices would provide an important safeguard during this period and bring the stalking provisions into closer alignment with the domestic abuse framework.

And thirdly, it's not clear from the relevant clauses and schedules two and three, whether or not the bill provides for continuity of protection after a convicted service man or woman has left the services, whether a domestic abuse protection order or stalking protection order or a sexual harm prevention order or a sexual risk order, it absolutely beggars belief that the Service Protection order automatically lapses when the offender has left the military, often after release from prison. Even if the details of the protection order make it plain that the military, police and or the military court still believe that the victims in these cases need formal protection, it appears there is no facility at the moment to transfer these protection orders with the appropriate level of information to the civilian police services, those services where the victim and dependents live, and also the one where the offender will live.

To explain under what circumstances the Protection Prevention Order was made. And it should also ensure that victims are signposted to civilian victim support that is appropriate for their case. At best, the bill is ambiguous. At worst, these specific issues and gaps were highlighted by the evidence of the Director of Service Prosecutions at the bill's Select Committee hearings. My Lords, when gaps like this are created in stalking cases, danger thrives. The offender thinks they're home free and, especially with stalking, might well target their victim again.

And if they think the police in their area don't know about them, that will embolden them further. So please, can the Minister say that the government will provide amendments prior to committee to remedy this serious and dangerous gap? Finally, my Lords, I am very concerned by the report in The Guardian and the BBC last week about the case of the US Air Force pilot, Captain Jacob Wolfson. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford is much more expert than I on military court system of visiting forces, and I'm looking forward to his contribution.

My focus in this case is how badly the victim was let down, not just by the US court martial process, but also by the local police and CPS. At the moment it was suggested, I presume, by Lakenheath, that the case should be moved from Cambridgeshire police to the US military courts. My information comes from the two reports of the case, of which the most horrifying is how on earth a rape of a British subject in Cambridge, which is British soil, by an American who chose to live off base in Cambridge, could be tried in a US system that derides and diminishes a victim in a way, our criminal justice system, from police to courts and appeals, absolutely cannot.

I mentioned this case as an exemplar. We know there have been many other such cases when the US system has intervened, but without the details becoming public, and I suspect many of those are equally unsatisfactory. For example, I did not know that in the USA, no rape case can be tried without the evidence of the victim, even if there is ample forensic and other witness evidence, and that the victim can be cross-examined and derided by the defence attorney in a manner absolutely forbidden in our courts, but that the prosecutor doesn't have to have specialised training in rape and other sexual offences to balance the defence attorney's contribution, or that the eight jurors in this particular case, all service personnel from Lakenheath, who under US law can also judge the case, can include someone with a spent conviction for sexual assault, as happened in this case.

Unbelievable. The victim has been brave beyond measure, but she does not have, as we have here, the chance of submitting a request to the Attorney General for a review of an unduly lenient sentence. And because she is an alien, i.e. not an American citizen, she is not entitled to any support from the American victim system that helps guides their citizens through. That's shameful. Even worse, any convicted U.S. service man or woman has not only an automatic right of appeal, as well as being able to ask the Secretary of Defence or the president to grant them clemency because their military service outweighs their crime, even if it is a serious sexual or violent assault.

This case is an absolute travesty, but it is not isolated. So we need to address why Cambridgeshire Police or the CPS thought it appropriate to allow the case to pass Lakenheath base. Can the Minister please write to those of us speaking on this issue today to answer the following questions. At what level was the decision to transfer made? What was the relevant rank of the police officer or CPS staff, and did they have training in order to do this and therefore understand the full legal ramifications of the decision on treatment and justice for the victim? And were there any referrals back to the Ministry of Justice? I presume it would be via the Attorney General, but I don't know.

And do the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Justice, Home Office and Foreign Office have a coordinated approach or protocol to cases like this committed on British soil, but moved to a visiting military court system. It is interesting that we now have an inter-departmental protocol when a British citizen is murdered abroad between the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Coroners Service, all helping bereaved families. And if so, is there a protocol with their opposite number in this type of case for high level conversations to understand the consequences? I'd be very grateful if the noble Lord, the Minister and Lady Levitt, the courts Minister, could provide the answers to these questions as a matter of urgency, preferably before I and others may lay amendments at Committee stage.
17:28
17:28
17:28
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Portrait Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Non-affiliated)
-
-
the noble Lord Wallace of Saltaire could give me just another couple of weeks to get my feet under the table. I would happily accept the burden of responsibility in some of his remarks, but I hope to be able to offer him some encouragement to offer him some encouragement that progress is being made equally. Before taking up this recent role, I was asked to give oral evidence I was asked to give oral evidence to the Commons Committee stage of this bill. In my capacity as the independent Chair of the Reserve Forces 2030 review, or RF 30, and after consultation with the Minister and with your Lordships House permission.

It is in this capacity that I speak today as an extension of that earlier evidence. I support this Bill as it begins. Much needed clarity and simplification to the roles of both the Strategic Reserve and provide the enablement through the formation of the non-departmental public body for the reserve Forces and cadets associations. The reserve landscape is complex. RF 30 sought to simplify this landscape by broadly dividing the reserve between the active reserve part time, predominantly but not exclusively paid volunteers like myself and the Strategic Reserve.

Former regular servicemen and women who retain a liability to be called back into service. In recent years, the strategic reserve has been pretty much ignored. This bill does much to enable its greater use, as both the active and strategic reserve will be essential not only in war, but in the transition to war. And it's in the latter that the elements of this bill enables. I would at this point say to the noble Lord Wallace of Saltaire that actually considerable work has been done in this area in recent months.

Tens of thousands of records of former service personnel have been checked and reloaded onto defence databases, and I was surprised to discover, although perhaps I shouldn't be given that the average age of the service leader leaver is 31, that the vast majority of these members of what would be the strategic reserve are actually under the age of 45. So even though that this increases the age of liability to 65, the vast majority of the strategic reserve are relatively young, just like us.

I would, however, say a few words on the active reserve, the part time volunteers, and equally I hope to cheer up the Lord Wallace Saltaire. I want to dispel a myth that somehow these reservists only train at weekends and drill nights, and are a contingent capability. Today's active reserve is very different. Beast. A large percentage of reservists in all three services and cyber and Specialist operations command contribute on a daily basis to delivering defence capabilities on operations in the UK and around the world.

For example, recent reserve led UN missions in Cyprus or specialist bringing their skills to defence, such as cyber experts or working shifts as logistical experts at RAAF bases. They are fully integrated with our regular force and must be valued as such. I want to try to tie together the measures in this bill with the aspiration, the ends and ways of the Strategic Defence Review, published last year with the Defence Investment Plan. The means published last week. The SDR, published in June 2025, calls this the most serious and least predictable security environment since the Cold War, the ongoing war in Ukraine and recent events in the Middle East underline this assertion.

At its heart. The SDR highlighted three shifts a move to warfighting readiness, an integrated force model and, crucially, a whole of society approach to national defence, a theme that's already been explored by the right reverend Prelate and indeed, my noble friend Baroness Penn. The SDR proposed a major boost to the reserves, specifically a new UK strategic reserve by 2030, and a commitment that the Army should be able to rapidly expand and mobilise reserve forces. The strategic reserve measures in this Bill are sensible in that they provide both simplification and harmonisation between the three single services, with liabilities of 65 and form the basis of that rapidly expandable force.

The key, though, will be the data that we hold on individuals and its digital management. We. We need to move away from a traditional paper based system to a digital solution, interrogating the data we hold and contacting them digitally, perhaps via mobile phone apps, so we can best mobilise and employ reservists based on their current skills, as well as their historical historical skills and pace. Defence should invest in this technology as a priority or whatever legislation we do pass in this bill will struggle to convert it into genuine defence capability, and I was pleased to see the dip specifically highlighting the need to, and I quote, invest in new methods and technology for engagement with the strategic reserve.

The SDR also recommends an expansion of the active reserve by 20%, albeit with a caveat when financial conditions allow. And I would say to the Minister that the reserve is a fragile beast, overly reliant on the goodwill of its volunteers. And whilst we await the financial conditions that will allow its expansion, we must in the meantime, ensure that we continue to nurture it, notwithstanding the ambition to increase the size of the active reserve within the SDR, it's worth taking a moment to compare ourselves to the actions being taken by some of our NATO allies.

Belgium. The development of a territorial force, a combination of regular reserve with a focus on the protection of homeland and critical national infrastructure. An ambition to have 0.5% of the working population as reservists. Canada, doubling the size of the reserve forces to 100,000 and developing a strategic reserve of 300 000. Simplifying processes for recruiting and training, the Canadian Armed Forces has had its best recruiting year for many years, led by a national conversation from the top of government, the Czech Republic having reported to have increased gross numbers of reserves by 5000 in a year from a population of just 10 million.

This contrasts with with increases of a few hundred in UK reserves. However. However, we should note that the numbers of applications continue to grow and we are not alone in recognising the need to expand our reserve forces as an effective addition to deterrence. Our 13 SDR were both clear of the requirement of the need for reinvigorated training and modernisation. Learning lessons from Ukraine on drones, autonomy and digital warfare, and I was pleased to see the recent Defence Investment Plan prioritises these measures.

But, my Lords, this preparedness for conflict cannot be Defence's job alone. The SDR is also clear that defence has to be a whole of society matter, something other noble Lords have raised with our homeland under attack via cyber and critical infrastructure on the knife edge, we cannot simply contract out our defences to those in uniform. That means civilian and military integration, with defence playing a key role in the Cabinet Office led home defence programme, mobilising communities. The SDR envisages substantial numbers of volunteers at a local level.

Civilian rescue teams, reserve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

firefighters, special constables and the new Home Defence Force and partnering with society.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with society. A new partnership with industry, wider participation, wider wider participation, wider participation in resilience and expansion of the specialist industry sponsored reserve and the industry sponsored reserve and the National Conversation on security. This builds directly on the recommendation of the R 30 report, recommendation of the R 30 report, which asks us to redefine the Reserve's relationship with society, to share expertise with industry and academia to unlock flexible service, enabling regulars and reserves alike to move between civilian and defence roles, sharing their expertise.

The SDR and dip were clear we need a defence that is NATO first, innovative and lethal. But we also need a defence that is rooted in our communities, our reservists being an active or strategic other bridge between regulars and civilians, between barracks and boardrooms. If we are serious about resilience, then defence is not just the job of the Ministry of Defence. It is a responsibility of all of us. The modernisation of the strategic reserve and the. And the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association.

Elements in this bill represent a good first step, something I hope, that will be built on the government's Future Defence Readiness Bill. But legislation, as I have said, is only one element, and I have one plea to the Minister apart from. Of course, to continue his support for the reserve. And it is that the government embarks on a conversation with wider society to explain why defence is a national responsibility, and I know that work is being done on that within the Mod, and I'm very grateful to the government for ensuring it is being done, but we need to start that conversation now.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, it's somewhat daunting to follow my noble friend Lord to follow my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton. He certainly knows what he's talking certainly knows what he's talking about. My Lords, we have to talk about money. It is the critical about money. It is the critical lifeblood of our armed forces and their effectiveness. This Labour administration is totally failing
17:39
Lord Magan of Castletown Portrait Lord Magan of Castletown (Conservative)
-
-
to recognise fully its financial responsibilities for the defence of responsibilities for the defence of the realm. My Lords, we are on a collision course with a Russia collision course with a Russia that's on a war footing. The threats aren't imaginary, they are real. And yet the current Labour administration is intent on sleepwalking into a really critical situation, for want of mobilising the immediately necessary and substantial funding to keep our country safe. Yes, the UK is extremely vulnerable and exposed at this time, not least because of the very substantial underinvestment in our nuclear submarine capability.

The Strategic Defence Review made it abundantly clear as to the scale of the increased investment in defence capabilities that is needed. The Defence Investment Plan has quantified the requirement at 28 billion over the next four years. The reality is that the current Labour administration has prevaricated and procrastinated until very late and very rushed, coming up with a financial commitment of just 15 billion over four years, but very substantially sourced by as yet unidentified cost savings.

My Lords, this is just far too little and far too late. Defence expenditure rising in 2030 to just 2.7% of GDP, far short of the 3% committed by the Prime Minister. To our NATO allies. No wonder that John Healey, until recently, Secretary of State for defence, resigned because, in his words, the proposed level of spending falls well. Short falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time.

So Prime Minister Starmer goes to the NATO summit this week as a derided lame duck, an ignominious ending to his disastrous term in office. His weakness will hugely upset our European NATO partners, but will enrage President Trump, whose ire will no doubt manifest itself in other ways of significant damage to the UK and our trading relationships with the USA. Starmer has surely smashed. Starmer has surely smashed the special relationship. It will take a very long time for trust and confidence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to rebuild. To follow. Lord Magan of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To follow. Lord Magan of Castletown, who quite rightly has been pointing out the inadequacies of the funding package announced of the funding package announced last week in the Defence Investment Plan. However, that is not what I wish to talk about this afternoon. wish to talk about this afternoon. My Lords, but I do welcome the strengthening of the Armed Forces strengthening of the Armed Forces Covenant, I. I welcome the strengthening of the Armed Forces Covenant in the wider. Of the funding and the underfunding of defence.

We put the Armed Forces Covenant into being in 2011, and that followed several years when the armed forces had been under huge pressure as a result of the double commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan. And at that time, there was an imbalance between what the nation was asking of the armed forces to do and what the nation was providing the armed forces with in order to carry out its tasks. And that unbalance became translated into what we now have as the Armed Forces Covenant.

The Armed Forces Covenant now focuses largely on individuals requirements and making sure there is no disadvantage. And that is good. And now we're going to widen it and widen the legal underpinning. But, my Lords, I stress the origin of the military covenant, as we call it now. The Armed Forces Covenant was actually a moral foundation to make sure that there was a balance between what the nation was asking of the armed forces and what the armed forces was being given to do it with.

So I make that wider point in welcoming the strengthening of the Armed Forces Covenant. There is that moral consideration as well as legal underpinning. Secondly, my Lords, I welcome the defence Housing Strategy. But we've been there before, my Lords. I've been in and out of the Ministry of Defence for the better part of half a century, and successive governments have vowed to do what they can to improve the standard of service accommodation, both for married families and single living accommodation, and they've identified money to be put to one side specifically to improve that.

But time and again, those funds, those pots of funds have been raided when other other priorities were deemed to be higher. The question I asked the noble Lord, the Minister, this time in the context of the underfunding of the defence Investment Plan, is do we have a commitment that the money that's being ring fenced for for the housing strategy will itself be preserved and used for the purpose in which it's been identified? Thirdly, I welcome the reference in the in the bill to a Veterans Commissioner for England.

Such commissioners exist in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but there is no Commissioner yet for. For England. Some 20 years ago, with the previous government. One argued hard that there should be such a Commissioner. The government of the day said there shouldn't. Well, the same party is now in power. We seem to be going down the track of having a Commissioner for England, and I welcome that. But it was announced almost two years ago, and I don't think, as far as I understand, that other person has been recruited and identified and put in place.

Fourth, I raise clause 48, which is mentioned in the bill. There are some unintended consequences of clause 48. Clause 48 amends the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 and the unintended consequence. And I am not a diver. The unintended consequence of that strengthening of the Protection of Military Remains Act is that it places the hitherto innocent activities of diving parties into now an illegal framework, and if they are conducting their diving in the way that they have in the past, this legislation having changed, then they will be conducting illegal activities which will actually render their insurance to cover their their hobby and their diving practices irrelevant.

And that's a general point on clause 48. As the noble Lord, the Minister is aware, I chair the Gloucester 1682 Charitable Trust, and that charitable trust exists to fully expose, for the benefit of the nation. The story of the Gloucester lost off Norfolk coast on the 6th of May, 1682. And why is that important? Because it was carrying James, Duke of York, who went on to become James the Second. If he had drowned, the course of English history would have been changed, and if John Churchill, who was with him at the time, had had drowned as well, he would not have gone on to become the first Duke of Marlborough.

When the battles of Blenheim, Ramillies, Oudenarde and Malplaquet, and end the war of
17:47
Lord Dannatt Portrait Lord Dannatt (Crossbench)
-
-
Spanish Succession. So the course of European history would have been changed. And I highlight the story changed. And I highlight the story of the Gloucester, because it also is runs the risk of. We are being. is runs the risk of. We are being. We could be prevented from continuing to excavate and bring to continuing to excavate and bring to the surface artefacts which can tell the story of of that ship and that important episode in British and European history. And I therefore ask the Lord Minister to give me assurance that the amendments to the Protection of Military Remains Act will not hinder our work as far as the Gloucester is concerned.

And finally, my Lord, I raise a subject which I raise many times in this House before. In 2013, I was privileged to be given a debate in my. My name relating to the Northern Ireland troubles. Well, 13 years later, we are still really no further forward. The act recently passed has now been suspended, and the current government's intention to bring new legislation itself has been suspended. We cannot allow ageing soldiers, ageing veterans, to continue to run the risk of vexatious inquiries and and and subsequent court cases.

If these things could have been settled, they would have been settled 20, 30, 40 years ago when the evidence was fresh. Most of these cases collapsed because there is inadmissible evidence, because, frankly, it is so old and it is difficult to get fresh evidence. So, my Lords, I ask once again as my fifth point that resumed efforts are put in place to bring fresh legislation forward, to stop further inquiries and the harassing of now aged and ageing veteran soldiers who served in Northern Ireland during the course of the Troubles.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and I noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and I want to start by congratulating the government for bringing forward this Armed Forces Bill in this particular form. My noble Lord, my noble friend. The Minister set out noble friend. The Minister set out how the Bill strengthens the nation's enduring covenant with Armed Services personnel, and I want to start by thanking the men and women who serve, who defend our nation and protect our interests here.

Every armed forces bill, of course, is more than just an administrative requirement. It says something important about what this country stands for. And this current bill is an opportunity to modernise, strengthen and improve, as has inevitably been noted, the bill arrives alongside the Defence Investment Plan and whatever the level of noise around that plan, there is no denying that this government has already shown it's prepared to make hard choices to invest in defence, and there must be even more, even harder choices
17:50
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Portrait Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Labour)
-
-
to come. But meanwhile, against a background of growing global instability, the government is acting decisively with money acting decisively with money attached to begin to shore up our defence capabilities to meet defence capabilities to meet present and future external threats. Fundamentally, this bill is about Fundamentally, this bill is about the people who defend us, and I hope that one of its effects will be to help with recruitment, retention and morale. The bill builds on the big pay increases, better housing, expanded child care, and the more flexible offer of service that the government has already brought in.

And as my noble friend the Minister detailed in his introduction, the Bill deepens. The legal force of the covenant, stretches obligations across government, improves the service justice system with better protection for victims, and several noble Lords have made reference to the new Defence Housing Service, backed by £9 billion over the next decade. My Lords, we can't honourably carry on expecting people to go off to risk their lives if they don't have a decent home. And like many other noble Lords, I take every opportunity I get to encourage young people to consider joining the armed services.

And to a young person considering service, this bill says your country values you. It tells a parent that a service career for their son or daughter offers dignity, respect and opportunity. And on the subject of recruitment, the Defence Investment Plan promises investment in the first four years, then an expansion of the regular workforce, including increasing the size of the army. And I'd like to take this opportunity to ask my noble friend the Minister, how progress on this will be tracked and reported.

The investment plan also signals a £4.2 billion spend on the reserves to the end of the decade. And like other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, I want to focus on the reserves. There is a reason why around 12,000 employers across the United Kingdom have now signed the covenant. They will tell you they recognise both their duty to support those who serve and the real benefits reservists bring into civilian employment. The British Chambers of Commerce, for example, signed the covenant five years ago, and it uses its voice to encourage chambers and the broader business community to do the same.

Over half of UK accredited chambers of commerce are signed up, and all of these signatories actively support the armed forces, including encouraging member employers to take on reservists and give them the support they need. The BCC and other employers regard this as an active and mutually beneficial partnership, particularly as businesses are up against skills shortages and the benefits of this flow in both directions. Employing reservists give employers access to skilled staff and to skills training that they'd otherwise have to pay for themselves.

Organisations gain crisis capable staff with leadership skills and sound judgement for the armed forces. Civilian employers provide the flexibility and support that make reserve service viable, and there are wider economy advantages. Employing reserves sustains a two way flow of skills between the military and civilian sectors. For example in engineering, skills, logistics, cyber and healthcare. A reservist cyber specialist may bring cutting edge commercial knowledge into a defence company. For example, a reservist military engineer may return to industry with world class leadership experience, and a reservist medic strengthens both military readiness and civilian resilience.

And it isn't just private sector employers who testify to this. For example, the NHS employers reports that reservists in NHS trusts bring emergency decision making. Leadership confidence, problem solving, resilience under operational pressure. One NHS trust recently described reservists as improving workforce capability daily, particularly in acute and emergency settings. And that matters because healthcare is one of the clearest civilian environments where crisis management skills transfer directly and reservists themselves report using the skills they get from military service in civilian jobs.

As we saw in the 2024 Tri-services Reserves Continuous Attitude Survey. So I take this opportunity to invite the Minister to consider what more the government can do to encourage more employers to take on reservists. It is, of course, the strategic reserve, as has already been said this afternoon, that is the bill's main target, and rightly so. It makes absolute sense to keep ex-service people on the books longer and make call up easier. But I ask Ministers not to underplay the active reserve, and I anticipate no positive response to this from my noble friend the Minister, after what he's told us about his close family member, who is an active member of the reserve, there's, I persistent low conversion rate among reserve, and it takes constant effort to recruit.

And it depends very much on employer support being sustained. But you get a positive payoff from investment in the active reserves. It creates a continually renewing source of capability that gives the military access to life civilian skills, and it's a source of larger long term mobilisation and deeper long term resilience. The defence Minister recently said in the other place that the Mod had taken urgent and targeted action to streamline and speed up volunteer reserves, recruitment processes and from next year, reserve recruiting will pass to the new armed forces recruiting system.

So in concluding, I join with other noble Lords, notably noble Lord Minto, in asking, in the light of all of this, if my noble friend the Minister can tell the House when it will be possible to make progress on the SDR ambition to increase the active reserve by 20% over time.
17:58
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Hear, hear, hear. >> Debate and welcome a number of noble Lords who've said they are relatively new to engaging in military issues, something that I think your Lordships' House should think your Lordships' House should encourage more of in this age of geopolitical shocks unlikely to reduce in intensity or frequency any time soon, and direct if undeclared attacks on the UK, we need far more and broader engagement in security issues than has traditionally been the case. We need a realistic assessment of the level of armed forces that the UK population and economy can support, rather than seeking to find a place in the world beyond our capabilities and a realistic assessment of the unstable diplomatic environment in which we operate, we know who our friends are, and we also need to know that those who have been our friends in the past may not be so in the future.

We owe it to the armed forces as the whole of society, to be brutally realistic about the circumstances we now find ourselves in. I begin by being positive. I welcome the Defence Housing Strategy and the creation of a defence housing service, which, as the letter to us from Lord Coaker put it, aims to put first the needs of forces, personnel, veterans and their families. That will be a welcome change from the disastrous privatisation. One more disastrous privatisation of forces housing, that is, the Financial Times, summarised.

It sparked multiple court actions and saddled the government with billions of pounds in rent and maintenance costs when completing the Armed Forces Parliamentary scheme. A few years ago. The RAF and I should perhaps declare now that I'm completing the Rcds. International Security and Grand Strategy course, the issue of forces housing was raised with us perhaps most often as we spoke with forces personnel, and it is undoubtedly going to take a great deal more in costs and attention to repair.

I note the amendment in the other place on ensuring consistent investment and support on the face of the bill for forces housing, and I think that is certainly worthy of your Lordships consideration. I also welcome the improved attention to the Armed Forces Covenant and victim support, particularly for women and girls, and I was interested in the issue raised by the right reverend Prelate not currently in his place. The technical issue about the treatment of domestic abuse cases that I certainly think deserves more examination.

I will be probing the government on how it might act more strongly in the area of rape and sexual assault cases, something the House united in indicating their strong desire for changes in 2021. That note saying that, I note that I'm a veteran of the Armed Forces Bill of 2021 and the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill of 2025, the noble Lord Lord Coaker and the noble Lady Baroness Goldie, will be hearing from me on some very familiar issues, and I make no apologies for that.

They are important issues, particularly of violence against women and girls in the military and the recruitment of 15, 16 and 17 year olds into our forces. But I will be adding a couple of new issues to raise now. The long title of the bill includes to make provision about visiting forces. I note that in the other place, green MP supported what was a new clause four, which probably comes under that provision, and I will be happy to work on that here. But I want to raise a new issue now and pursue it later.

Stages one that I've also raised by way of written question. It is that of foreign personnel based or visiting here who commit crimes. It is raised through an excellent job of reporting by the Guardian, which it deserves to be commended for by the case of Jacob Wolfson, who strangled in his apartment in Cambridge. A British woman he met online. He was allowed. This case was allowed to be tried at Air Base Court martial US Air Base court martial instead of facing UK justice.

That involved an all male panel of Wolfson's fellow Air Force officers, all stationed at the same base as him. The victim described the hearing as a degrading and distressing experience. She said that the system, which was unfamiliar to her, picked me up, chewed me out. I want to see if we can use this bill to prevent any similar cases in future. I also will be delighted to back up the noble Lady Baroness Penn not currently in her place on the issue she has intended.

She intends to leave. It indicated she intends to lead on that of inadequate paternity leave in the military. And I note, since I was speaking on Friday about transparency and lobbying, that I had been lobbied on this by the NGO called dad dad Shift, and I'm very much backing the campaign that they're leading. I always try in your Lordships' House to bring the voices of people who cannot be here. So I want to bring some of those voices of men who've indicated their concerns about the current inadequate provision of maternity leave.

This from an Army soldier being posted four hours away from my child when she was born was tough, only having two weeks to bond before I was back, being 200 miles away with limited time to travel back and see her was tough and definitely caused irreparable damage to our relationship, ultimately leading to the collapse of my relationship with her mother to to go to another voice. When my child was born, I was granted two weeks of standard paternity leave with an additional two weeks discretionary leave due to my wife requiring an emergency C-section.

Now, it's usually said that it takes at least six weeks to recover from a caesarean section, so it's. There is. And I will note that in the joint services publication JSP 760, there is a discretionary element of providing additional compassionate leave, as that second account indicates. But it is of course discretionary. And now it's difficult to put a full scale on this problem. But nearly 8 in 10 service families have children and 32% have children aged under five.

And the level of paternity leave actually has dropped that's been taken has dropped, which may be accounted for by a slight fall in headcount. But it's a really significant drop. And I would be interested if the noble Lord, the Minister, now or in future, can provide any information on what what he knows about the level of take up of paternity leave. Now, I note that there is a review of parental leave arrangements currently ongoing, due to report late in 2026, early 27.

So there really is a window of opportunity here for your Lordships House to do something really positive, because I would argue, obviously the right thing to do, but also a great deal. Many of the contributions your Lordships House have focussed on retention of military personnel, and this is obviously an important issue, as well as supporting military families. Now, I come to the second issue that will not surprise those who were here in 2021 about recruitment of 15, 16 and 17 year olds into the military, and particularly the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, where an average of 2380 children over the past five years have been trained each year.

Now this is being a cause of considerable complaints and campaigning, and again, I. I note that I'm drawing on the work of Child Rights International Network, which obtained the inspector's visits from the last Ofsted visit to the site in March 2024. Recorded under a section entitled ill Treatment of Recruits by staff was the following. In 2021, eight allegations made. Six substantiated military action taken in 2022. Ten allegations five substantiated an action taken in 2023. Six allegations two substantiated an action for 2024.

The data was greyed out. Now, I've seen some very disturbing footage of not just the treatment of recruits by instructors, but also behaviour within groups of recruits, footage that can't be shared very widely because it might have identified the child who took it. But it is very disturbing. There is reports of a 16 year old former recruit who witnessed his friend being so badly beaten by an instructor that they broke his leg. He was then forced to march on it for miles.

We are an utter outlier in developed countries in having these recruiting 15, 16, 17 year olds, and this is something that I will be raising further. I do just want to mention two more issues. One is that the Wiltshire Police investigation of sexual abuse during military examinations, which has been ongoing for some time and dates back from the 1970s up to 2016 at different locations across the UK. I wonder if the noble Lord, the Minister, can either update us now or I will understand entirely if he wishes to do it.

In writing on how that inquiry is proceeding, there's a great many people with cause for concern and would like to know what's happening with that. And I also just note a very specific issue, but one that's clearly of great concern to some people with good reason, calling for the recognition and protection of the SS awar from 1942 and comparable cases. And this is identifying a statutory framework gap by governing maritime war graves. Perhaps again, the noble Lord, the Minister might like to write to me about that, or I realise it's a fairly technical issue, but it's one that will be raising in future.
18:09
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Portrait Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord. Like others, I welcome. I start by welcoming this Armed Forces bill. There are many Forces bill. There are many measures that we've identified this afternoon within it that are in urgent need of our attention, such urgent need of our attention, such as the provisions to ensure service personnel and their families have access to quality housing and the intention to modernise and strengthen our reserve forces, particularly the inclusion of support for employers. For example, I declare an interest. I have a daughter who is a serving reserve officer in the very unit that Lord the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, mentioned in the Scots Guards, London Guards, London, Scottish, yes.

So I also welcome the desire to place the Armed Forces Covenant fully into law. The Bill rightly recognises that our duty to those who serve must not end with warm words, but must be reflected in legislation and public policy. However, in some areas I do wish the government would go further. The measures in this bill, extending the recall liability and easing the transfer from regulars to the reserves focus, as others have identified on the strategic reserves. And if we are really going to adopt a whole defence approach and increase the active reserve by 20%, then we need to be much smarter about who we've got, what skills they bring and how we attract, train and retain people within all of the volunteer reserve forces.

The Mod does not manage or track total spending on reserve forces and answers to written questions in the other place show that the Mod has no idea as to the make up and skill set of the reserve forces, so my Lords, would not. The suggestions from my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton to focus on digital data solutions be something that would be basic low hanging fruit information that the government should ensure it resolves. As a first step, I too, along with others, look forward to the Minister explaining how else the government plans to deliver on expanding the pool of reserves.

Should this bill be confined only to changing the length and age limit for recalling personnel? What about tackling the less favourable treatment of reservists regarding pension access and calculation of daily rates of pay, and addressing the conclusions of the 2024 Employment Tribunal ruling? Will he commit to supporting my noble friend Lord Lancaster to implement the recommendations of RF 30? Or perhaps the suggestions for tax incentives for reservists made earlier by my noble friend Earl of Minto. But, my Lords, there is another area where this Bill suffers from a glaring omission.

There are a group of people who wear uniform with pride, who are described by the noble Lord, the Minister himself as essential and a unique asset to government. They participate in military operations in contested environments in direct support of the UK's national security. Their personnel spend months away from their families. They can be exposed to missile threats, hostile actors and escalating regional tensions. They accept restrictions on their freedoms. They may suffer the same psychological impacts of operational deployment as others in our armed forces.

Yet when they return home, they do not enjoy the same recognition under the Armed Forces Covenant because they are classified as civilian employees. I am, my Lords, referring to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the RFA, who, because they are employed as members of the Civil Service, the Armed Forces Covenant, and the provisions within this bill do not extend to them. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary is not a commercial shipping company. It is a uniformed fleet owned by the Ministry of Defence, operating under Naval Command, crewed by people who volunteered to deploy to deploy wherever the Royal Navy is sent.

Without them, carrier strike groups do not remain at sea and amphibious operations cannot be sustained. NATO task groups cannot remain on station. They are not merely supporting defence, they are part of defence. RFA Tide force has recently been participating in maritime security operations in European waters, working with NATO forces and Royal Navy warships, including tracking, intercepting and seizing Russian shadow fleet oil tankers. Right now, the the crew of the RFA Lyme Bay are deployed in the Middle East, repurposed as a specialist mothership for autonomous Minehunting.

The vessel carries advanced underwater drones, uncrewed surface vessels and specialist mine warfare and diving personnel. The 60 or so ship's company, who run RFA line Bay, were trained and tested thoroughly alongside the embarked forces who provide the mine warfare expertise before deployment, and with the destroyer HMS Dragon, RFA Lyme Bay will play a central role in any future multinational effort to safeguard the freedom of navigation in the Straits of Hormuz. These RFA personnel have trained, are now deployed and are operating right now in one of the most volatile places on the planet.

And yet, when they return home, they and their families will not be covered by the Armed Forces Covenant. The Minister himself confirmed this in an answer to my written question on the 3rd of June, where he added, and I quote, in the spirit of the covenant organisations who have signed the Armed Forces Covenant Pledge are encouraged to consider the needs of other groups within the wider Armed Forces community. If individual circumstances merit it. This includes members of the RFA that have seen duty on defined military operations.

So I say to the Minister and to this House, we have an opportunity in this bill to put this right. I know first hand the Minister is a supporter of the RFA. Surely tracking the shadow fleet deployment in the Middle East or supporting NATO task groups are defined military operations, and surely every member of the RFA who has been part of these deserves to be protected by the provisions of the Armed Forces Covenant. I hope this bill can be amended to ensure that from now on, this is unambiguously the case.

The Armed Forces Covenant exists because those who serve our nation accept unique risks, restrictions and sacrifice and sacrifices. It is not founded on military status, but on military service. It is profoundly unfair, then, that there remain men and women who are routinely deployed alongside our armed forces into areas of conflict and crisis, who enable military operations every day, but who remain outside the covenant protections. That cannot be the intention of this bill. I therefore, urge the government to consider an amendment that extends covenant eligibility to Royal Fleet auxiliary personnel who have undertaken defined operational service.

It would be a modest change to this bill, but a significant statement of fairness.
18:17
Lord Morse Portrait Lord Morse (Crossbench)
-
-
I am delighted to speak after Baroness Fraser and I should say, my Lords, I'm an Army brat. I'm not my Lords, I'm an Army brat. I'm not sure how many of them are in the room, but I was brought up. My room, but I was brought up. My father was a serving officer and I have had home in. I know 25 have had home in. I know 25 different pretty insalubrious married quarters around the world, so I do actually have some feeling for what we speak.

And in addition to that, as Comptroller and Auditor General, I have had the pleasure of making quite a lot of reports, both on the Mod as a whole and also actually on the Annington homes. I think deal is probably the most neutral expression I can use about it. What I am clear about is that we owe a massive debt to the armed forces, and it's not easy to pay it off, actually, because it requires seeing them integrate into society in a comfortable way, and it's often very difficult for them, quite painful and not always successful, to be honest.

So I think we need to recognise their responsibility for a lot of people who've been deeply embedded in major institutions for long periods of time, and then are coming out of that and trying to live what we would, I guess, call a normal life. They need help when they're doing that. And we have a if if we're not responsible, then I don't know who is. I respect and support the objectives of this bill, and I believe the best way I can help is to try and point out a few areas where we need to be on guard against building disappointment into the legislation.

The bill places a legal obligation on various public bodies, which are likely to be providing services to service people before or after retirement, to give due consideration to the Armed Services Covenant in making decisions on access to their services. This is positive, but it's important to remember that local authorities have a wide range of services which they are legally obligated to provide to their residents, as do health providers. There's a significant difference between a legal obligation to give due consideration, which could be satisfied by having a limited discussion and an obligation to provide a service which which where residents can and do quite frequently seek judicial review to enforce provision of services.

I suspect that many local authorities feel they're under heavy financial pressure already, and struggle to meet their existing statutory obligations. So the obligation to consider the covenant may sometimes produce disappointing results for people who've been believing that they're walking forward with the armed Forces covenant in their hand, expecting to have a very fulsome response. It may be very difficult for local authorities to do that. While local authorities may be able to seek relief under the new burdens rules, most applications of this relief are intended to provide transitional cover only, so the burden lasts for a lot longer than the relief does, generally speaking, notwithstanding the fact that some service providers support champions to assist forces, people to find their way to make into what may be available to them, it may be worthwhile to consider an independent professional advocacy service modelled on the Ombudsman and with Ombudsman style, authority and ability to command witnesses.

I think that would provide a much more effective and wider enforcement of their of their rights, or at least making sure that when we're saying due consideration, that really means something. And I think having having a an authoritative voice at the table might help a great deal. Turning to the subject of service accommodation, the record of underachievement is a long one. The Annington homes example is currently in the press, although it actually all took place a very long time ago.

But briefly, this was a sale and leaseback of a large estate of mod owned properties in need of extensive repair. The deal provided the maid with a significant capital payment and a future rental obligation, but the responsibility to keep the estate in repair had been has been the subject of a long running dispute. Meanwhile, the estate's become progressively more and more dilapidated and in some cases, uninhabitable. The lump sum of the Mod received certainly did not go into keeping the estate in repair.

The moral of the story is that assets with no income stream to support the support, maintenance lose value and fail in their primary purpose to provide good quality accommodation for 40 people. Could this sort of thing happen again under the provisions relating to property in the Bill? But it's obviously not meant to. And let's answer it by looking at the three pillars of the defence housing strategy. We see the first one looks for a renewal of defence family housing stock over a ten year period, and commits £9 billion to support this.

The second pillar calls for an independent body for defence housing and a third to ensure the defence, housing and defence land delivers for the nation. I'll come back to that one. The first two of these columns look mutually reinforcing. That would be helpful to set a standard for what that housing stock could, could be brought to and maintained at, rather than just hoping it will be in good condition. As we saw in the Annington homes example, maintenance is crucial in sustaining the value and usability of the property, and since lack of maintenance is not necessarily obvious, it's perilously easy to rob Peter to pay Paul elsewhere.

Elsewhere in MoD budget. I have seen this happen quite a few times. One suggestion is to is to. To push back on this would be to set a required enforceable objective. Perhaps taking the decent homes code, which I know is familiar to the MoD and saying, we'll treat that as the basement. And then we build up from that the quality of accommodation that we really want this scheme to deliver. And I believe that is something we could and should think about.

My Lords, turning to the third pillar, it seems to me the objective of delivering for the nation may involve delivering to the nation rather than for the nation. It does have a sort of kind of Treasury ish tone to it. I think as an objective. It seems to me that the pressure to generate substantial funding and to assist in the pursuit of the national housebuilding targets and other wider policy objectives, could become a very powerful driver. However, this needs not be.

This does not need to be irreconcilable with providing excellent accommodation for armed services, provided these are suitably protected and the defence property budget is specifically ring fenced and protected so that it is accumulated over the ten year period specified for renewal and not accessible for other purposes. My Lords, the enshrinement of the Armed Services Covenant in Law is a significant step forward and an ambitious and the ambition is inherent in it, in it deserve our support and as much reinforcement and stiffening as on the delivery front as we can possibly bring to bear.

We need our military and now we need them more than in many years. We owe them our strong engagement in this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Morse, who has spoken noble Lord Morse, who has spoken movingly from his experience. I think he said of some 25 married think he said of some 25 married quarters of the immense debt that we owe to the services, and I we owe to the services, and I entirely agree with them. Now, I declare an interest as president of declare an interest as president of the Association of Military Court Advocates.

I'm nevertheless
18:25
Lord Thomas of Gresford Portrait Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
speaking entirely on my own behalf. In the last 30 years, the In the last 30 years, the traditional court martial system has been completely overhauled as a result of the European Court of result of the European Court of Human Rights decision, primarily in the case of Findlay in 1997. And it's ironic to hear the noble Earl, it's ironic to hear the noble Earl, Lord Minto, talk about the modernisation of the justice system, but at the same time call for the abolition of our of our membership of the European Court of Human Rights.

Lord Sewell. I had a flash of when I was a bus conductor, as a as a young man and the driver of the bus. Told me how in his youth in the First World War he had been tied to the wheel of a gun carriage and lashed. And I think the military justice system has come a little bit forward since those times. As Lord Craig of Radley reminded us, the main reforming legislation was the Armed Forces Act of 2006, which set up a justice system under the control of civil judges.

In serious cases, particularly independent of the chain of command. And our last excursion into this area in 2021, more reforms were pushed through, which have now been brought into force, and I'm pleased to see that further important reforms are in this bill, which I entirely support. It's extremely important to the recruitment and retention of personnel, not just that the social and welfare conditions of the armed forces are maintained, matters with which this bill also rightly deals. But where problems arise, the.

That the justice system is fair appropriate to the conditions of service life, proportionate to the civil system, and, above all, one which attracts the confidence of those who serve the. One particular area which has given rise to controversy is that of sexual and harassment offences or. Although there's been a great deal of improvement in the investigation and support services, there remains a need for vigilance at all times. It's an area of concern not just to military justice in the United Kingdom, but also in the United States.

I gave evidence to a Department of Defence review in the Washington in Washington, DC in September 2014, when the issue was very much alive in relation to American forces. My evidence concerned the matters. I've referred to the independence of the chain of command, and in particular the employment of civilian judges who are experienced with crime courts. But the US Defence Department Committee was persuaded by a formidable array of gold braided generals, led by the chief of the General Staff, to maintain its existing system of ranking military judges acting within the chain of command.

There are therefore significant procedural differences between British and US courts martial, which have an impact on US forces stationed in this country. And I'm grateful to my noble friend Baroness Brinton for raising the case of Captain Jacob Wolfson, which was referred to last week. Your Lordships will recall that this was a sexual attack by an off duty US pilot upon a British lady in civilian accommodation in the city of Cambridge. That offence in 2023 gave rise to concurrent jurisdiction between the British and US authorities.

Prima facie were an offence against a by an off duty American serviceman against a British civilian takes place outside the ambit of an American base. The appropriate investigation should be by UK police and the prosecution should be brought in our own Crown courts. But what happened in this case was that the Cambridgeshire Police waived jurisdiction and the trial took place by court martial before a US military judge and a convened panel in the Lakenheath base. It's undoubtedly the case that without any of the measures we have developed to protect the victim as a witness, the attack in this case upon the lady's character by a US defence attorney, went far beyond what would be permitted in the UK Crown Court.

Captain Wolfson was acquitted of a rape charge but convicted of strangulation, something which he admitted had happened in the course of their their encounter in accordance with the practice. At that time, sentence on him was determined by the lay panel of fellow officers of the US base, and he received six months detention in a commodious detention facility on the camp. He was also dismissed from the service. Well, two issues arise. First, jurisdiction. On what basis did the Cambridgeshire Police hand the case over to the US military Police for investigation? There are unpublished agreements, the details of which we know nothing, between the attorneys general of the United States and the UK.

Will the government undertake to publish those agreements in the interests of transparency? Should there not be a register kept of decisions made by UK authorities to waive jurisdiction, which would set out in writing the reasons for such waivers, whether by the police or the CPS or the Director of Public or Service prosecutions. This would inform the public and enable a victim to challenge such decisions by way of judicial review. If the quality of justice were at risk. Secondly, sentencing in this country, the sentence is determined by the board sitting with the Judge advocate who advises the members on the law and the scale of sentence recommended by the Sentencing Council for a particular offence.

In the event of an equality of votes by the members of the board. The Judge Advocate has a casting vote. I've argued in the last two armed forces bills that in the modern era, the judge advocate in the UK system should sentence alone on the basis that the exercise of sentencing is today highly technical and beyond the competence and experience of the members of the board who, unlike magistrates, had no training and have probably never been in court before and unlikely to be there again.

The sensible reform has always been resisted on the basis that the board of senior officers and NCOs have military experience valuable for assessing the just penalty, and that's a view that has been supported elsewhere. But I would argue that a judge advocate sitting in courts martial on a daily basis has more than adequate experience of the military world. The wholly inadequate sentence passed in the Wolfson case shows what can happen when sentencing is left to amateurs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the US system. The military Judges. Rule in accordance with the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Practice, then in force was limited merely to indicating the. To the panel the maximum and To the panel the maximum and minimum levels of sentencing that US system has actually been US system has actually been replaced and had the offence occurred since December 2023, then occurred since December 2023, then it would have been in the United States system. Now, following what I have been putting forward for years now, following a system whereby the judge passes the sentence alone, Wilson was lucky.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope to advance these areas in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee here. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord Soames. Thomas of Gresford. I would. Like to take this opportunity to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like to take this opportunity to. Thank all those who serve. Have served and their families,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have served and their families, because this bill is about more than just military law. It's about the promise we make to those who serve our country and to their families, that their service and sacrifice will be recognised not only while they serve, but long after their military service has ended. Our armed forces do not serve alone. Their families also make sacrifices in support of that service. I welcome this bill, in particular, the measures that to strengthen the Armed Forces Covenant.

My own experiences have shown me why these issues matter so deeply. Earlier in my career, while working at J.P. Morgan Chase, I had the privilege of managing a colleague who had served in the Royal Engineers. He brought with him not only highly transferable skills, but also professionalism, teamwork and a good sense of humour and a can do attitude that benefited everyone around him. His military experience enriched our workplace and demonstrated the enormous value that veterans can bring to employers across every sector.

My work as a counsellor gave me a different perspective. I helped a veteran who was experiencing serious housing difficulties in the private rented sector. Despite those challenges, he continued working as a bus driver supporting his family, which included a severely disabled child while completing a law degree and then a master's in law. Today, he is a practising solicitor. His
18:36
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham Portrait Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Labour)
-
-
journey demonstrates the grit, determination and resilience that so many who have served continue to so many who have served continue to show in civilian life. It also reinforced my belief that our duty reinforced my belief that our duty to those who serve does not end when the military service ends. Veterans leave the armed forces with the qualities to continue to make significant contributions to make significant contributions to our communities and to our country. They deserve not only our gratitude, but our continued support and the opportunity to fulfil their potential in civilian life.

For that reason, one issue that particularly resonates with me is ensuring that the Armed Forces Covenant is delivered consistently across every local authority and public service, as well as private private sector. The promise we make to those who serve should not depend on where they happen to live. The covenant must not simply be a statement of intent or a legal obligation. It must become a practical reality in every community across the United Kingdom. We should also do more to support veterans as they transition into civilian life.

Veterans bring a wealth of expertise and transferable skills that strengthens our workplace, our public services, our economy. We should encourage employers and organisations across the public, private and voluntary sectors to recognise these qualities that veterans bring and the values their skills and expertise can add to their organisations. Many people have little direct experience with military service or the armed forces community. That makes it all the more important that we strengthen public understanding of the contributions made by our armed forces.

Greater awareness helps foster respect for those who serve and encourages future generations to consider a career in the armed forces. Supporting our armed forces and supporting veterans are not separate responsibilities. One flows naturally from the other. If we are to honour the priorities and the promises embodied in the Armed Forces Covenant, we must ensure it is reflected not only in legislation, but in everyday experiences of those who serve, those who have served and their families.

I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister, what further steps the government will take to ensure that the Armed Forces Covenant is delivered consistently across the country. How that consistency will be measured, and what more can be done to support veterans into employment and encourage employers and organisations across public, private and voluntary sectors to recognise the qualities that veterans bring and the value their skills and experience can add to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their organisations. My Lords, the Armed Forces Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the Armed Forces Bill before the House comes at a very important time in the history of important time in the history of our nation. The threats facing our country for the most complex there country for the most complex there have been for many decades. War continues to rage in Ukraine, which is a reminder that our country's defence can't be taken for granted. My Lords, we need investment properly in our armed forces. And this starts with giving our brave armed forces personnel the best possible support.

My Lords, there is much in the Bill to welcome the creation of new Defence Housing Service is long overdue steps improving the unacceptable standard of military accommodation that too many service families have endured for years. Good quality housing is fundamental to keeping up good morale. Giving our armed forces a place they can call home during active service. Changes also to our reserve forces to expand. Likewise, the reforms to the Service Justice Scheme should improve efficiency and confidence that cases are dealt with fairly and transparently.

However, my Lords, there are important areas where the Bill doesn't go far enough to support our armed forces. Most concerning the protections of the Armed Forces Covenant. Do not apply to every corner of the country. The Bill proposes to strengthen the commitment to our armed Forces by extending the statutory duties under the covenant to devolved and local governments across this United Kingdom. My Lords, the intentions behind this are good, but it is simply unacceptable that the Bill is currently drafted will potentially leave an opt out for councils in Northern Ireland.

My Lords, this risks creating a situation where veterans, serving personnel and their families receive different levels of support, based simply on where they happen to live. As we know in Northern Ireland, there are local councils which are controlled by parties who have pursued a political campaign against those who have served the Crown. My Lords are simply unacceptable that a veteran in Northern Ireland can have less asset access to the support protected by the covenant and a veteran in Scotland or Cardiff.

Unfortunately, this is part of a wider pattern of inconsistencies in the government's approach to veterans rights when it comes to
18:43
Lord Hay of Ballyore Portrait Lord Hay of Ballyore (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Northern Ireland. The former armed forces Minister, in his recent resignation, highlighted the lack of protection for veterans in of protection for veterans in Northern Ireland as one reason why he could no longer serve in government. Many veterans of Operation Banner feel that the Operation Banner feel that the government's troubled bill does not provide the necessary protection for veterans claims, fictitious claims and legacy investigations. While transparency and the rule of law must always be upheld. Many feel that the current legacy framework does not take into account the extraordinary, difficult circumstances that our security forces faced in the line of duty, and it leaves the door open to endless cyclists of investigations, even when no evidence exists.

Yet the pages. Right, my Lords Bill, is a step, I would say, in the right direction, to improving conditions that are armed forces serve under, particularly with the improvements to the armed forces, housing, armed forces, Housing and Justice scheme. My Lords are still have work to do to ensure that our armed Forces personnel are left, are not left behind because of services, especially in Northern Ireland. And my Lords, we owe it to them to get it to get this right.

It is the very least we can do to support them, just as they have supported us by serving the crown and putting on the uniforms every day to protect our country. My Lords, I support the principles of the Bill. There are some concerns that have already been raised in the House, including the level of defence investment that's needed for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future of our security. My Lords, it's a pleasure to speak after Lord Hay of Ballyore before I come to my come to my remarks. Can I just read? I am the remarks. Can I just read? I am the chair of the Cadet Health Check Team. My daughter is currently waiting her way through basic training to join the RAF, and I'm also honorary Colonel for the Royal also honorary Colonel for the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers Cadets. My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, and I do so with great respect for those who serve and those who have served and the families who support them.

The armed forces are not simply a military institution. They are one of the great social institutions of our country. They teach discipline, duty, teamwork, resilience, courage, and service. At their best, they give people a sense of belonging and purpose, and that is especially powerful for young people who sometimes find it hard to find these things and may not be have access to them elsewhere in their life. This is why I want to focus on what I believe is missing from the bill.

A stronger recognition of the wider social impact of the armed forces, particularly the role of the cadet forces. The Minister will understand my going wrong about cadet forces across United Kingdom. Cadet units are doing extraordinary work. They give young people structure. They teach self control. They build confidence. They connect children and teenagers with adult volunteers who model responsibility, leadership and service. And for many young people, particularly those from struggling communities, this can be life changing. I know this from my own life and many years of working with young people.

I used to be a member of the Army Cadet Force, and it is was the only institution in the neighbourhood that I grew up that was stronger than gang culture. I can point to the day that the Army cadets saved me from going to jail, and is why I stand in front of you today. For many years working with
18:47
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
young people. You understand the thing. That opportunity isn't just thing. That opportunity isn't just about money, it is about access as well. It's about having someone say you are capable of more, but you you are capable of more, but you must turn up, you must work hard, and you must be part of this team. And above all things, you must take responsibility. This is why the cadet. This is what the cadet cadet. This is what the cadet movement does every week.

Yet too often cadets are treated as a nice extra rather than a serious national asset. This bill rightly deals with. Armed with the Armed Forces Covenant with Service, service, family housing, veterans and the justice system. But it does not go far enough in recognising the role of the Armed forces in its. In strengthening society itself. So I'd like to ask the government to look again at this bill and what it could do for cadets. First, we need a clear duty to support the growth of the cadet units.

And I know that the government is doing this work, but this bill was an opportunity to to to lay it down, to make sure it continues to keep going and supported by long term funding as well, especially in poorer areas of communities where young people would really appreciate and benefit from this access because they don't have much structured youth provision. Secondly, we need proper reporting to Parliament on cadet numbers, waiting lists, adult volunteers, facilities and funding. If we value cadets, we should measure whether it's growing or being allowed to decline.

Thirdly, we need better support for adult volunteers. Cadet units cannot run on goodwill alone. Volunteers need training, safeguarding support, equipment, facilities and recognition. They are giving their evenings and weekends weekends up to help build the next generation. The government should make this easier and not harder. Fourthly, we should place cadets more clearly within the Armed Forces Covenant. The covenant should not only speak for those who have served or who are now serving, it should also recognise the pipeline of service, citizenship and leadership that cadets help to create.

My Lords, if we are serious about defence, we must also be serious about the society from which our armed forces are drawn. Recruitment and resilience do not begin at the recruitment office. They begin in the homes, the schools and youth clubs and the cadet units of this country. In communities where too many young people are exposed to gangs, drugs, crime and, worst of all, low aspirations and the absence of trusted adult adults. The cadet forces offer something profoundly positive.

Discipline without hostility, authority without fear and ambition rooted in service. That is a social good. It is a national good, and it deserves to be recognised in this bill. The armed forces do not only defend our nation abroad, they help build character at home. They remind us that service still matters, that duty still matters, and that young people, given structure and belief, can rise. This bill is an opportunity not only to support those who serve today and have served in the past, but to invest in those who may serve tomorrow, whether it be in uniform, in public service, in our communities, or simply as stronger, more responsible citizens.

I hope the government takes this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

responsibility. I declare my interest as an honorary officer in the Royal Naval Reserve and as chair of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, and at this stage of the debate, after such a wide ranging and thoughtful such a wide ranging and thoughtful set of contributions, I will just make three brief points. The first make three brief points. The first is in respect of clause two of the Bill in respect of the Armed Forces Covenant, which, as a number of other speakers have rightly pointed other speakers have rightly pointed out, builds on the progress that has been made in recent years.

In fact, I think it was five years ago that in my former role, I, together with the Minister for Veterans and Defence People, launched what was called coverage OP courage Specialist mental health services for veterans. And it's great to see progress advancing since then. Now, the bill expanding beyond health, education and housing to bring in scope a wider range of public services for the Armed Forces Covenant. But I will just raise two questions, if I may, for the noble Lord, the Minister.

On clause two. The first is a very detailed one, which is that 343AZB appears to
18:52
Lord Stevens of Birmingham Portrait Lord Stevens of Birmingham (Crossbench)
-
-
exclude GP practices individually from obligations under the Armed Forces Covenant, instead talking about integrated care boards of health bodies but not GP practices. And then he will also be aware that the Royal British Legion have argued that the Bill does not explicitly list non-departmental public bodies, such as HMRC or Prisons and Probation Service. So can the Minister say whether he regards those as being in scope for the provisions of this Bill, or whether that is a lacuna, as the Royal British Legion appear to believe as well as scope? Can we also just hear a little more about practical impact? The question that Lord Craig of Radley Lady Lane-fox Lord Morse have all raised about the bite that the due regard requirement will actually have.

I suspect in practice it will only be when the government issues new guidance, as they intend to do, to identify the practical steps that these wide range of public services should take, that we will actually see whether or not due regard does or doesn't in practice have any impact. Can you tell us when that guidance will emerge and how granular it will be? So that's the first point on clause two. Secondly, on clause four, where the bill contains new powers to prevent and respond to drone attacks on defence on its own terms.

These provisions make great sense, but I do wonder if perhaps the powers are too circumscribed and are hemmed in. Is there, for example, an opportunity to use this bill to create a more permissive and expansive maritime statutory framework for testing and training of military uncrewed vehicles above and beyond the specific cases that are identified here. How are the measures here going to be synced up with the government's Regulating for growth bill, with its proposed regulatory sandbox for maritime autonomy? And how does the government think about the interface between the defence and the civilian aspects of drone testing and training in UK territorial waters? Equally, rather than confine the scope of the clause four provisions to defence, property and areas, I wonder if consideration has been given, for example, to expanding the scope to include critical national infrastructure in UK territorial waters and if not, can the Minister confirm that it's the government's view that no new legal authority is required to do that? Or is it instead that they are waiting for the Defence Readiness Bill to provide the statutory vehicle for that set of measures? The Defence Investment Plan has £330 million of new investment earmarked for critical underwater infrastructure protection.

Are the statutory provisions needed to give effect to that in place? Could they be covered by this bill, or will they emerge through the Defence Readiness Bill? And then thirdly, as a number of other speakers have said, there is obviously a read across between the Armed Forces Bill and the Defence Investment Plan. And like other speakers, while I think noting the concerns around the funding of the dip. Nevertheless, many of the commitments that the dip makes are in fact to be welcomed.

Confirmation of support for major capabilities including defence, nuclear, Aukus and GCap. But it has to be said that far and away, the boldest and most radical aspect of the dip is the rapid move to a hybrid navy and increasingly integrated with other northern navies from jet nations. The biggest bet there is on a networked mix of sensors, effectors and deciders as a sort of radical new force design for maritime air defence system, intended by 2035 to replace the type 45 seconds and in lieu of the previously proposed type 83.

But the risk there with this big, bold bet is if the funding doesn't stack up, then the hybrid Navy cannot actually cohere both because it only works if you have all of the components in place. For example, the type 94 uncrewed radar platforms need to coexist alongside the type 91 uncrewed missile platforms, which in turn need to coexist alongside the common combat vessels underpinned by the comms and information system that will sync up the entire network. So if the components are not all in place at the relevant time, then Hybrid Navy actually will struggle to succeed.

So that implies that we need to get going on the procurement for many of those key components, including the CVEs, if they're going to be in place for the early to mid 2035, so can the noble Lord, the Minister, tell us when the procurement for that aspect of the hybrid navy will begin? Because looking at the financial environment facing defence over the next 3 to 4 years, I think the pressures are real. The uplift for defence, I think, is only 2.9 billion in total by 2930, compared to 2627, which is a really miserly real terms increase.

And people inside defence talk about the fact that probably the the revenue position is something of a bloodbath over the next several years, which will have a big impact on current operations and other capabilities. And in any event, that revenue uplift is more than offset by the so-called lower maturity, i.e. unidentified efficiency gaps that outweigh that funding between now and the end of this Parliament. And then, perhaps most depressingly of all, for those of you who got to the end of the otherwise excellent dip on the very last page of text, page 78, you'll see that no doubt the behest of the Treasury are sort of a big asterisk has been inserted saying terms and conditions apply.

And I'll just quote to you what some of those are. The investments described in this document do not constitute binding commitments. They are subject to affordability considerations. They may be reprioritized, deferred, rescoped or cancelled. Well, if the dip is not fully and expeditiously implemented, all the good of the Armed Forces bill that we're discussing here tonight will be for nought. Well done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. It's a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who, as he said in his Stevens, who, as he said in his declaration of interest, is currently chair of trustees of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, which runs the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. I am currently a trustee, having currently a trustee, having attended all parts of the scheme attended all parts of the scheme starting off in 2015 when Baroness Hodgson of Abinger and I were the only Lords members of the Lords who participated in the scheme, so people weren't quite sure what to do with members of the House of Lords on the scheme.

They didn't quite know how the arrangements would work. Everything was thought through for members of the House of Commons, so I'm absolutely delighted today that we've heard from so many members of your Lordships' House who have participated or are participating in the Armed Forces Parliamentary scheme, and that means we are hearing a range of different voices this evening, because the right reverend Prelate pointed out in his
19:00
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
remarks that all that seems to happen have happened, perhaps since the last Armed Forces Bill of 2021. Is that the noble Lady Baroness Goldie and the noble Lord Lord Goldie and the noble Lord Lord Coaker have swapped places I haven't moved, and the noble and haven't moved, and the noble and gallant Lord Lord Craig of Radley haven't moved. And yet some of what I'm hearing from the opposition benches sounds quite similar to what I was hearing in 2021, and the responses that I suspect I'm going are going to be hearing this evening from the Minister may sound quite similar as well.

And in particular, that was the call from the noble Lady Baroness Penn and the noble and gallant Lord Lord Craig of Radley, for us to look again at the costs for those applying for indefinite leave to remain from service families. So, my Lords, there are some perennial questions that we have been debating, some of us for several years, and hopefully the change in government might allow the Minister to give some slightly more positive answers, at least on some issues, even if he will have to go back and persuade his colleagues in the Home Office that actually supporting the families of those, and I assume we're talking primarily about the Nepalese, the Gurkhas who are here, then we actually owe them a duty as well.

But my Lords, we're obviously here today to be talking primarily about the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill. Every year we have to renew our endorsement of having armed forces, and at times we have been in the Moses Room doing that as a Statutory Instrument where there are four members of your Lordships House, the noble Lord Lord Coaker, the noble and gallant Lord Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Lady Baroness Goldie, and me, plus some officials. So for the five year Armed Forces Bill, it is really important that we are seeing and hearing so many voices from across your Lordships House, engaging in a set of issues that matter so fundamentally at this time, precisely for the reasons that the noble Lord Lord Hay of Ballyore pointed out, that the position we are in in 2026 is fundamentally different from the time the bill five years ago, and we can have all sorts of debates about whose fault it is that the armed forces are not sufficiently well funded.

But the point is that in 2026, we all know that we need to invest more fully in the armed forces, that that is a national concern. And the national conversation is beginning, but doesn't go far enough yet. If every one of your Lordships who has spoken in this debate, particularly those who don't come from a services background, actually go out and talk to their families and friends about what it is they've been doing when they've been out on the Armed Forces scheme, that begins to raise conversations beyond the echo chamber in which we normally are.

Because, my Lords, as we've heard from many noble Lords this evening, it is vital that we have a conversation that looks to how we strengthen resilience. The particularly welcome aspect of the bill this year, as far as I'm concerned, is the expansion of the Armed Forces Covenant, because I have called on many occasions for the extension to His Majesty's Government. And in the past, when the Conservatives were in government, there was very much a sense of, yes, yes, we're committed to the covenant.

It's really important. It's really important that health and education and other people deliver the covenant. To which the response from these benches was no. It is vital that the whole country understands the covenant, but particularly that His Majesty's Government takes on that responsibility. So in terms of the expansion of the scope of the covenant, that is clearly welcome. And yet, as we've heard from the noble Lord Lord Morse, the noble Lady, Baroness Dacres, and the noble Lord Lord Hay of Ballyore, we need to look very carefully at some of the aspects of how the Armed Forces Covenant can be, and will be expanded to local authorities, because the noble Lord Lord Morse is right that if we appear to put something on the statute book that is unaffordable, or if we give further duties to local authorities which they cannot afford to deliver, or that some councils will deliver and others will not, that will create a whole set of unintended consequences.

And one of the things I remember from my time in local government was precisely. And that was under a very different government, in very different financial times. We were in the Lib Dems had control of Cambridge City Council during the new Labour government, when we didn't need to worry really about funding that. A lot of questions were very easy, but there was still a bit of a sense of it's too easy for central government to be telling local authorities what to do without giving commensurate funding.

Times have changed financially for local authorities, so we need to be very careful that if we are asking local authorities to do more things, we try and work out how they are actually going to be able to deliver them. But the principle of extending the covenant is hugely welcome. The Defence Housing Service and the moves towards the spending, the £9 billion on service accommodation. This is one of the issues that so many noble Lords have talked about today, and is clearly an area where we need to be really holding the government to account in the most appropriate way.

This is not a criticism of governments of any complexion, but it is a reality that a decade ago, when we were debating the Armed Forces Bill 2016, I raised questions about the standard of forces accommodation because at the time I was a newbie on the Armed Forces parliamentary scheme, and it was pointed out to me by service personnel and their spouses that there was a Facebook group or a couple of Facebook groups at the time. One of them was victims of Carillion.

Amy Carillion went bankrupt or I think they went bankrupt. It became then victims of Amy. I have this afternoon double checked. There is still a Facebook page. It's now called Victims of Pinnacle. The noble Lady Baroness Goldie, when she was a Minister, congratulated me on one occasion and said, we've been listening to you. The new arrangements now are that the telephone will be answered much more quickly. People will get the responses they need, and yet criticisms remained. So the Defence Housing Service and the Defence Housing Strategy is very welcome, but it will be an area where close monitoring and accountability will be hugely important.

The Armed Forces Bill and the annual renewal very often is about service, justice, and that is an area that I always hand over to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who knows far more about the service justice questions than I do. And I'm very much hoping that at Committee stage, he and my noble friend Baroness Brinton will be doing the tabling of amendments, because, as we've heard today, there are a range of issues that are very technical, but it would be helpful to have a sense from the noble Lord, the Minister, whether he will be open to some amendments of a technical nature, which I think are needed in terms of service justice.

Finally, there has been discussion about funding and the gap in funding of the Defence Investment Plan. So the final point from these benches, because my colleagues on defence would expect me to say it, there is a proposal from the Liberal Democrats, perhaps to support defence funding with defence bonds. Has the Minister had a chance to think about that as a way of enhancing the provisions? But with that, I will conclude by saying in principle, we welcome this bill and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we look forward to debating at Committee stage. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, it sorry, I think I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it sorry, I think I'm croaky with air conditioning. It is a pleasure to wind this debate for a pleasure to wind this debate for His Majesty's most loyal opposition. And may I say to the noble Baroness And may I say to the noble Baroness Smith of Newnham, I'm actually very pleased to be sitting here. And I do not envy the noble Lord the Minister sitting over there. But everything has its moment. As my noble friend, the Earl of Minto has said, we on these benches support
19:10
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
this bill. This House has renewed this legislation every five years this legislation every five years since the 2006 act, in an unbroken constitutional tradition stretching back to the Bill of rights of 1688, back to the Bill of rights of 1688, a discipline this House takes seriously. And we certainly shall seriously. And we certainly shall not be a roadblock to its progress. And this has been a rich debate, as And this has been a rich debate, as the noble Baroness Healy Smith was saying, there have been many contributions which have been genuinely interesting to listen to.

But one issue has recurred with such frequency. It is almost like a musical reprise. Funding. I shall leave the noble Lords Minister to respond to that in whatever way he can, but the current position is overwhelmingly regarded as unsustainable. Now, turning to other matters addressed by my noble friend, which resonated with others, I want to reflect briefly on some contributions from around the house on housing so important, universally agreed throughout the chamber and as the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich reminded us, these houses, these flats, these terraced accommodations and bases and dockyards, they also have to be homes.

And I am grateful to him. We should never forget that. Now, on housing and the creation of this new defence housing service, there is a risk of duplication of function, because I do remember the extraordinary size of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation when I was in the Mod, and I gather that will remain as a directorate within the Mod. So if we have two organisations both claiming responsibility for defence estate, then duplication is not a hypothetical risk and it is precisely the kind of institutional confusion that this House should be pressing the government to eliminate before Royal Assent and not after.

Now, I note that the new clause 343 F gives the Defence Housing Service the power to form, participate in forming or invest in companies, partnerships, joint ventures or similar organisations. And I simply want to ask the Minister, why does the government see this as necessary? What kind of commercial vehicles does the Ministry envisage the Defence Housing Service establishing, and what safeguards will apply to ensure that a body created to serve service families and hosts them does not drift into activities that begin to serve as accountancy balance sheet operations? Now, there must also be a clear boundary between the Defence Housing Service and the residual functions of the Ministry of Defence and clarity of purpose, about where responsibility and accountability lie, not least because schedule one provides that the service will not enjoy crown status in respect of much of its property, save in specified circumstances, which itself raises questions about its legal exposure.

I hope the Minister can address my noble friend, the Earl of Minto, offered up the policy on these benches of an Armed forces housing association. That's an alternative model for service accommodation reform to that which the government proposes now, whereas the government have opted for a body that remains tied closely to the Secretary of State, subject to Treasury borrowing consent and a government direction, our model would have delivered a genuinely independent, tenant accountable organisation, and I would welcome the Minister's reflections on why the government judged a Crown adjacent body preferable to that independent, not for profit model, and what protection serves families will have to ensure.

I beg your pardon that the Defence Housing Service does not simply repeat the mistakes of the past and the risk of making the role of the Minister feeling a little uncomfortable. My noble friend asked about the rumoured deferral of investment in defence housing to help fund the dip, and I hope that question can be answered. But I was on the European Convention of Human Rights and I, as a Minister, took the Overseas Operations Bill through this House. Politicians from all parties, with the possible exception of the Liberal Democrats, have started to question the impact of the ECHR on UK sovereign law and sovereign decision making across a whole spectrum of activity, and there is a debate to be had.

But specifically in relation to the defence, the court decision of Al-Qaeda against the UK decided in 2011, but the Strasbourg court clarified the reach of that law into a live arena of conflict, and the court ruled that the detention of terrorist suspects in Basra by British troops violated article five of the convention, and that the British state had therefore acted unlawfully. Now, this has serious ramifications for future operational decision making and for the ability of British troops to hold prisoners of war in any future conflict.

My Lords, the extent to which such law may now be incompatible with the overriding need to make instant life and death decisions in a conflict environment, in my opinion, requires serious reflection, and I look forward to continuing this argument in committee, where our amendments will receive a fuller scrutiny. And I hope the noble Lord, Lord Craig, is feeling encouraged by my contribution on the service justice system. I thought a number of very interesting contributions were made, and I certainly welcome the sensible alignment of various provisions with the arrangements in the civilian criminal justice system, and I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, for raising a number of valid concerns, because I think that is a conundrum here, because under this bill, service police will not be able to authorise Pre-charge custody for offences under schedule.

One of the Armed Forces Act 2006 that offences such as battery, even where there is a clear domestic context because the legislation is drafted so that only serious offences fall within scope, a category which does not capture schedule one offences and does not separately articulate the context of domestic abuse, and a further issue arises under clause 16, whereby a Provost marshal may act as the appropriate authority when a person has been charged with a serious offence, meaning they will no longer be any involvement from the commanding officer in terms of Pre-charge detention for such an offence.

Now, this to me seems to be a fairly significant interference with the chain of command. If we consider the environment where many of these offences might be occurring, which could be a base remote from other places with a military police presence, but not an extensive one, and I would be grateful if the noble Lord, the Minister, could expand on the government's reasoning here. And there is also a concern that at present, commanding officers are not obliged to refer offences such as common assault, voyeurism, an actual bodily harm in a domestic abuse context to the service police.

Now, I think consideration should be had to amending schedule two of the Armed Forces Act of 2006 to ensure that commanding officers are required to refer such offences for investigation. If I move on to the Armed Forces Covenant, may I say that these benches welcome the incorporation of the Armed Forces Covenant into law, and it finishes off where I was privileged to start in this chamber in the previous iteration of the Armed Forces bill. And I want to just say to the noble Lord, Lord Craig, I realise that pace may have been too slow, but I do pay tribute to his tenacious, tenacious pursuit of this issue, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for his continued and vigorous support of the.

Of the covenant. The previous government's readiness was through caution because we do need to understand the consequences of such statutory incorporation. So further questions will follow, and it seems from the bill's attempt to define national authorities, local authorities, education authorities, health bodies, that this is far reaching. But, my Lords, what about arms length bodies, corporate bodies which deliver many of the functions detailed in clause two of the bill? Could the noble Lord, the Minister, explain their omission from the Bill? And as I approach the conclusion of my remarks, my Lords, on reserves, I think we all welcome the provisions in the Bill to improve flexibility and create fluidity.

And that is important because there are in civilian roles, skills, expertise and specialisms which are armed forces need to be able to call on at short notice. And indeed, the noble Baroness Carberry gave, I think, some interesting examples to show how that could work in practice. But insofar as the active reserve is concerned and the laudable objective to increase their numbers by 20%. My noble friend the Earl of Minto indicated a proposal from these benches of a tax free reserve service for the first 30 days of reserve service, and that seems to me a no brainer.

And I'm sure that my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton reference to the successful recruitment experience in Canada following a national conversation has not been lost on the noble Lord, the Minister. So may I also pay tribute to my noble friend for the vital and important work which he is doing, and ask the noble Lord Minister, to take some of these ideas back to the Department, because this has been a very useful and constructive debate, and I have highlighted the issues of particular significance to these benches, and I hope the questions which my noble friend Earl of Minto and I have posed this afternoon can be addressed by the noble Lord.

The Minister and I have also tried to indicate where we expect to return to issues at committee. But may I conclude by saying that, notwithstanding the serious reservations on these benches about the broader funding issues, there is, of course, a lot of good in this bill, which I am sure the scrutiny of your Lordships can make even better, and I, my colleagues, shall endeavour to make a positive contribution to that process.
19:21
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Can I can I thank the noble >> Can I can I thank the noble Baroness for winding up the debate, and for the contribution of all noble members across the House? I did reflect, and I think the Opposition Chief Whip heard me say it's. I've really pleased. Everyone is in favour of the bill. I'd hate to be answering the bill where everyone was opposed to it, I think I'd. I'd be in serious trouble answering all the questions and challenges and gaps that there were.

So can I start by saying I'm so pleased that everyone's in favour of the bill, and I think somebody actually used the term. No they didn't. It was outside the chamber. They used the term non-controversial. So I won't I won't use that phrase that was outside the chamber. I, I emphasise, but not not having said that, the the serious point to make is that there are some very real points that noble members have made across the House about how a bill that they support could be further improved.

And so I accept that. And the challenge that there is for the government to to take that forward. And as I said in my introductory remarks at the beginning, that actually we all want the bill to succeed because we support the aims I'm grateful for. Let me just deal with the the points we've had, the debate about funding, and I appreciate that the noble Lord, noble Baroness and the noble Lord, will make the various points and will continue to make the point about funding, and I would make the same points back.

But let's let that debate continue as it will. But I, I do just say, on defence housing, which a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl of Minto, I find it slightly. I don't often get irritated and I'm not irritated, but I do find it slightly. Strange that a government that has committed £9 billion of public money over ten years to improve housing is actually taken to task on it. That's all I would say. So let me just say the government's policy is to improve housing with respect to defence by £9 billion over ten years, the state and it deals.

I think the noble somebody made the point about it. Does it apply to single housing, the defence housing, sort of. Was it somebody. But anyway, the the what we're talking about here with the defence housing services, family accommodation, there's a separate review going on with respect to single person accommodation, which will report in due course, and then the government will have to respond with respect to that. But that's a very clear answer, and I think we need to. Let me just read on the defence in the D I, O and the and its relationship alongside the Defence Housing Service, which the noble Lord Earl of Minto and the noble Baroness raised.

Let me just read this bit to make sure I get this completely right. The responsibilities of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation will continue to be provided as part of the National Armaments Director Group within the Mod, alongside the new Defence Housing Service, which will assume responsibility for the provision of family housing and the development of surplus defence land. In line with the objectives set out at new section 343 E one inserted by clause three of the Bill. The new Defence Housing Service will continue to work closely with departmental teams and this will be covered in the framework document between the Department and the Defence Housing Service in the usual way, so I that seeks to clarify some of the points that the noble Lord Earl of Minto made, and in his introductory remarks the noble Baroness made another.

Noble members have made about how what the relationship will be with the DIO and the housing service. On the issue of the E and its application continually. I think the noble Lord Earl of Minto made the point that the amendment will change the government's wording from May to must and things like that. But the government will always argue. All governments usually argue and will argue that in most respects they. They. They require the need to to have flexibility in how they implement various laws.

And I think that would be something that we would seek to continue. Thank you for the interesting ideas about funding for the future. I know the noble Baroness also raised the issue of defence bonds. The government are looking at the. What different ways we can finance defence in the future, and no doubt that discussion and debate will continue. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talks about the national conversation. And that may change, may change just. This is a stop the press announcement, I.

I may the responsibilities among the ministerial team may change, and I may have already lost the national conversation, not because I haven't started it yet. I hasten to I hasten to to add, but the serious point is that national conversation will is a priority within the Department, and the ministerial responsibility for that may well change, but it will be taken taken forward. And I think that's something the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will be particularly pleased about. And I think all of us.

He mentioned cadets, I'll come to cadets a little bit later when I just respond to some of the moving remarks made by the noble Lord Lord Bailey with what he said, but I'll come to that. But clearly the national conversation is extremely important, not least around how we support homeland defence. But I think the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, also made the point about another noble Lords have about how we ensure that changes to to to the the amount we spend on defence that we retain and get public support for for that is a crucial way forward as well.

Can I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig for extending for his welcome of the extension to national bodies of the covenant and his general supports for that. Can I just say he raised the issue, as did the the noble Baroness, Baroness Penn, regarding regard. I can't answer all the questions. I'll answer some of them about visas. Again, the government's committed to scrapping visa fees for non UK veterans who have served our country for four or more years and their dependents, and the Mod has started work with the Home Office, the Home Office, to deliver this manifesto commitment so that commitment remains around visa fees with respect to to that and I know Lord the the the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig as well as the issue with ECH and he heard me say that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with respect to that. Yeah, sure. Of course. That the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the. Intention to proceed with it will be coupled with a date when it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be done. Lord Hart it's always my intention to actually, rather than intention to actually, rather than just be aspirational, to actually try and demand change of the system. The noble and gallant Lord will The noble and gallant Lord will know from his experience within his military service that even sometimes senior rank and senior ministerial rank does not always involve things moving quite as quickly as you would hope. But certainly it's not an aspiration, it's a desire to actually bring that about.

So we will work with other government departments to try and ensure that something happens as quickly as possible. With that, the noble bishop, the Bishop of Norwich, raised various things again welcomed the the covenant, and indeed well pointed out about. He heard what I had to say about the single person accommodation. With that. The importance of a single. A whole society approach. And again, there's a number of noble Lords have mentioned about service police, and we'll come back to some of those at at committee to look at some of those.

The Baroness Moyo Baroness Penn has heard me say about the involvement around visas. And again, some of the changes are in that the importance of paternity leave that she's mentioned. She raised that with me. Another meeting outside this. And of course, we'll look at that and see how we can take that forward. I think she mentioned an individual case as well. She wants to write to me about that. Then I because I don't know the case that she meant I can look into that for her as well.

I think that's can I just go back to the Bishop of Norwich? I thought it was a really interesting point, not just with respect to the Church of England, but faith organisations as a whole. And the moral dilemma there is between supporting armed forces and the appearance of support war with respect, visibly being a peace loving faith which all faiths are. And I think that is a moral dilemma. But sometimes you prevent war by preparing for it. And I think that's the sort of difficulty with respect to that.

I Baroness Lane-Fox made the point about housing. She heard what I had to say about that, but she made some other points about the need for transition support, learning and training. I think really important points to have made. Baroness Brinton made a number of very important points which were linked to Lord Thomas. I thought Lord Thomas was a brilliant contribution. Legal. I actually understood it, which is not always, not always the case, but I. But I really did think it was in the way that he laid out some of the the issues with respect to the case, the cases that he referred to as the noble Baroness Baroness Brinton also pointed out, and I.

I think it's what we're doing is looking at how that how I don't want to say too much because there are ongoing legal issues with respect to that. But there are certainly things that there's discussions taking place about how we take it forward. The legal advice that I've had is this, that and this is for Baroness Brinton as well as Lord Thomas. The Visiting Forces Act 1952 sets out the legal basis for how jurisdiction for criminal offences is decided between the UK civil authorities and the Visiting Forces Service court martial.

This is implemented in practice by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the UK courts as part of the criminal justice system. Following the deeply distressing recent case, officials are working across government to establish the full facts of how this process was enacted for this case and, if needs be, regarding some of the other things regarding Baroness Brinton, I will actually make sure that we come back to the answers to the questions that she raised at committee. When I've had a full legal response to to what the answers is to many of the things that that she asked, but I thought they were really important.

I will bring that forward and obviously share them. Well, obviously if I bring it committee, it'll be people will say, can I thank Lord Lancaster for the points he raised about the strategic reserve? And again, I, I think the point about data and the digitalisation of the system strikes me as one of those important things that just seems we ought to be able to just sometimes get on with these sorts of things. I take the point that Lord Magan says, and we'll continue the debate around resources.

I do not think the only point of contention with the noble. I don't think we smashed our special relationship with the United States, I really don't. There are there are ups and downs with it, and sometimes it's difficult, but I think the UK US relationship is of immense importance to our country and continues to. To be. So can I thank Lord Hannett for his points. Noble and Lord gallop, Lord Lord Hannett again for his points that he's made, and again he will know that we're working hard to ensure that historic wrecks are.

That we do all we can to properly work. With respect to that, I'll take the point about divers and come back to him at committee around how that how the bill specifically impacts on that. Can I thank my noble friend Baroness Carberry for her remarks and against the importance that she made, both with respect to reserves and not underplaying the role of the active active reserves and the importance of employers being on site. I completely agree with that, and we'll continue to take that forward again.

Baroness Bennett made the point about paternity leave, and she heard what I said with respect to Baroness Penn. I completely, and she and I will have the noble Baroness, and I will continue to have the debate about 16 and 17 year olds. The young adults are not child soldiers. And that's the debate we'll continue to have. And I see it as a really important part of the contribution the armed forces can make to the development of some of our young people. But that's the debate will continue to have.

I don't know what the Maritime War Graves Committee is looking at, but again, I'll come back to it. Committee with respect to that, can I thank the noble Baroness Baroness Fraser? We may not have delivered exactly what she wants with respect to the covenant, but if she looks at clause 31, she'll see we've moved with respect to the Commissioner and the Commissioner having responsibility for RFA personnel, so she will know from the continued remarks that she's made over a number of years around the importance of the RFA.

Well, they're not giving us what she wants with respect to the covenant. The government has moved with respect to the commissioner and the extension of the role of the commissioner to that, which I think shows that, you know, contributions in debates from all sides of the chamber can actually make a difference to to government policy. I've said what I've said to the Lord. Lord Thomas Lord Morse made the point about housing, again, something that's really important. My noble friend Baroness Dacres has made a good contribution, and the consistency of delivery is really important around the covenant across the country.

And she's quite right to make that point. I would say the introduction of the covenant, one of its successes has been it's changed attitudes and culture, which often doesn't require legislation. But I think the Armed Forces Covenant has forced local authorities and soon to be national government, although it's probably changed national government behaviour by its very introduction, has changed the way in which people operate and the way people react and interact, rather with our with our armed forces and veterans.

And I think it's made a difference there. And I think I'd say to my noble friend, that's how we'd see it taking place across the country. With respect to noble Lord Lord Hay discussions continue re the Troubles in Northern Ireland and the proper place for our veterans and respecting them. The noble Lord Lord Bailey, I thought, made a huge. The moving speech around his own experience and the way in which cadets work for them. We all support cadets. The significant sums of money going into cadets, and we wish to expand.

And that. He made the important point about how we get more volunteers and attract more volunteers to support support that. But he will know there are thousands of tens of thousands of cadets across the country, and I it's a point I often make about it, but you see it on events like Remembrance Sunday, but also like many other Armed Forces Day that we've had recently, the role of cadets in those events nationwide. We're a great tribute to their organisations, but also a symbol, I think, of the sort of society that we want, and the way in which cadets brings can bring people together.

So I thank him again for the contribution he made from his own personal experience, and the way in which cadets can help people who may need help, but also help those who are simply young people growing up. And I think that's that's important. Lord Stevens like, can I congratulate him on his work for the as a graduate of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme? Sorry. I've just I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the Minister for giving way. The Minister will know Northern Ireland extremely well, and he will know that there are at least five councils in Northern least five councils in Northern Ireland that do not implement the covenant. So what you have you have covenant. So what you have you have veterans who lose out. So what? You end up with a two tier system where across the rest of the United across the rest of the United Kingdom, the covenant is very much ruled out.

Now, I think there is an opportunity in this bill to try and address that issue. So it's not the responsibility of local government to implement the covenant. This is an issue that has been going on for some time. I could name the councils that are involved, but when you have five councils out of 11, you know you're in a situation where you have almost half of Northern Ireland not implementing the covenant and where veterans, as I say, lose out, and the rest, the United Kingdom and the veterans do benefit from the covenant.

So I'm asking the Minister, is there a way now within the bill of addressing that that issue when it comes to Northern Ireland and the covenant?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, the noble Lords actually explained in his question some of the. There is a particular situation, as he will know, with respect to Northern Ireland and the respect to Northern Ireland and the application of the covenant to all bodies in Northern Ireland. But as bodies in Northern Ireland. But as I say, the. The application of it to the duty applying to local authorities, as he will know, does not apply. And so that that there becomes a problem.

But we expect the covenant to apply to Northern Ireland through what the UK government does. And so that's it. It's it's an ambiguity. It's difficult. But we will always seek to apply the the covenant where we can, where it's appropriate. And it fits the various devolution settlements with respect to that. So let me just read now. Found it the the note the covenant supports the armed forces community in Northern Ireland borough districts and city councils in Northern Ireland do not generally exercise functions in the policy areas in scope of the covenant legal duty.

This is does not exclude councils in Northern Ireland from pledging their support for the Armed Forces community by becoming a covenant signatory, which is what I think the noble Lord is referring to. Some councils will choose to do so and others will will not. But that's the situation as it stands. Can I just.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I really do think the noble Lords noble Lord, must recognise that if this goes through without that if this goes through without any recognition that Northern Ireland is being treated again differently, then that just really isn't good enough. Surely this is the government of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the covenant is so, so important to all those people who have served in Northern

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ireland, live in Northern Ireland. Let me just say to the noble man, you all know from my record that we support the government, supports the armed forces community in Northern Ireland completely. It it. I went to the Armed Forces Day in Northern Ireland last year. A government Minister went to Northern Ireland just a couple of weeks ago to support Armed Forces Day. And I've been asked to an event which I hope to go to in a few weeks time in Northern Ireland.

So the support for the Northern Ireland community, community, Armed forces community with respect to the aims of the covenant are clear, but what we seek to do is to recognise the reality that's there. Councils can, if they wish to do so, pledge themselves to the covenant and. And a number have done. But some have chosen not to. But all I would reiterate is the government's support for the Armed Forces community in in Northern Ireland. Let me just finish with respect to a couple of things.

If noble Lords don't mind, I think with respect to Lord Stevens, let me have a look at a couple of the remarks that that he made. I think, as I've said before, in terms of the covenant, it's the bite of the due regard that that actually makes a difference. And it started with respect. You've seen it. What happened when it was introduced by the last government, that the due regard has impact as it seeks to by and councils and as it was then, but now national bodies will be, if you like, cultural change, will cause them to actually start to do things that they wouldn't otherwise have done.

And drones, I think it's good that the drones are in there. They start to plug a gap. There will be questions about how we deal with that. Can I thank the the noble Baroness Baroness Meyer and Baroness Goldie for their remarks? There are many questions that we will have to come back to, but can I finish by saying I welcome the general support that there is for the Bill? I also welcome the various challenges and the various questions that have been posed, and will seek to address those and seek to move forward in a constructive way and and if there can be improvements, if there can be adaptations and the government agrees with those, then let's see if we can find a way forward with that.

I beg leave to move the bill a second time that this bill be. Now read a second time. Is there any that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee Committee of Committee of the Committee of the whole Committee of the whole House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee of the whole House. Just interesting, right. Can I I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just interesting, right. Can I I to move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House and that it be an instruction to and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House that they consider the Bill in the following order, as laid out on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Paper. Question, is that this motion. Be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that the House are now adjourned.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page