Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Orders and regulations: Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026 and associated regret motion in the name of Lord Dodds of Duncairn

three minutes, there is no gap. We're very tight for time, so people stick within the three minutes will everybody will be

19:24

minutes will everybody will be grateful and we'll be able to hear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grateful and we'll be able to hear from the Minister later on. All right. My Lords, I rise. I notice just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise. I notice just in the speaker's list has the Minister down to speak. But I'm happy to to to start. So, my Lords, I rise to move the motion, standing I rise to move the motion, standing in my name on the Order Paper on second. second.

19:25

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

Minister needs to introduce the. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Thank you. I thought it. Was probably the case. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I beg to move that the House approves the Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material Amendment Propagating Material Amendment northern Ireland Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 22nd June. This instrument extends to Northern Ireland only and has been brought through Westminster, working closely with Westminster, working closely with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Daera. The government notes the regret motion tabled by Lord Dodds of Duncairn, which raises concerns about the implementation of EU derived plant health and seed legislation in Northern Ireland without public consultation, and about the broader implications of the Windsor Framework.

This is a necessary measure to update Northern Ireland's domestic legislation and plant health enforcement provisions, ensuring the continued protection of Northern Ireland's biosecurity and fulfilment of our Windsor Framework obligations as noble Lords will be aware, under the terms of the Windsor Framework limited parts of European Union law falling under annexe two to the framework continue to apply in Northern Ireland. These include the movement of goods, agri food standards and animal and plant health. It is important to note that this instrument makes no changes to the Windsor Framework.

This instrument will amend existing Northern Ireland plant health legislation, introducing changes to six Northern Ireland statutory rules. The instrument will also update Northern Ireland legislation in line with EU legislative changes, which are directly applicable in Northern Ireland. The majority of these changes update obsolete and outdated references in respect of Northern Ireland, Great Britain and EU member states following the UK's exit from the EU, I will now outline the changes being made by this instrument. Three of the pieces of legislation being being amended are.

First, the marketing of vegetable Plant Material regulations. NI 1995. Second, the marketing of ornamental plant Propagating Material Regulations, Northern Ireland, 1999. And thirdly, the marketing of fruit plant and propagating Material Regulations, northern Ireland of 2017. These set out conditions relating to plant varieties, documentation requirements and plant health quality for an array of fruit, vegetables and propagating materials. They protect buyers and growers by outlining compulsory standards for products. Also being amended is the Forest Reproductive Material Regulations Northern Ireland 2002, which implements rules for marketing forest seeds, plants and cuttings, ensuring that material is from approved sustainable sources and is identifiable from seed to the final user.

Protecting Northern Ireland's biosecurity traders and growers. The fifth piece of legislation being amended is the Seed Potatoes Regulations Northern Ireland 2016. As you will possibly be aware, seed potatoes are one of the notable good news stories resulting from the introduction of the Windsor Framework. The Windsor Framework permitted the movement of seed potatoes from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and their growing on which have been prohibited during EU exit. The final piece of domestic legislation for Northern Ireland that this instrument will amend is the Plant health official Controls and Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations, Northern Ireland 2020.

This is a central piece in setting out the overarching rules and requirements for plant health. These amendments are primarily technical in nature to update references and terms that are related to Northern Ireland, the UK and the EU. The amendments will also update domestic legislation to include EU biosecurity legislative changes, which are already applicable and implemented, including some relating to disease control. A number of the pests and diseases covered in these technical updates pose similar risks to us here in for this instrument, we have worked closely with stakeholders through webinars, publication of guidance, round tables, the Horticultural Working Group as well as 1 to 1 meetings, particularly on the implementation of the Windsor Framework from these ongoing stakeholder engagement mechanisms and the technical nature of this instrument.

We determined that a consultation was not required. In conclusion, let me emphasise that it is essential that the amendments in this instrument update the Northern Ireland Statute book and enable effective compliance with plant health requirements to uphold our commitment to full and faithful implementation of the Windsor Framework. This instrument does not impede upon Northern Ireland's constitutional position or grant any additional powers to the European Union, nor does it introduce any additional impositions to stakeholders. So by approving it, we reaffirm our solid commitment to protect our agri food, forestry and horticultural sectors and deliver on our international obligations, beg to move.

19:31

Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

My >> I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations, and I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Once again, we on the Order Paper. Once again, we are debating regulations which may appear on the surface to be appear on the surface to be technical and limited in. But as we know, such regulations raise issues of real constitutional and democratic significance and importance. No one, my Lords here tonight is going to argue against high standards of plant health or biosecurity.

Of course, we need effective protection against pests and disease, and Northern Ireland farmers and growers deserve robust safeguards. The question is not whether we should have have these high standards. The question is who decides those standards and what should they be in a democracy? The answer should be straightforward. The laws apply to citizens of the United Kingdom, should be made by legislators. The people elect and can remove. Yet here we are passing regulations because, as the explanatory memorandum says, they are necessary to implement obligations arising under the Windsor Framework and to reflect EU legislation which continues to apply to Northern Ireland.

Such legislation isn't needed here. Westminster and it's not made at Stormont by the Northern Ireland Assembly yet. Businesses and citizens, UK businesses and UK citizens in Northern Ireland are required to obey it. Parliament is being asked to amend domestic law as a consequence of a regulatory regime imposed on part of the United Kingdom by the European Union. These regulations permit the authorities to enforce laws. That's what these regulations do. The power of enforcement. They don't actually set the laws that people are having to abide by in Northern Ireland.

That has already been decided. It's been decided by the European Union and imposed on Northern Ireland. So tonight, whatever your views are on the merits of the particular issues that are before us tonight in this in these regulations, we can't actually debate those that's already been decided. We're debating the enforcement mechanisms. That's the constitutional reality which Ministers and others continually try to avoid with words such as technical, pragmatic, necessary. I mean, and when you look at some of the wording of the regulations, you can see that these are not mere technical, tidy ups of wording.

Updating the statute book in some small way. I refer to some of the clauses in the in the regulations for see where it states a reference to a member state is to be read as if Northern Ireland were a member state of the European Union. In part seven one a in these regulations, a any reference to a member state is to be read as if Northern Ireland were a member state of the European Union. B any reference to the Union or Union territory? That's.

European Union territory is to be read so as to include Northern Ireland. Now, these are hardly technical changes. These are not small matters. Instead of removing the regulatory border within our country, government policy amounts to managing that border by accommodating the EU rules which created the need for it in the first place. It's an acceptance and entrenchment of the problem. It's not a solution to the problem. We hear much about protecting the Northern Ireland internal market. We've heard it again tonight.

In a genuine internal market, goods move freely from one part of the country to another. Without an international customs border, without special schemes, which we have in Northern Ireland, with their crushing bureaucracy and enormous costs, compliance requirements which are having a chilling effect on companies doing business with Northern Ireland consumers and in some cases, banning it altogether. My problem, my Lords, the problem with the way in which the Windsor Framework is discussed by the government and others who support it, is that each individual regulation is presented as some small technical measure.

Each individual change is said to be limited in scope and not burdensome, but taken together as part of the Windsor Framework in their totality, they amount to something constitutionally enormous. The subjection of Northern Ireland to laws made by an authority outside the United Kingdom, and the creation of barriers to trade between one part of our country and another. And as the Minister has just tried to explain, they're not even bothering about public consultation anymore. They say it's unnecessary if legislation affecting England, Scotland or Wales were being amended because laws made by a foreign legislature continued automatically to apply in certain respects, would Ministers really regard consultation as an unnecessary formality? The absence of consultation is particularly striking because these regulations concern enforcement.

The government aren't simply tidying up references and legislation. They are assuring that the requirements flowing from the EU regime can be effectively enforced in part of the United Kingdom. Surely that deserves the proper scrutiny and engagement with those who will actually be affected in Northern Ireland and the absence of a full impact assessment is similarly concerning. A key assessment should be what the cumulative impact is of all of these arrangements on trade within the United Kingdom. My Lords, the reality is the Windsor Framework of which this is part fundamentally alters Northern Ireland's constitutional position.

Without the cross-community consent, which has been at the foundation of political stability in Northern Ireland for decades. It's simply nonsense to say that the only choices are the present arrangements, or some kind of hard border on the island of Ireland. That's been comprehensively debunked and shown to be false. The government needs to be working towards fundamental solutions to the problem, rather than continuing to legislate to administer the consequences of the protocol and to entrench it even further. For those reasons, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I entirely. I'm grateful to the. Noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the. Noble Lord Dodds for securing this debate and ensuring we actually have three whole minutes to discuss the whole minutes to discuss the dismemberment of the United Kingdom. If we. Well, I began by trying to If we. Well, I began by trying to find out what it was about by reading the explanatory memorandum. Can I make a complaint to those. If any of them are listening who write these things that it is completely opaque. It gives no indication of what the actual consequences of what we're doing have on real people and real lives, or on the constitution of this country, and in future they must write them.

I

19:38

Lord Lilley (Conservative)

- -

hope more informatively following hope more informatively following from that, if we were to reject this Statutory Instrument, what this Statutory Instrument, what would happen? Would it mean that the European laws did no longer apply in Northern Ireland? No, it's apply in Northern Ireland? No, it's still apply. They probably not been forced by the British government. I don't know what would happen. don't know what would happen. Perhaps the European Union would send in officials to do the enforcement for us, but we should find out what the actual consequences of passing or not passing this legislation is before we decide whether it should go ahead.

The next. Do these this. Does this regulation actually fulfil the promises of the Windsor Framework as its so called? I looked up what the promises were and it says re plant health and so and it says re plant health and so on. That where has it gone? Yes it says. Instead of full EU certification, all plants and seeds will move under the existing UK wide Plant Passport scheme in line with traders throughout the UK. Previously banned seed potatoes will once again be available from other parts of the UK, while remaining prohibited in Ireland.

Now, is that the case? Is it that exactly the same as in the rest of the UK or not? The hon. Member for, well, Sammy Wilson in the other place, said that he finds it difficult to get seed potatoes in Northern Ireland that consignments above two kilograms have to go through complex procedures, and lots of producers and suppliers no longer get them from GB. Is that or is that not the case? Will this regulation alter that in any way? Now I share the disgust which the noble Lord has mentioned, that the inclusion in this document of statements that Northern Ireland is to be treated as part of the EU, but it effectively is saying, is that the constitutional relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is to be the same as between Donbas and Lucas and the rest of Ukraine.

Legally, they are part of the Ukraine, but the laws are made by Russia here, legally. Northern Ireland is part of the United. Can I just ask the noble Lord to to bring his comments to an end? In on that sombre note.

19:41

Lord Bew (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, it's already apparent >> My Lords, it's already apparent that this particular S is connected to a wider ideological political to a wider ideological political debate. Particular s I in. We learn debate. Particular s I in. We learn from the text. We'll come back to the text later for the attachment that. It has virtually no impact that is already operative in Northern Ireland and so on. The noble Baroness Lister Minister said that the Windsor Framework seed potatoes in one area of great success for the Windsor Framework.

I actually wish Ministers would make more of those areas of success to the Windsor Framework, because the most important thing it does, for all its many defects, is it returns to the fundamental negotiating point which led to the Good Friday Agreement. The negotiating point being that commitments the British government was not committed in any way to developing an all Ireland economy, which it is committed to by some of the documents. Before the Windsor Framework agreed with the European Union. That is the most important thing and the current expansion and growth of Northern Ireland.

I've seen figures recently which suggest that the greater Belfast region is actually doing better than the Greater Manchester region. Heaven Forfend. But it is linked into. Because of the fact that the. The UK as an economy still operates fundamentally as a viable internal single market. Now, having made that point, I just want to say one thing because I do think Lord Dobbs has a point. No consultation on this document. Some of the. Looking at our own statutory secondary legislation.

Such re. Committee, looking at the correspondence in and around that, it's very difficult to get a handle on it. It. And you leave with the feeling that because this is small beer, because it really does not affect very many people in a significant way. Officials don't put the work into it. Now, I actually think we do not we should not be coming towards this House and saying no consultation. We should be coming to this House with explaining what the consultation said.

I think Lord Dodds has a point there.

19:44

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)

- -

My Lords. have another regret motion in respect of the Windsor Framework regarding Plant Health, Seeds, Seed regarding Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and plant propagating material. I ask the simple question what does this achieve? Unlike the noble Lord Bew, I agree that this is more about the constitutional debate in Northern Ireland. Who benefits from these repetitive debates in the House of Lords? And as someone who supports the Windsor Framework and does not support the regret motion, I would say that we should be looking at areas of collaboration and cooperation with the wider business community about the benefits to be availed and to be obtained from the Windsor Framework, and also from the dual access to the UK internal market and access to the EU single market, because that is what many of the businesses are saying to me, and that is where the benefits lie.

We must not forget that the Windsor Framework is a direct result of Brexit, which many of those who are opposed to the special arrangements for Northern Ireland are opposed. The bottom line is that we would have been better to remain within the EU and for. My personal hope is that. I hope that comes about over the next few years. Obviously this. See, my Lords, is to ensure that EU legislation governing Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and plant propagating materials continues to operate effectively in Northern Ireland.

It also includes full enforcement powers to ensure compliance with plant health requirements and biosecurity in Northern Ireland. It also states that there is an ongoing programme of work to ensure that all regulations covered by the Windsor Framework are fully operable and enforceable in Northern Ireland. Obviously, this information should have been in the explanatory document as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states, and maybe my noble friend the Minister could indicate why this did not happen, and maybe she doesn't have that information to hand this evening.

Maybe she could possibly write to me. Undoubtedly, the potato industry is significant to the agri food industry in Northern Ireland, and I have family involved in it, and they do not talk about the inability to get seed potatoes or the regulations which they face. Their main concern centres on the weather conditions as a result of climate change, because they face wet springs and autumns, which make planting and harvesting extremely difficult. Undoubtedly, the Windsor Framework has presented administrative challenges and I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister, in conclusion, if she could provide us either tonight or in writing, with a copy in the library of the full implementation of Lord Murphy's report.

Recommendations were accepted by government and the ones from our Committee as well, and also in relation to further details in relation to the SPS agreement. Thank you.

19:47

Lord Redwood (Conservative)

- -

This is no way to legislate for Northern Ireland. It is not right Northern Ireland. It is not right to annexe part of our country to the European Union. I and some colleagues in the Commons at the time of the Windsor Framework opposed it and pointed out that there were much easier ways of organising the trade and border arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and I think the government should go back to that work and understand that we do not have here a system of handling Northern Ireland law and trade, which meets the requirements of the loyalist community and maybe others in Northern Ireland as well.

The government should be ashamed of how undemocratic this process is, as Lord Dodds has rightly identified. There is no point in consulting all the people who are going to be affected by regulations in these areas in Northern Ireland, because the government can't change them and the government can't be bothered to work out the impact, costs or even the impact benefits as a regulation because it rightly understands it is a spectator. It is not in charge of any of these things. And then we're told in the documents that there's going to be no review of how this works out.

Well, all the other examples that come to the Commons and the Lords consideration from government go through a proper process. There is consultation with the people they're going to affect both houses. Do expect a proper assessment of costs and benefits. We do expect a proper debate and if the government's got it wrong, we expect the government to go away and change or amend it. And we certainly expect there to be a review after the process so that we can see whether it's worked out in the way the government wanted.

The fact that none of these things can happen on any of these Sis, means that we are going to spend a lot of time on s I after s I complaining about the process. So I have this suggestion for the government. They have embarked on negotiations for something they call the EU reset. And so far all I've seen is a list of things that the EU wants and the government indicating it would like to give those away in order to purchase some greater friendship or influence.

It's always very odd that they think you get influence by giving in to what the other party wants. It's not the way most people negotiate. But wouldn't it be a good idea then, if the if the government put the EU that this is doing damage in Northern Ireland to relations between communities and to the way they're governed, and that it is undemocratic. And so surely we need a new settlement over how Northern Ireland legislation is conducted and over how trade is conducted.

And so I would recommend very much the mutual enforcement model, where we say that we won't send anything from Northern Ireland which is non-compliant to the EU, and we won't want to impose any new barriers on the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland border. But we would dismantle all barriers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

between GB and Northern Ireland. My Lords, it's a real pleasure to be here, to support my noble to be here, to support my noble friend the Minister, and to oppose the amendment in the name of Lord Dodds, and I do respect and have Dodds, and I do respect and have heard them many times, as has, I think, everybody else, present the constitutional concerns that have been raised. But I think it is right that we focus on the right that we focus on the practical reality facing farmers, growers, businesses in Northern Ireland on these occasions, and it is probably worth reminding the House that under the Northern Ireland Protocol, the movement of

19:51

Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)

- -

seed potatoes into Northern Ireland, there were difficulties and that the Windsor Framework was negotiated by the previous government in order to attempt to resolve some of these. Nobody, I think, would argue that we're in a perfect situation. There are issues, there are constitutional concerns. there are constitutional concerns. There is a problem with concerns from the from the unionist community that is absolutely community that is absolutely understood. It is legitimate. What you do about that is an open question and something that I don't think anybody has a simple whatever they might try and imply in these sorts of debates, a simple solution to.

But for today, this is about allowing the movement of high quality seed potatoes into a market. It is necessary. The measure means that the appropriate agencies will have the powers that they need to protect biosecurity. That's it. That is what this does. And that is why my noble friend is right to propose it to the House. On the issue of consultation, it is my observation that Defra in particular needs no encouragement to consult on any issue at any given time.

But this instrument doesn't introduce a new policy or introduce new burdens. I did hear what Lord Bew said about this, and I think sometimes there are sometimes a need for other reasons to engage the community in a very visible way. Perhaps that is a point worth reflecting on for future, but in the sort of narrow sense in the things that would trigger a consultation. Ordinarily this would not meet that threshold. And it's a it's a decision not to consult.

It's not forced not to consult. But by rejecting these regulations, we wouldn't solve the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds or anybody else. This is an imperfect situation. We recognise that. But for tonight and for the benefit of business and growers in Northern Ireland, it is important that we pass these regulations to give the legal certainty and clarity that that important industry needs. And I would just finally say that at a time when free trade faces growing threats from protectionism and geopolitical instability in many areas of the world, that for me, I think that if we can secure a stable, frictionless internal market here that is more important now than

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ever here. My Lords. We are in the second. Of what will be three discussions of Statutory Instruments. Before we go on to recess on the Windsor Framework. recess on the Windsor Framework. And one of the advantages of this rapid sequence of debates is that we can check the consistency of we can check the consistency of what is said in one debate compared to another. And with that in mind, to another. And with that in mind, I note that the noble Baroness, the Minister said when winding up last week and I quote the noble Lord Lord Frost, implied that the UK has ceded biosecurity responsibilities for Northern Ireland to the EU.

She went on to say we retain complete

19:54

Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)

- -

autonomy to make our own regulatory decisions, end quote. Now I gently ask the Minister whether she ask the Minister whether she entirely stands by that statement in the light of the discussion we're having today for a few reasons. First, as we've heard, the explanatory memorandum says that explanatory memorandum says that the EU amendments, as they're called, are already, quote, operational in Northern Ireland. operational in Northern Ireland. Not only that, DEFRA told the Secondary Legislative Legislation Committee in discussion on this.

That and again, I quote, if necessary, Daera the Northern Ireland equivalent could in practice have relied on the EU regulations as a basis for enforcement action. So one wonders quite what the point of this C is, given what the powers that are already in place, and it certainly feels rather irrelevant. Second point. In case this is not obvious enough, the government is clear, and we've heard that these amendments are required of us by the Windsor Framework. The explanatory memorandum again says the purpose of this C is to ensure that relevant domestic legislation operates in accordance with the Windsor Framework in other words, that's the justification, not the substantive purpose.

And third, again, as we've heard already, if that was not enough, paragraph seven, one of the explanatory memorandum washes his hands of it and says, if you've got concerns about any of this, go to Brussels and talk to them about it. I wonder when this great reset and the new SPS rules are in place, and impose this regime on the whole of the UK, whether that will also be the government's position and whether farmers will be told to go to Brussels and beg if they don't like.

The new SPS reset arrangement. Seems like that's the logical consequence of the position that's taken here. My Lords, it couldn't be clearer. I think the British government has no say in these matters at all, and today's legislation makes that abundantly clear. So I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, in what sense does she think the government does have autonomy in these areas? And I suggest to her that today's discussion is really disconnected from the real power relationships in Northern Ireland and is entirely performative, and therefore Lord Dobbs regret motion is entirely justified.

19:57

Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)

- -

Hear, hear. My Lords, this is >> Hear, hear. My Lords, this is another Statutory Instrument. Two another Statutory Instrument. Two update EU law enforcement on Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and plant propagating material. So it operates effectively in Northern Ireland. It aligns, therefore, the operation of Northern Ireland's agri food sector with EU laws. The measures do not take account of the geographical climate. Agricultural conditions of Northern Ireland are different from those of mainland Europe.

The House of Commons Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs Committee concluded in its assessment of SPS for GB that full adoption of EU rules in this area risks embedding regulatory decisions inappropriate for GB production systems. So I'd like to ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, is it right that we should be having Statutory Instruments to enforce regulatory decisions that may not suit the conditions of very different conditions in Northern Ireland? Worse, the regulations violate the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom, rupturing our internal market.

They mean divergent laws to govern the agri food sectors under the Windsor Framework. That framework, as we know, accepted as permanent the EU's power to regulate goods in Ireland, including this aggregate sector. Whereas, the settlement under the Northern Ireland Protocol of the Withdrawal Agreement was recognised by the parties at the time as temporary, pending and to quote best endeavours to find a more lasting solution. Northern Ireland, as long as we have the current arrangements, will thus be an economic vassal of Brussels, governed or top autocratically with laws made for the people, but not by the people.

19:59

Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Lord Stephen me, I'm. >> Not going to reiterate some of the wider constitutional issues which have already been raised, but first of all question why is this first of all question why is this S.I. even needed? By his own admission, the current regulations are fully complied with by everybody in the industry, and indeed it is something that admission is one which has been highlighted, I think, by the Subordinate Legislation Committee does not even get a mention in the explanatory memorandum, no matter how opaque it is, and indeed was criticised by the committee for its omission.

But I want to particularly concentrate on the issue of consultation or lack thereof, and it seems to be part of a wider pattern on these essays in which there is no consultation taking place. And there are two conclusions one can draw in relation to that. First of all, it is an approach which is both arrogant and ignorant. Indeed, one of the rationales being given by the government in the SI for a lack of consultation is that stakeholders impacted, stakeholders and businesses have had many opportunities to feed into the development of the EU regulations through various formal EU consultations.

So the expectation is that if you're a small business, you're supposed to be both aware of what is coming down the pipeline from the EU and actually feed in and make your representations directly to the EU. The government appears to be completely washing their hands of that. And in terms of the issue of ignorance, we've seen previous occasions whenever, for example, legislation was put through on seed potatoes with the impact of that. And I know from one particular example in which a business would have actually completely gone out of business because they were not able to source even from another another source.

And it took a considerable amount of work with the then agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland to find a technical solution to enable them to remain in business. And that was because it was simply imposed with an ignorance to the direct impact on the individual. But it is also the case. The second reason why consultation clearly has not taken place is because, effectively this is a fait accompli. It doesn't matter in many ways whether this is on the substance of this, that stakeholders would say, fair enough, we think this is perfectly fine, or whether it would be utterly up in arms, because in either case, the government is in a position where simply it is allowing it to be imposed.

So it doesn't matter what the reaction is there in the consultation. So why go through a consultation in the first place? That I would suggest is no way to do laws in this country to impose it upon people. And it suggests to me, in conclusion, that whether it is with this government, with the reset, or a future government with a very different reset, simply banking the current status quo and building upon that is not something which is acceptable. And that is the wider lesson that we need to draw from this I.

20:03

Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)

- -

I welcome the opportunity to >> I welcome the opportunity to take part in this interesting debate. It's the second time I've intervened in what appears to be a series of debates on this issue. The last time I was guilty of a degree of naivety, I. It turned out that it wasn't a debate about tumble dryers. It was really a debate about Brexit and the Windsor Framework. Just as today's debate. Although quite a few references have been made to plant health.

Seeds and potatoes. This is really at heart a debate about where we are with Brexit and the associated Windsor Framework. Why are we here given the time available, I just want to make three points about want to make three points about Brexit. First. It was sold on a false prospectus, of which Take Back Control was one of the most egregious. It was a, to put it, no funny a lie. We do not have control in an interconnected world to the extent we were told.

Secondly, the terms upon which exit was was negotiated were negotiated, in my view, incompetently, not least of which the failure to appreciate until too late the implications of a land border between Northern Ireland, between the UK and the European Union. And thirdly, it's worth making the point that now a majority of people in the United Kingdom regard Brexit as a mistake. These are all thoughts that need to be borne in mind when undertaking this debate.

I just want to make one final point that, given the nature of this debate and why it's happening, it's relevant to point out that in the Brexit referendum, a clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland were against leaving the European Union. In fact, the majority in favour of staying in Europe was somewhat greater than the majority across the UK as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

whole who wished to leave. Noble Lords should be clear that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lords should be clear that these regulations, which allow the law in Northern Ireland to diverge from that of Great Britain, from that of Great Britain, actually violates article one two of the Windsor Framework, which clearly states, and I quote, that clearly states, and I quote, that the purpose of the Windsor Framework is to protect the essential state functions of the United Kingdom. Now surely, my Lords, the most basic function of a state has to ensure the nation's security. And a critical component of that is, of course, biosecurity.

And what the government has not admitted is that this legislation applies different biosecurity standards to Northern Ireland and Great Britain because of the EU diktat, and is set in the context of an SPS border dividing one part of the UK from another, and that these regulations step beyond the bounds of the Windsor Framework. Now the noble Lady last week sought to dismiss concerns of this kind by arguing that the island of Ireland has long been treated as a single area for epidemiology.

But this argument does not work because there is a distinct difference between being treated as a single area for epidemiology in a context where we set our own common UK biosecurity standards and what happens to now and today we are being divided in two by international border control posts at Belfast, Larne, Warrenpoint and Foyle, supposedly to protect Northern Ireland from the threat from our own country. What a ridiculous thing to say. Control posts, which have cost £152 million so far of taxpayers money to construct.

The truth is that while we have ceased being members of the EU, we have still not left the EU. While the Windsor Framework is in existence, the United Kingdom will never really experience a true departure from the European Union. And this point is so eloquently demonstrated by the regulations

20:07

Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)

- -

mentioned by many noble peers. A reference to a Member state is to be read as if Northern Ireland, be read as if Northern Ireland, where a member state of the European Union. How dare does His Majesty's Government just write out Northern Ireland from its own country and into the EU's regulatory territory? And we also regulatory territory? And we also refer to GB as a third country, which is also really outrageous. And even worse, any future changes which Brussels wants to bring in will simply be nodded through and businesses will have to comply or be sanctioned.

Changes to all the things passports, farm machinery, etc. No public consultation. Not a single farmer or garden centre grower asked for their view. How dare the government again say that these are just technical changes? And if I could say to the noble Baroness Ritchie, we will keep having these s I regret motions because that is the only way in this chamber that we get the chance to discuss the constitutional outrage of what is happening and the drip by drip approach, the drip by drip, moving away Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom, that this is not something that is going to go away.

And I very much support the noble Lord Dodds if he, in fact, decides to vote this to show, as a matter of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

principle, that we object to this kind of treatment. My Lord, I thank the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, as well as Lord Dodds, for allowing us to have this short debate this us to have this short debate this evening through his regret motion. As I said in last week's debate, the concerns about these regulations are much less about the substance of the regulations

20:09

Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)

- -

substance of the regulations themselves and more about the democratic oversight, parliamentary scrutiny and very legitimate fears that Northern Ireland feels that it is being treated differently to the rest of the UK. Regarding the regulations themselves, can the Minister say what is the government's assessment of the of the impact, if any, on the sector of the eight year gap between the introduction of the EU regulations in 2018 and these enforcement regulations that we are debating this evening? Can she also say a little more about how business and stakeholders were able to feed into the development of the regulations through various EU consultations, as it states in the explanatory memorandum, and how the government ensured that this happened in practice in last week's debate as well as this evening, Baroness Chapman talks about the need to be pragmatic and practical.

In general terms, I would agree the agricultural sector is looking for stability, biosecurity and mechanisms to protect our ecosystems from invasive pests and crop and crop diseases. On these benches, we recognise that aligning with the EU reduces barriers to trade. The reality of dynamic alignment, however, my Lords, is that we are usually dealing with very small technical changes which are probably only truly understood by a small group of experts, including, I would hope, the noble Lady, the Minister who follows these matters very closely.

But in the absence of formal representation in the European Union institutions, it is vital, I believe, that this Parliament plays a full and proper scrutiny role, and I still firmly hope that the government will set out a strategy in this regard. Finally, it is deeply to be regretted. I believe that the House of Commons no longer has a European Scrutiny committee. It previously played a vital role in carrying out necessary scrutiny of of these regulations, and this function is increasingly only being carried out by the European Affairs Committee of your Lordships House, and through regret motions such as this one.

I believe this is something that the government really does need to bring forward proposals to improve.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I thank the noble Lady, the Baroness, the Minister, for the Baroness, the Minister, for bringing this secondary legislation before your Lordships House tonight. Once again, noble Lords and ladies Once again, noble Lords and ladies from Northern Ireland, and some of my noble friends have, in my opinion, made a very powerful and unanswerable case about the undemocratic way these regulations have been imposed on Northern

20:11

Lord Blencathra (Conservative)

- -

have been imposed on Northern Ireland without any input from Northern Ireland politicians or the United Kingdom government. And of course, these regulations have already taken effect across the EU, and these regulations are operational and enforcement measures. However, I do have questions and concerns about the process, as other noble Lords have said, and I do share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, whose motion formally regrets that these regulations were made without public consultation. Now, the explanatory memorandum states that the government has engaged with key stakeholders to notify them of the main changes, but that is not the same as consultation.

So can the noble Lady, the Minister, provide more detail on how the Department and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs daera how they select stakeholders to engage with and ensure that those impacted are aware of the changes. What exactly was the scope and scale of this engagement? Furthermore, whilst the government have said that businesses and stakeholders can participate in formal EU consultation, how does the government ensure businesses and stakeholders are aware of these EU consultations? What assessment has the government made of current participation levels, and does the government think the EU consultations are adequate in acting on concerns raised by lawyers? We should not be complacent, but proactive in ensuring the needs and concerns of businesses and key stakeholders in Northern Ireland are heard and acted upon now on the Windsor Framework itself.

Despite its inherent flaws, this is a great improvement on the awful Northern Ireland Protocol negotiated in October 2019. That is not to say this is perfect, nor was it ever the view that that the Windsor Framework is beyond improvement. As the official opposition, we remain open to constructive discussions on on with all interested parties on how we can best protect the economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. And so I thank the noble Lord Lord Dobbs for his motion and his valuable insights tonight.

As noble Lords have said, whilst individually these s eyes are small and technical and not significant, but collectively, slowly and surely, they give the impression that Northern Ireland is being leveraged out of the United Kingdom. That situation is not sustainable and sooner rather than later, it needs to be addressed by this Parliament. I look forward to the noble Lady. The Baroness Cass response.

20:14

Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)

- -

20:22

Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

For all those that have taken part in this debate, especially those who have indicated support those who have indicated support for my regret motion, one noble Baroness said, well, what's achieved by these debates? Who benefits? Well, I suppose when the benefits? Well, I suppose when the government doesn't bother about consultation, it will impact assessment. The next logical step is to forget about parliamentary debate as well. Why bother having any of this? The purpose of these debates is actually to bring scrutiny to legislation which would otherwise pass without any examination made by a foreign political body for the citizens of the UK.

That's why it's important. That's why they're significant. And when people say, why aren't we dealing with the practicalities instead of the constitutionality? The fact is the practicalities are decided not here but elsewhere. We can't debate tumble dryers, as the noble Lord mentioned, or these other issues, because the policy, the legislation is not decided here. We're debating enforcement and other peripheral matters. The substance is being decided elsewhere. The nobleman, the Baron, the noble Baroness. The Minister said that this respects Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom.

How does a regulation which states in terms that any reference to the European Union or Union territory is to be read so as to include Northern Ireland? That's in black and white in these regulations? That is a scandalous proposition for any government to put in legislation in this House, and for that reason I wish to test the opinion of the House and to seek where people stand on issues of such importance.

20:24

Deputy Lord Speaker.

Question is this amendment be >> Question is this amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. >> Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. I think the not contents have it. The question will be decided by a division, and I will inform the House when voting is open. My Lords,

20:24

>> >> All >> All right, >> All right, here >> All right, here we >> All right, here we go >> All right, here we go again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All right, here we go again.

20:25

20:34

Deputy Lord Speaker.

many as are of that opinion will content. >> Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. The question. The question is that the original motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I beg to move. The House again, resumes itself. Into committee. The question is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Into committee. The question is that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents contrary, not content. The contents of it. In schedule six, amendment 48.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord de Mauley my Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 48, 50, 51 to speak to amendments 48, 50, 51 and 52 which are in my name. Let me start with amendment 48, which is

20:35

Amendment:48 Lord De Mauley (Conservative)

start with amendment 48, which is about payment to the new about payment to the new non-executive board members. The members of the RFCA and those of all their forebear organisations, commencing with the County territorial associations in 1908, whether acting locally or at national level, have never been paid. The volunteer ethos is of very considerable significance, especially in the world of reserves and cadets. My Lords, imagine how it will look to the reservists who volunteer and put their lives on the line and to the cadet forces.

If the non-executives, the non-executives, are to be paid. It's a really bad look, and unlikely to to attract the best of society who are absolutely committed to the Reserves and cadets. Furthermore, we are living in a time of scarce resources, especially in the field of defence. Yet here is the Mod deliberately adding cost when they know there is a ready supply of volunteers who will do, and indeed are currently doing this work for no financial reward, one can guess the reaction of those who've shown over many years their dedicated unpaid commitment to the reserves and cadets, to the appointment of paid non-executives with no apparent commitment to reserves or cadets.

My Lords, it's a mistake to offer money to entice people to apply for these roles. Turning now to amendment 50 to reinstate Lord lieutenants, Lord lieutenants are the sovereign's representatives in their respective lieutenancies or counties. It is their foremost duty to uphold the dignity of the Crown. Historically, each Lord lieutenant was responsible for organising the county's militia, the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act of 1907, established county territorial associations with the Lord Lieutenant. As the president of the County Association.

The relationship of Lord lieutenants with the military today is maintained via their presidency of their county. RFCA and all lieutenants are affiliated to one of the 13 regional RFCA. One of them is president and they rotated amongst them. This is constituted in primary legislation, most recently schedule four to the Reserve Forces Act of 1996. To remove. That would remove the final vestiges of a military role and an important part of the Lord lieutenants symbolic relationship to the Crown Service personnel hold the sovereign in the highest regard.

To cut off this link between reservists and the Crown seems to say the least inappropriate. Lord-lieutenants have evidenced considerable concern over the review's proposals and the consequences of breaking this important link. Under the Armed Forces Bill, the involvement of the Lord lieutenants, which was established under schedule four, Paris two, three and four of the Reserve Forces Act of 1996 is to be abolished. That's in the schedule six part three para four two B, where it says omit section one, one, one and schedule four brackets.

Provisions of schemes for the Constitution of Associations brackets. My Lords, it's been suggested as an afterthought that the continued involvement of the Lord lieutenants might be achieved through secondary legislation or regulation. The involvement of the Lord lieutenants is currently in primary legislation, and to relegate it to regulations is nothing short of insulting. It also makes it much easier to amend, change and delete it. If it is proposed to amend the law in a way that affects a class of persons, it is my Lords customary to consult them, even if there's no statutory duty to do so.

There have been cases where the courts have held that failure to consult is a reason for upholding judicial review of the government. My Lords, I understand that the Association of Lord lieutenants has not been consulted. I urge the noble Lord, the Minister, to consider the amendment carefully. And, my Lords, now turning to amendment 51 to establish a National Council. The strength of the RFCA lies in their embeddedness across the regions. This wasn't accidental. It reflects the original Haldane model from 1908, a decentralised citizen based structure designed to mirror national diversity and ensure societal ownership of the Territorial Resource Reserve force.

And it has endured and worked for over a century, what is today described as connecting defence with the nation is rooted in this model, so it's right that the Bill establishes regional councils. In paragraph 14 of part one of schedule six. What is extremely odd, though, is that the Draughters haven't understood that the regional councils are irrelevant if their views are not brought together and debated centrally, so that a single, considered professional message can be delivered to Ministers.

Abolishment of the membership discussed in the debate on the last group also presents a conundrum as to whether regional council members will be elected from. When we questioned this, we were told don't worry, it'll be dealt with in secondary legislation. Well, this is a quite extraordinary response. Without a national council, the regional councils are completely irrelevant and without a membership they will be ineffective. This seems to be an attempt to pay lip service to devolution, while in fact cutting it off at the roots.

A national council is fundamental to the functioning of the new structure, and the amendment would establish one. My Lords, turning now to amendment 52 about the external scrutiny team, the UK Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations external Scrutiny Team provides an independent annual assessment to Parliament on the state capabilities and health of the United Kingdom's Reserve Forces, identified as fundamental to advising Ministers and the single services on the effectiveness of training, fighting efficiency and leadership of the reserve, thus meeting the FR 2020 proposition to reservists, it was established following the Future Reserves 2020 review and operates with statutory duties mandated by the Reserve Forces Act, 1996.

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Mod? My Lords, I beg to move. Amendment proposed schedule six,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed schedule six, page 134. Line 22. Leave out paragraph four.

20:43

paragraph four. >> My Lords, I added my name to these amendments and I agree with the points that have been so well made by the noble Lord Lord de Mauley. Let me start my brief remarks by making just a couple of remarks by making just a couple of general points. The first is that while there have been some criticisms of the arrangements of

20:43

Lord Stirrup (Crossbench)

- -

reserves and cadet forces, particularly in fairly recent particularly in fairly recent reviews, most of these have been attended to subsequently. And the general opinion was that in the round, the reserve forces and round, the reserve forces and cadets operated extremely well, were extremely valuable, and the arrangements that had been set in place had served this country extremely well for a very long time. extremely well for a very long time. There's therefore a burden of proof on anyone seeking to change the current arrangements to show why any proposed alterations will be better than the arrangements that are already in place.

And I fear, my Lords, that the government fails on this count. In many instances within this particular part of the Armed Forces Bill. My second point is that the. The noble Lord. The Minister has previously indicated in committee that some of the shortcomings might be attended to in secondary legislation, and the noble Lord Lord de Mauley has referred to this. Well, that's all very well. But as everybody in this chamber knows, we can't amend secondary legislation. We take it or leave it, and usually we have to take it.

Now, of course, we have to have secondary legislation for the detailed implementation of an act and the and the measures within that act. But issues of principle should be settled in primary legislation, not in secondary legislation. Again, for some of the reasons that the noble Lord Lord de Mauley has just pointed out, and quite a number of the issues covered by the amendments this evening are issues of principle and therefore belong in primary legislation, not in secondary legislation. Now, as regards the burden of proof, I think that applies particularly to what is proposed in terms of having paid non-executive members.

We have unpaid members at the moment. It works extremely well. They're volunteers. As the noble Lord Lord de Mauley says, it fits in very well with the the volunteer ethos. Why do we want to change it? I simply fail to see the rationale. Perhaps the noble Lord. The Minister can explain this in some detail when he replies with regard to amendment 50 and the issue of the Lords. Lieutenant. My Lords, one point which we haven't touched on very much to date with regard to the reserves, which was referred to fleetingly by the noble Lord Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, is no longer in his place was.

We need to think about the future employment of reserves, not just about the past. I agree entirely, and it seems clear to me, and I think it was made pretty clear in the government's own strategic defence review that a very important role for reserves in the future will be to deal with issues of national resilience, national resilience in the face of natural disasters. And indeed, we had a question on that earlier today with regard to the flooding we're likely to see in this country as a result of the recent and current El Nino event.

But also, of course, if we come under attack from an enemy, the overall co-ordination of national resilience and the resources required to to ensure it will, of course, be conducted at the national level. But the but the tactical dealing with national resilience will be conducted at the local level. The emergency services will all be dealing at the local level, and it seems to me incomprehensible to suppose that the reserve forces will not have a major role to play, particularly when we see severe challenges to our national resilience that needs to be conducted at the local level.

It also seems to me implausible to suggest that the sovereign's representative in the locality will not be intimately involved in any responses to severe challenges to national resilience. The Lord lieutenant will have a role to play in all of this. So the Lord lieutenants association with the reserve forces, it seems to me, is not just an issue of representation and history as referred to by the noble Lord Lord de Mauley, but is a very practical issue in terms of the future role of the reserves with regard to the the National Board for the regional associations, I have been an advocate for regionalism, for allowing authority to local bodies and to reserve forces within their regions.

But clearly there will be an important role to be played in terms of spreading best practice, in terms of coordinating the various messages of those regional bodies. As the noble Lord Lord de Mauley has pointed out, and representing those at the national level. And there does seem to me to be a requirement for some sort of mechanism that enables to do that. That acts as a bridge between the two. Finally, my Lords, if we're going to have a report on the reserve and cadet forces, for heaven's sakes, let's have a report that we can rely upon that is produced by an independent body that has no axe to grind one way or the other, except to see that this nation is served as it deserves to be, as it needs to be by the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association.

20:48

Earl Howe (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, again, I should. Like to say a few words in support of my to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord de Mauley in particular, to reinforce everything he said in relation to amendments 50 and 51 on amendment 51. I'll say no more than it plays into the issues that I was trying to highlight in the previous group, and which the noble and gallant Lord Lord Stirrup has, has referred to just now, as regards the need to retain a representative and coherent voice for the individual RFCA memberships, my noble friend argued the case for a national voluntary body very well, and I don't intend to repeat the arguments he put forward.

I would, however, like to make a couple of points on amendment 50. I mentioned earlier that my wife has the honour of being His Majesty's Lord Lieutenant of Buckinghamshire, and in that role she is ex officio, president of Safka. We can easily talk about tradition in the context of supporting the work of the reserve forces and cadets. However, whilst I'm a great one for wanting to preserve such traditions, I don't regard tradition on its own as the most important reason for maintaining a statutorily based role for Lord lieutenants in the regional councils.

The main argument, to my mind is that the involvement of Lord lieutenants as honorary presidents or vice presidents is highly valued by the RFCA and by the reservists and cadets themselves. Every year my wife presents Meritorious Service awards to reservists in Buckinghamshire who have displayed outstanding and commitment to the volunteer volunteer ethos and the significance of these awards to the recipients is without question enhanced by the fact that they're presented by the King's representative. And I would go further in saying that the Lord lieutenants role in these presentations plays no small part in maintaining the motivation of our reservists and cadets.

Exactly the same point can be made in relation to Employer Recognition Scheme awards and how they are perceived by those in receipt of them. The appointment of Lord lieutenants cadets is another example. It's an honour that cadets aspire to. Now, the Minister may well say, indeed, I think he has, that there will be nothing to prevent Lord lieutenants from fulfilling the same kind of honorary function once the Bill has been enacted. However, I, for one, don't feel that a loose arrangement of that kind would do justice to the well defined function that Lord lieutenants fulfil in upholding the dignity of the crown.

It's a function that, of course, is borne of tradition over many centuries. But much more importantly, it is one that reflects the direct relationship between the armed forces and the Crown. Every time the king's representative meets a reservist on a public stage to recognise his or her outstanding service, it is a reminder that servicemen and women across the country owe their loyalty, first and foremost, to the sovereign. It isn't satisfactory, in my judgement, for a statute of this kind to remain silent on that key constitutional point.

20:52

Lord Dannatt (Crossbench)

- -

Mr. speaker, in support of amendment 50, in the name of the noble Lord Lord de Mauley, another noble and gallant Lords, in regard to ensuring that Lord lieutenants involvement as presidents of regional RFCA councils remain enshrined in primary legislation. enshrined in primary legislation. And I totally support the comments just made by the noble Earl Earl Howe. I should declare two interests. First, that I was a deputy Lieutenant for Greater London and for Norfolk for over ten years, supporting the Lord lieutenants in those counties.

And second, that my wife is the current Lord Lieutenant of Norfolk and the current president of the Eastern Region of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association. I do not wish to repeat the arguments already made in support of of amendment 50, nor dwell on the historic links as important as they are between the Crown and the Reserve Forces and cadets in each county through the role of the Lord Lieutenant. But to emphasise the leadership role that the Lord Lieutenant plays in their respective counties, they will.

Earl Howe has just referred to that in Norfolk recently. As in many other parts of the country, we've had a lot of fires during the drought period. Norfolk was particularly affected by that. My wife required a number of her deputy lieutenants to go to visit all the volunteer fire stations, with letters of thanks from the county on behalf of His Majesty for their service. So it's not just reserve forces and cadets, it's actually the emergency services in the round. This role is currently enshrined in primary legislation, my Lords.

That is where it should remain. Reducing it to secondary legislation seems unnecessary. And as Lord Lord de Mauley has said, even insulting, perhaps, to both the Crown and Lord lieutenants. I understand that perhaps not surprisingly, neither Buckingham Palace, but more worryingly, nor the Association of Lord Low tenants have been formally consulted on this proposed change. Perhaps the noble Lord, the Minister, in answering this debate, could comment on that. Well, at a time of increased threats to our national security, every effort should be made to promote our.

Our reserve forces and those such as Lord lieutenants, that support them. That support is, of course, freely given and at no cost to the nation. Moreover, our cadet forces are the largest youth movement in the country and provide great character training and personal development for those involved. But many cadets go on to join our regular or reserve forces is a most welcome by-product. And as already mentioned, initiatives such as the annual appointment of Lord lieutenants cadets is a much cherished accolade in most counties and an incentive to excellence.

My Lords, the Bill as it stands, serves to weaken the hugely important links between the Crown through His Majesty's Lord Lieutenant and communities throughout the nation. At a time of great insecurity, I strongly urge His Majesty's Government to think again, and I firmly support amendment 55.

20:55

Lord Harlech (Conservative)

- -

I rise to support these amendments, too. In the name of my amendments, too. In the name of my noble friend Lord de Mauley. And let me say from the outset that I do not oppose reform in principle, and I did not put my name to. To the notices to oppose clause 38 or schedule six, which the Committee discussed earlier. However, there are two further things in this reorganisation which we must not lose. Which other noble Lords have already outlined, and I'm not persuaded that the Bill protects either, as it is currently drafted.

The first is the independent reporting, which is the subject of amendment 52. The associations provide annual advice to defence by two formal means, and one of them is the External scrutiny team report on the state of the Reserve Forces. That report is at present the only genuinely independent annual assessment of the of the reserves which this House receives. If responsibility for it passes to a body sponsored by, funded by and accountable to the Ministry of Defence. We do not merely change who writes it, we lose the thing which made it worth reading, and we would be losing it in the very Bill which increases our reliance on the reserves.

The Department expanding its call on a force which it is also, which it also grades, is not a comfortable arrangement, and Parliament will will need that independent view more in the coming decade, not less. The second is the standing of the regional structure, which amendments 50 and 51 concern. These associations were established in 1908 precisely to route the reserve in the county, and as we, as other noble Lords have said, the Lord lieutenants have presided over them ever since.

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

That is also the point behind amendment 48. Non-Executive members who serve without payment serve because they care about the reserves and cadets, and I would be sorry to see that ethos priced. I recognise the governance case the Ministry of Defence has made and everything in this group, and the last is offered as an attempt to improve the new body rather than obstruct it. I would ask the noble Lord, the Minister, to tell the committee specifically what safeguards will preserve the independence of the External Scrutiny Team report, and how the role of the Lord lieutenant will be maintained under the new body.

If those assurances can be given from the despatch box, then I think a good deal of the anxiety across these two groups would fall away.

20:59

Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

Sam, pleased to add my name to the the suite of amendments. It the the suite of amendments. It covers a broad area. If we could start with. With 48. I'm sure any start with. With 48. I'm sure any of us who have served as Minister or Ministers or council leaders will have appointed loads of people to different bodies over the over the years, and one thing I did notice in more recent times is that a cohort of people have emerged who apply for a lot of different bodies, whether or not they have qualifications or experience in any of them.

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

So I have to say, I have not been convinced by the what is in in the draft bill at the present moment, and I would sincerely hope that we could retain. I mean, if unless there's a complete absence of people applying or unless there's an obvious shortage of people who are willing to sit on these boards, then I cannot understand why we would want to engage in expense in order to do it. And given the fact that the whole apparatus and noble and gallant Lords are far more expense than I have.

But if you have an organisation that is working in staff, what incentive are you giving those who do the the the grunt work on the ground? If executives, board members have been paid. I just think it upsets the balance. Now. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord sir mentioned national resilience and of course the reserve forces. Inevitably, whether it's a weather catastrophe or something else, are going to be part of that. And I have to say to the noble Lord, the Minister who we all know could sell snow to the Eskimos if he if he was put to it.

The fact is that we have a situation in the press even yesterday, where our training budgets for our soldiers apparently are being reduced for public expenditure reasons. Now, if you were sitting in the Kremlin looking at that, and, you know, it sounds so preposterous, and his Right Honourable colleague in the other place, the Environment Secretary, is urging us all to stock up on baked beans, because on candles and pre-prepared for the emergency. And in the same breath, we're reducing apparently basic training.

Now, if you're preparing the country for emergency and you're urging people to stock up on basics when, what, what what's the connection between those two things? I just can't can't make it out. It seems completely counterintuitive, and the Minister knows I tried to get a PMQ yesterday on that subject, but the the the Falklands won out quite properly. But look, it is a serious question. And I think the government the rhetoric coming from the government, the rhetoric coming from successive Prime Ministers, is that defence of the nation is the number one priority of government, and I don't necessarily want to bring this into it.

But might I gently remind them that if we're trying to save £30 million on training, we're not trying to save any of the billions we're spending on the asylum industry, which is is just making a mockery of our country. So I think we have to get serious here about what our priorities as a nation really are. And I think this is sending out the wrong message with regard to the Lord lieutenants. I remember back home saying, our Lord lieutenant with a cadet and a cadet, she was as proud as punch.

And this was a wonderful opportunity for a young person to take that role. And you could see the enthusiasm and that person was committed as a young person to serving as as the cadet and give that person a wonderful opportunity of a career path as a young person to, to move forward and, you know, to potentially take that away for what I don't know. So I would seriously ask the Minister to consider that, and I hope he would speak between now and report to Lord de Mauley and colleagues and talk about these things, because I'm sure his door will be open.

And I think that would be most helpful to the House if that was to happen, because I doubt if there's a huge amount of difference between all of us. We all want to see the same thing, and I accept that you can't go forever without looking at change and so on. That's part of life. But I have to say also that the issue of the report, we all know how government works. We all know how local government works. If you are doing an in-house report, people will say to you in the corridor, well, I think maybe you should be a wee bit careful about that or go a bit easier.

We want an accurate, independent report without any strings attached, without any ability to be pressurised financially or in any other way. I would have thought that's fairly basic. I mean, we're not asking for anything that's not sensible or reasonable. So I think there's this suite of amendments I think goes a long way to correcting what some of the flaws might be. Fair enough. The drafting may need to be changed and so on. And I hope in the discussions between now and report some of these anomalies can be resolved.

21:05

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments to which I've also attached my name. And as the noble attached my name. And as the noble Lord, Lord MP has pointed out, there are reasonable set of amendments. They are, again amendments that speak to issues of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association, and in many ways could have been part perhaps of a previous group, because, again, they are trying to deal with issues associated with clause 38. But, my Lords, we've already heard very articulately this evening that at the moment we have reserves and cadet forces that are not paid, and councils which are not paid.

Why has His Majesty's Government thought it necessary or appropriate to bring forward the suggestion of non-executive directors being paid and even potentially having pensionable incomes? Is there is there a reason for it? That is a loading the chamber? Because at the moment it doesn't seem to be clear why that would be necessary or desirable in terms of the role of the Lords lieutenant, as other noble Lords have pointed out, it seems wholly inappropriate that that should be consigned to secondary legislation and in particular, if it is indeed the case that the Palace and the Lord Lieutenants Association have not been consulted, what does the noble Lord, the Minister, propose to do to rectify that, and pending any consultation, would it not be appropriate to consider removing those parts of the Bill? In terms of the Final Amendment again, so amendment 52, as the noble Lord, Lord MP, has just pointed out, surely if you want an independent, independent report, it really does.

We do need to have clarity that it is going to be produced by people independent of the Mod, so that they cannot be subject to any sort of informal pressure to produce a report. That might be what the Mod or Ministers might want to hear. So, my Lords, a suite of reasonable amendments. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, perhaps give us some suggestion of areas in which the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government might be willing to move? My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Sorry much has been said by noble Lords, noble and gallant Lords, myself and my noble friend Lords, myself and my noble friend Lord de Mauley, about the importance of the continuation of the voluntary nature of the RFCA. the voluntary nature of the RFCA. This isn't because I wish to sound like a stuck record, but out of a genuine desire to preserve all that

21:08

The Earl of Minto (Conservative)

- -

genuine desire to preserve all that has made the reserves and cadets so successful. And of those factors, the voluntary ethos is paramount. As a noble Lord MP has so clearly expressed, these are organisations that, despite being established by statute, do not operate as traditional government bodies. They are more akin to civil society organisations. That's their brilliance. The voluntary nature of the membership brings together such a wide array of people, from ex regulars who don't want to give up on their military life, to those who want to give back to society, to those who simply want to help young people get a step up, get on in life.

They're not forced into this. It's not their career. They do it because they want to. This is how we attract the best and most dedicated people. The new structure envisaged by the government, however, would create a professional board of independent people, potentially with no relevant experience. As several noble Lords have mentioned, all links to either the cadets or the reserves. This is why I support amendments 48 and 51 from my noble friend to prevent non-executive board members from being paid and enshrining a national voluntary body in statute.

Only then can we ensure that those who are involved with the RFCA remain genuinely committed to the and to, and passionate about the cadets and Reserves, they put themselves forward to serve. My Lords, I have also spoken already about my desire to conserve the traditional link to the Crown through the involvement of the lieutenancy in the associations, the severance of the policy, and one that is entirely unnecessary. It is for that reason that I also strongly support amendment 50, which would, in essence, preserve an element of the status quo by ensuring the Lords Lord lieutenants are appointed as presidents of the regional councils.

My Lords, this wasn't cost the Ministry of Defence a penny. It wouldn't interfere with their bureaucratic restructuring, but it would help preserve those traditions that have kept our nation going for so long, and which might just make our lives a little bit more enjoyable. Can I.

21:11

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Thank Lord de Mauley for the >> Thank Lord de Mauley for the amendments that he's led on in presenting to us? And just to say to Lord MP, I've said on a number to Lord MP, I've said on a number of occasions, both to Lord de Mauley and the committee as a whole. Of course, I'll continue to have the conversations between now and report about what we may or may not do with some of the amendments before us. So that commitment has already been made.

And I think for the points you made about spending that I'm perfectly willing to answer another private notice question if he's successful or whatever at another time, but perhaps not not this evening, as I say. Can I thank. Lord de Mauley and the Earl of Minto and Baroness Goldie for the for their view that the non-executive members of the new RFCA board should be unpaid. That view assumes that unpaid service better demonstrates commitment. I actually don't accept that commitment is not determined by whether a member is remunerated, and there is no evidence, in my view, that remuneration reduces dedication to the reversed reserve forces or cadet organisations.

I take the point that people make about voluntary ethos, but in terms of the board, membership and others.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Suggest in answer to that point from the noble Lords Minister. What it. Does do, though, is it calls into question the independence from their Mod masters.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their Mod masters. That might be a. So that we consider in the conversation that we have. I have conversation that we have. I have to say just. I don't want to go on too long. It is one of the few. Much of the comment that different Much of the comment that different people have made this evening, I actually understand some of it I agree with to a larger or lesser extent. I have never, ever thought, generally speaking, that in some circumstances unpaid work is is the way forward in certain situations.

And this is one with respect to to the board, I don't think it undermines the voluntary ethos it as a whole, because in this it's particularly related to the, the, the board membership. And I think in that circumstance, it's perfectly reasonable, given the new board that we wish to set up, that that position should be remunerated whilst accepting the point that in the broader establishment of Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we want to change it? Because I believe when it comes to this is a difference. I understand the whole point about the voluntary ethos. Generally across the Reserve and Cadet Association. I understand and accept that. Absolutely. What I'm saying is that with respect to the board members, where you're creating a national board that wants to take on certain statutory functions, that that position should be remunerated, and that's the difference between us. And in the end, that is something that personally, I think is not inconsistent with the belief that you can have a voluntary ethos.

Well, I mean, look, we have voluntary organisations all over the country that display voluntary ethos that we are all proud of. At the top of that organisation, our people are remunerated, our board members that are remunerated, and we would not expect them to be able to do that job of work without that remuneration. And that's the the the principle, the point that I'm making. We're committed to equality of opportunity, to breaking down barriers that prevent people from contributing to public life.

So we want public appointments to be open to all those with the skills, experience and commitment that only those with the financial means to do so without compensation. The government objective is to attract the best candidates from the widest possible range of backgrounds and retaining the option to remunerate supports that aim. I hope that that explains the government's position, whilst accepting again that many noble Lords will disagree with that. But that is my point about the payment on the statutory on the on the Strategic Oversight Board, whilst respecting the voluntary ethos more, more widely within the reserves and cadets, organisations and associations.

Can I thank the noble Lord Lord de Mauley Lord Stirrup for their views and for highlighting the important role that Lord lieutenants have long played within the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association? Again, I absolutely respect that. I understand now, I think the noble Lords wife is is the Lord lieutenant, I think in Norfolk. So we've got Norfolk and Buckinghamshire represented here today. And I think, again, that's something that we can all be proud of and, and, and, and respect. So we value that.

And the vital link between His Majesty the King and the communities they serve, championing reserves and cadets, strengthening links. And I would remind all of us that if we need reminding, which we we don't really. Of course, the Lord lieutenants are the appointments of His Majesty, which is, I think, also important and maintaining Earl Howe point about the. I think it was maybe the noble and Lord Lord Stirrup the link between the Crown and the. And the Lord lieutenants across the whole of the UK.

I think it is important we remain committed to the involvement of Lord lieutenants in the Regional Councils Council structure and, as I say, detailed government arrangements, including links with Lord lieutenants within the regional Council structure, are more appropriately set out in secondary legislation. Can I just make the point that the noble and gallant Lord Lord Stirrup has to understand? Well, let me just say defensively, I'm not often defensively. Let me just say defensively we. I take the point that you cannot amend secondary legislation.

That is why I said it is really important that this committee has the draft regulations, because you can amend and adapt draft regulations, and that was. Now people say it should be primary legislation, but at least I'm trying to provide the committee with another step by which they can try to influence what the regulations should be before they are set in stone again, will not satisfy everyone, but is actually a way in which I've recognised the fact that you can't amend secondary legislation, but having the draft gives people the opportunity to comment.

And those are members of the committee who've dealt with me in many ways, know that their involvement and influence they've had on various reports, one of which is to be published next week, where directly their comments have been taken on board, I think shows the commitment that I have to ensuring that it's not just a talking shop and that we make we make changes. So the amendment, in our view, is not required to achieve its stated objective. The Bill is intended to establish the statutory framework for the new body, and we don't believe it's necessary to prescribe these arrangements in statue on amendment 51, I.

I agree the government agrees with the objective of ensuring a strong collective voice for the regional councils, and we intend to establish a National Council and will set out its roles within the government's governance framework for the new body. The question is, therefore, whether the detailed arrangements for a National Council should be set in primary legislation or provided for through the governance framework. The government believes the latter approach is the more appropriate one. The Bill establishes the statutory framework for the new body.

Detailed governance arrangements, including the composition and functions of the National Council, are better set through secondary legislation and the wider governance framework, so as a new body, it has a greater freedom to evolve and adapt. But let me just say this the Lord de Mauley again. However, while I'm not convinced that this is a matter that needs to be settled in primary legislation, I've heard a wide range of views and opinions that have been expressed, that don't agree with where the government currently is, and I will take those points away and consider them carefully with respect to that.

As I say, for the I, I share the noble Lords desire to ensure the regional councils have a strong collective voice, and I hope that that certainly at Committee stage would give some reassurance to the noble Lord, and he'll withdraw that particular amendment as well as the others. I'm also grateful to Lord de Mauley and to noble and learned Lord Low Lord Stirrup for amendment 52 and the attention it gives to the important issue of reporting on the state of the Volunteer Reserve Force.

We agree that Parliament should continue to receive robust and independent reporting. The noble Lord Lord Harlech asked me what was the accountability, the point I'd make to him. I personally do not believe there is any greater accountability than an annual report to this House and to the other place that gives all of us the opportunity to read what has or hasn't happened, and to raise questions, or even call Ministers to account. And he asked me, and Frank challenged me to say how all of this would be reported, and what accountability would I say in this parliamentary accountability? I think that's a pretty powerful thing to say of a particular organisation.

I know there is a difference because under the bill, responsibility for producing the report rests with the RFCA or such other person or body as the Defence Council may determine. The responsibility for delivering. The report will be given to the new RFCA, but the Bill also gives the Defence Council the ability, if it sees fit, to commission the report from another suitable person or body outside of defence doesn't require it, it just says if it sees fit, it's right that primary legislation should secure the report, should secure the requirement.

As I said, sir, to said to the noble Lord Lord Harlech and indeed others who've asked about accountability, the requirement for annual reporting, then then fix a particular organisational model in statute. In that way we protect the outcome. Rigorous reporting to Parliament without unnecessarily fixing the means of delivery in primary legislation. I hope with those remarks that the noble Lord, certainly for Committee stage, would see fit to be able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw his amendments. So once again thank those noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So once again thank those noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendments. I also thank the noble Lords Minister. He says voluntary bodies all over the country have paid people at their country have paid people at their heads. Well, of course they do. I'm a trustee or president of, I think, a trustee or president of, I think, seven charities universally outside government. Those paid are the executives, not the non-executives. My Lords, my concerns on the point about amenability of regulations is different to the one that he addressed.

Actually, my concern is that the government can amend them, not that we can't. It's that the government can amend them much more easily than primary legislation. But I'm sure we'll return to these issues on report. But for this issues on report. But for this evening, if I may. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw these amendments.

21:22

Lord De Mauley (Conservative)

- -

Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 49 Lord de Mauley not moved. Amendment 50 Lord de Mauley

21:23

Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

not moved. Amendment 51 Lord de not moved. Amendment 51 Lord de Mauley not moved. Amendment 52 Lord de Mauley not moved. The question de Mauley not moved. The question is that schedule six be the sixth schedule to the bill. As many as schedule to the bill. As many as that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that have it. The question is that clauses 39 to 42 stand part of the bill En bloc as many as that opinion will say content.

The contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. Amendment 53. Baroness Brinton. My Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gresford. Cannot be in his place today as he is recovering at home after an operation. We hope he'll be back operation. We hope he'll be back with us by Report stage. My Lords, I have signed Lord Thomas's amendment and I will speak to and amendment and I will speak to and move it. I also have amendments 54 and 68, and I've also signed Lady and 68, and I've also signed Lady Bennett's Amendment 55. The victims names that I will use are not their own to protect their identities.

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

In recent months, following the brave disclosures made by a victim

21:24

Amendment:53 Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

of rape and sexual assault by a US servicemen on UK soil, not on his USAF base, many more shocking cases have emerged and my Lords, at Second Reading, both Lord Thomas and I spoke of this case. Jacob Woolston, a US Air Force pilot who in 2023 sexually attacked a Cambridge resident in his own Cambridge property. So not at the Lakenheath base where he worked. His victim, who I have talked to, was very clear that she was alleging rape and sexual assault.

Now, under the terms of the Visiting Forces Act 1952, it is clear that where an offence by an off duty American serviceman against a British civilian takes place off the American base, the investigation and any subsequent court case should usually be in the UK Crown Court, and the rest of the bill goes on to talk about exceptions to that. What happened in this case was that the Cambridgeshire Police waived jurisdiction, and I understand it was not at a senior level, and the trial took place by a court martial before a US military judge and panel in the Lakenheath base.

All the UK protections that are offered to victims of alleged rape and serious sexual attacks disappeared at that moment, and worse, because the victim isn't American, she wasn't entitled to the minimal victim support available to U.S. citizens in US courts compared to the victims rights here in the UK. And worse, since the victim was brave enough to talk to the Guardian newspaper, many more similar cases have been reported. So this is. Now, we understand, not a rare occurrence, and I can see why our beleaguered police forces would welcome the removal of cases from their very heavy workload.

But these decisions are not being made at the right level, and it is not clear at all that the CPS are involved. I was astonished to discover that many of the specific agreements with countries on such justice systems with us are made as secret and confidential between the UK and the country. So we in Parliament, the press or even the victims cannot find out the details. The Guardian exposed another case. In July, Rebecca fled the house of an American airman in Suffolk, going to the police to report he had raped and violently attacked her.

She saw specialist health and police staff. They looked after her. She was given an IV that's an independent sexual violence advisor to support her in the legal UK process. And then, my Lords, the USAF at RAF Lakenheath did exactly the same as the previous case I've described, and persuaded Suffolk Police to transfer the case to them because justice would be quicker then Emily, the wife of the accused Tyrion Davis, also came forward to say that she had also been raped and sexually assaulted by him on a number of occasions.

At the subsequent Lakenheath trial, he was convicted of sexually assaulting both Rebecca and Emily. On discovering that the jury panel at Lakenheath would be composed of Davis's military peers from a small base by our jury pool for civil court case standards, Rebecca said. It's like if I did something wrong outside of work, having all my nursing colleagues being on the jury, it just doesn't make sense. And in another case, Hans Marsalek boasted to his friends that he had exposed himself from his house in his small town of Littleport, near RAF Lakenheath, to a 16 year old girl and four young women as they went past.

When asked why U.S. Air Force authorities had taken over the case, a spokesperson said we negotiated over this case with the local police using all the available facts at the time, so the accused was able to negotiate a plea bargain in his case and was convicted on a lesser charge. He later won an appeal in a US military court this year that quashed his conviction on technical grounds, even though the court papers showed that he had texted two friends to say he had, quote, definitely flashed a couple of ladies walking from the train lol.

And later he texted. I took all of my clothes off. When I walked in, I went to go open a window and I was standing right in front of it when they walked by, end quote. He also admitted in court that he had done this twice before. The US military court sentenced him to two months. If it had been in a UK court, he would probably have received two years. Then, my Lords, astonishingly, a US military appeal court dismissed the guilty verdict against him, ruling that prosecutors had made an error by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

charging him Under the wrong offence. I suspect they realised it should have been a more serious one. Since these cases were publicised, more and more women are coming forward and more women are coming forward with their own experience of the US military court system taking over their cases in the UK, and we're their cases in the UK, and we're seeing injustice after injustice like these. So amendment 53 asserts like these. So amendment 53 asserts as a matter of principle, the UK victim is of a criminal offence perpetrated within the jurisdiction of the UK by a member of, or a person attached to a visiting force has a right for their complaint to be investigated and tried under UK law.

And it goes on to say that any attempt by treaty, agreement or memorandum of understanding to create exceptions to such a principle should be open and transparent, and that where an exception exists, its exercise should be subject to safeguards. In particular, reasons must be formulated and committed to writing, communicated to the victim and judicial. Now, my Lords, this is particularly important in sexual offences cases because the protections given to victims in court proceedings differ between the UK and the USA.

So, for example, under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, only the accused or someone acting on the accused behalf may apply to introduce the sexual history of the victim. Under the US military rule of evidence. 412 the prosecution, as well as the defence may make such an application in the US system. A ground for admitting such evidence is that it would violate the constitutional rights of the accused to rule it out, whereas our UK system is more restrictive.

On the other hand, the US system permits the victim to have their own counsel, to argue admissibility, to make representations on the victim's behalf and to protect the victim's rights. But I have also heard that if the victim isn't prepared to to give evidence, then sometimes, quite often in American court, the the case does not proceed. Even if there is other evidence. So can I ask the Minister where US courts martial involving a British victims have taken place? Have these victims been advised of their rights under US law to have a special victims counsel, and if so, how are they informed and who pays for it? Or is it true, as I have been told by one of these victims, that special victims counsel is only available in the US court to US citizens? What is clear is that the present arrangement cannot continue.

That is why I laid amendment 54, which adds the United States of America specifically to the list of countries countries bound by the Visiting Forces Act in 1952. At present, the USA is only bound by the slightly less formal arrangements of troops from other countries who are here under the banner of NATO forces, which is an even less transparent mechanism than in the Visiting Forces Act sections. This is particularly extraordinary because no country other than the USA now has its own bases in the United Kingdom, and it has the largest numbers of visiting forces of any foreign country.

So it makes sense for them to be added to the list of countries with whom we have specific agreements under this act. And my amendment 68 is a consequential on amendment 54, bringing it within the commencement provision in clause 55 of the bill, Lady Bennett Amendment 55, which I've signed, makes specific the element of the agreement between the UK and the countries whose visiting forces come here. And it's very helpful in echoing Lord Thomas of Gresford amendment 53 in being explicit about a restriction on the relinquishing of jurisdiction without the explicit decision of a relevant prosecutor and the issues that the relevant prosecutor must take into account.

So under this scheme, most of the cases that have come to light that were taken over by Lakenheath Air Base would most probably not have transferred from the relevant UK police force. Most importantly, this is a transparent process under these amendments, including notifying the victim. My Lords, all the amendments in this group are trying to solve a problem that this country should be ashamed of. Once again, the USA has been shown to ride roughshod over our judicial system relating to offences on British soil against British citizens, and our own processes have failed as our police forces allowed these cases to be removed to a US military judicial system that has clearly failed the many victims of rape and sexual assault.

My Lords, I beg to move. Amendment 53.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 42. Insert the new clause. The words is printed on the Marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

words is printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, it's. A great pleasure to follow the noble Lady Baroness Brinton and to noble Lady Baroness Brinton and to thank the noble Lady for supporting my amendment 55, which I'm going to my amendment 55, which I'm going to concentrate on, because this is a carefully worked attempt to deal with an issue that the noble Lady

21:35

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

with an issue that the noble Lady had. Baroness Brinton has already very clearly outlined criminal behaviour by US service people in the UK that has not been appropriately dealt with. Now there are more than 12,000 US military personnel stationed in the United Kingdom, operating from at least 15 bases and facilities. These are people living, working and socialising in communities across the UK. They will and do commit offences. And my amendment is focussed particularly on sexual offences.

But of course the noble Lady Baroness Brinton referred to the disgraceful, awful death of Harry Dunn and the fact that his family had to campaign against the entire US government to try to achieve some kind of justice. But that's not the focus of this particular my particular amendment. I also note that given the current state of the US today, these bases are coming under increasing public attention. However, that's not the subject of this amendment. As I spoke at Second Reading and said that I was going to bring this amendment forward, and in doing so, I have to both thank the Guardian journalists who've put and indeed, editors who've put a great deal of resources into uncovering this situation, and I should perhaps declare my former position as editor of the Guardian Weekly.

But I'm not influenced by that. And I also want to thank the centre for Military Justice for its advice and assistance in developing the amendment that I put before your Lordship's committee today. Now, the noble Lady Baroness Brinton chose not to name any of the people concerned, but given that she bravely chose to waive her own anonymity and speak to the Guardian, I am going to put forward the name of Sarah Steel because she wanted to speak publicly about what she went through.

Now, what happened was she went through an ordeal that, as a result of the failure of UK processes. This was an incident, an attack that took place on UK soil away from a US military base. And while the service member was off duty, yet the military police. The US military police quickly took over the investigation and the whole proceeding subsequently took place through the US justice military justice system. As Baroness Brinton said. Indeed, it was held at RAF Lakenheath, the largest US military base in the UK.

Miss steel described this as confronting, frustrating and distressing. The procedures she found were archaic and bizarre, and if you think about what she experienced happening being held before a military courtroom at points during her testimony, fighter jets were taking off just a few hundred metres from where she was speaking. She described the experience as feeling like she was in an alternative world. Now, in Miss Steel's case, the US court martial ultimately convicted the defendant of strangling an intimate partner but acquitted him of the sexual assault charge.

He received a sentence of six months in a correctional facility, and the conviction is subject to automatic appeal. Now, you might have views about that. I certainly do, but that is not directly what this amendment is about. And as the noble Lady Baroness Brinton said, this is one case of which we have a great deal of detail, and I won't go through the others that the noble Lady has already outlined, but I will just mention one of the cases where the victim recounted that the court martial process took two years.

She was forced to drop out of a midwifery degree as a result, and she had to give evidence in the same room as the man she accused. Without the protections that victims would normally have in a UK court. Now, what is the current legal position here? How have we got to this point? My understanding is that the NATO Status of Forces agreement provides a framework for determining which country has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction, where the offence is punishable under laws of both countries.

The sending state has the primary right in certain specified circumstances. These include where the offence is solely against the security or property of the sending state, where it's solely against another member of the force or their civilian component, or dependent, or where it arises out of an act done in performance of official duty. But where an alleged sexual offence is committed against a civilian who has no connection with the visiting force and the alleged offence does not arise out of an act done in the performance of official duty.

The receiving state, i.e. the UK, has the primary right. The UK has jurisdiction, so the question is not about that, it's who decides that the UK does not use that jurisdiction, which is where this jurisdiction, which is where this amendment comes in. Now. We've got in the UK no process of how the decision should be made, what criteria should should apply or what role the victim should have, nor, according to the centre for Military Justice, is there an equivalent statutory framework governing the transfer of jurisdiction to a foreign military justice system? Now we have recognised, I want to highlight within our own justice arrangements, that decisions about serious sexual offences require appropriate safeguards.

Where there's a question whether a serious offence should be dealt with by civilian or service justice. Within the UK, there is now a protocol between the DPP and the Director of service prosecutions. It provides for senior level consideration of jurisdiction in rape and sexual assault cases, ordinarily treats offences against civilians as matters for the civilian courts and provides for the victim's views to be sought. But there is no equivalent safeguard where a foreign military person is involved. So what this amendment does is fixes that situation.

It adds a new section three A to the Visiting Forces Act of 1952. It would create a clear presumption that where a member of the visiting force is accused of a qualifying sexual offence against someone with no connection to that force. The case should be investigated by UK police and heard in a UK court. Now it does provide for exceptions. I find it hard to imagine where there would be exceptions, but that's the way the law works and it also provides what specific matters the prosecutor should consider.

They would have to consider the gravity of the alleged offence, the connection of the alleged victim and the offence with the UK, the capacity of the sending countries arrangements particularly important given what we've heard about all of this, including the treatment of victims and the matters relied upon to end the support for a request for a waiver and any representations made by the alleged victim, and the decisions and reasons would have to be recorded in writing and, so far as practicable, notified to the victim.

It would make a huge difference to all of the cases that we've been talking about tonight. And it would mean that a person who has already taken the difficult step of reporting an alleged sexual offence would not have to adjust to a justice system they never expected to encounter. Now, I also think there's a there's a point here. I want to put a direct question to the noble Lord, the Minister, because there is currently in the current arrangements an exception to a question of duty offences.

Now, I hope the noble Lord the Minister would agree with me that a qualifying sexual offence would never be capable as being characterised as arising out of, and in the course of official military duty, this government. Previous governments have had a very good record of addressing issues of sexual violence in conflict, and I think it's important that that is made clear, perhaps in writing, if not now. Now, my other question to be put to the noble Lord, the Minister is as a starting point, surely, I think the argument has been made, but does the government accept that there is currently a gap in the process for deciding whether the United Kingdom should relinquish its primary jurisdiction in serious sexual offence cases involving visiting forces? This amendment is ultimately about the confidence in our justice system, about the trust of the public in having visiting military forces on our soil.

And I finally, in closing, I just want to stress that this is not an issue that I am going to allow to slip lightly. I think we owe it to all of the victims that we've already heard from and others who we almost certainly don't know about, but exist, that this is dealt with in this bill. This is clearly the bill to deal with this situation now that it's come to light. And in saying that, obviously, we will discuss the details and discuss ways in which we might perhaps combine the amendments in this group or look at how they fit in detail.

But something has to be done about this utterly unacceptable current situation.

21:45

The Earl of Minto (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I don't think I need to wind from these benches. I think my noble friend Baroness Brinton has said everything that needs to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be said here. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord Lord Thomas of Gresford and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton and Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle for tabling this group of amendments, because it gives us an opportunity to discuss a complex but very important area a complex but very important area of the law. I'm also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for standing in for the noble Lord Lord Thomas of Gresford and wish him a very speedy recovery.

He's a nice guy. The the Visiting Forces Act 1952 establishes the legal framework that governs the relationship between the United Kingdom and those states that send members of their armed forces to our territory. The issue sits at the very intersection of national sovereignty, the rights of victims, and this country's long standing alliance relationships. And it is right that this House proud probes how this balance is struck. Turning First Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Thomas of Gresford and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which would require publication in unredacted form of any part of a Visiting Forces agreement touching on jurisdiction.

Together with the reasoning behind it, I merely observe that a statutory duty to publish in unredacted form is a very blunt instrument to to apply to what are in many cases, live diplomatic and security arrangements with partner nations. But it may be useful if the noble Lord, the Minister, can explain what mechanisms already exist for Parliament to scrutinise these matters without compelling wholesale publication. What I would say, and what I hope the Minister will take away from this debate, regardless of the amendments.

Fate is this whatever's one view, whatever one's view on publication, it must be beyond doubt. In any case, where a jurisdictional dispute arises between the United Kingdom and ascending state, exactly how that dispute is to be resolved. Who takes a decision? What criteria? Ambiguity at that point serves no. One on amendment 56, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the noble Baroness is right to press the government on how such cases are handled.

Where I part company with her is on the question of necessity because it. Outcomes she is seeking already exists in law. The Visiting Forces Act 1952 does not hand jurisdiction wholesale to sending states. Section three of the act states that the sending states. Military authorities have the primary right of jurisdiction only where the offence arises out of official duty is against another member of the visiting force or corresponding civilian component, or is against property belonging to the force or its members or dependents.

In any case, where a member of a visiting force commits a criminal offence against a dependent British citizen, the jurisdiction lies with British authorities. Thus, such an offence would be investigated by the Territorial Police Force for the area, prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service and the case heard in a British court. This is the case for all offences, however serious, including sexual offences. This position is unambiguously clarified in the Crown Prosecution Services own published guidance. Furthermore, where the NATO Status of Forces Agreement is also engaged, the position is, if anything, even stronger.

The CPS guidance notes that, taken together with the 1951 NATO agreement, this produces dual jurisdiction in any case where the victim is a dependent who is either a UK national or habitually resident here, that is precisely the category of victim a dependent rather than a fellow service member that I believe the noble Baroness is. Amendment is designed to protect. Where cases have an international dimension going wider than the Visiting Forces framework itself, as for example, in dealing with the United States, the mechanism for resolving concurrent jurisdiction is also already in place.

The guidance governing such places between our two such cases between our two countries commits prosecutors to weighing each case on its individual merits, guided throughout by a commitment to fairness and objectivity. I won't detain the committee further on the remaining amendment in this group concerning the list of countries in section one one A of the 1952 act, safe to say that I believe the United States is counted as a visiting force. The Visiting Forces Designation Order 1954 exercises the power in section one two of the 1952 act to designate Belgium, France and Netherlands, Norway and the United States of America as visiting forces.

The US is also covered under the NATO sofa sofa agreement. I will be very grateful if the noble Lord. The Minister could confirm whether whether this interpretation is correct.

21:50

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

22:00

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Everyone who has spoken in this debate, and I should also earlier have thanked the centre for Military Justice, the Guardian and Military Justice, the Guardian and the woman who I've spoken to. I'm glad to hear Lady Bennett's speech and, unsurprisingly, we agree almost entirely on the problems. And I also agree with her that we won't let this go. Whether it goes beyond the passage of this bill or not. And I'm grateful to to Earl of Minto for his comments. I'm particularly pleased that he agreed with Lady Bennett and myself that it's absolutely clear that sexual attacks on UK soil are not part of the clause.

Section three of the Visiting Forces Act, where the exceptions might be. That's extremely helpful and I'm very grateful to him. I particularly want to thank the Minister for his extremely welcome, constructed and considered speech, and I understand for all the right legal reasons why he. I'm very sorry. I'm trying to catch the minister's eye. Thank you very much indeed. And I'm going to be doing this for a few minutes. So I'm really sorry, because I think what's really important is that we find a solution.

I agree with the Minister that there is provision in the Visiting Forces Act. So his exposition of that was really important. Our problem is as a Parliament, that we need to resolve the problem that the victims faced, and that's why I'm very grateful for his comments about the police Chief Council and the guidance that they're looking at offering. But the one organisation that hasn't seemed to have a role in any of this at the moment is the CPS, and they clearly do, because there are issues that are not just about taking the statement of the victim, making sure they seek medical help.

All of the issues that I outlined in that one specific case, there are also issues about charging levels, which would then affect what happens and whether there might be a reason for whatever that it should be considered to go elsewhere. So I think in concluding this evening, because these were only probing amendments on my behalf and indeed Lord Thomas's behalf as well, I wonder if it would be helpful to have a meeting between committee and report with with yourself, Minister, somebody from the Home Office who can talk about the policing side and possibly the, the, the, the, the, the council, police Chief Council and somebody from the CPS.

Because I think what both Lady Bennett and I are trying to see is a formal framework. That means one police force can't do something different to anybody else, and that the decision going up the CPS. If the more serious it gets, it should not necessarily stand with a junior prosecutor at a CPS in a particular area, because that's how it becomes easy to say, yes, OK, take over this case because it will decrease our workload, which is clearly the argument that US Air Force Lakenheath were using.

Thank you very much. And I think on that basis, my Lords, and given the hour and the number of groups we still have to go through, I will withdraw my amendment.

22:03

Deputy Chair of Committees Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

Your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 54 Baroness Brinton not Amendment 54 Baroness Brinton not moved. Amendment 55. Baroness Bennett not moved. And the question is that clauses 43 to 46 part En bloc as many as that opinion will say content. On the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that schedule seven be the seventh schedule to the bill. As many as that opinion will say, content.

To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause 47 stand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

part of the Bill, as amended. That opinion will say content. Content. The contrary not content. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 55 a Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. My Lords, amendment 55 A stands in my name. It is a rather late amendment, and this is the first amendment, and this is the first time I've spoken on the Bill. I must apologise in particular to the noble Lord Lord Dannatt for inadvertently gazumping his inadvertently gazumping his amendment. That clause 48 stand part of the bill and look forward to hearing his contribution on that in a moment. But I read with interest his comments on that issue at Second Reading, and I'm glad to have the chance to take part in this debate on that issue.

Well,

22:04

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)

- -

since I do believe that clause 48 should be in this bill at Second Reading, the noble Lord Lord Reading, the noble Lord Lord Dannatt mentioned the Gloucester, not the HMS Gloucester, for she was built and launched in that dark built and launched in that dark period of our history, when we temporarily cast aside the monarchy. But the Gloucester was lost off the Norfolk coast on the 6th of May, 1682, on board and thankfully not 1682, on board and thankfully not lost with her were James, Duke of York, who went on to become King James the Second, and John Churchill, who went on to become the first Duke of Marlborough, as the noble Lord rightly said, had they been lost, the course not just of British but of global history would have been changed.

Such is the power of our maritime heritage. I had a solemn and more recent reminder of this over the summer recess, when I had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands with the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, I found it profoundly moving to see the boy in San Carlos Water, which marks the resting place of HMS antelope, one of the Royal Navy warships lost in that conflict. Along with HMS ardent, HMS Coventry and HMS Sheffield, as well as the RFA Sir Galahad, the Merchant Navy's Atlantic conveyor and landing craft foxtrot for the Falklands War, and those who gave their lives in waging it were among the Spurs for the Protection of Military Remains Act of 1986, which is what clause 48 of this bill seeks to amend, and I do support the ways it proposes to do so.

While the 1986 act gave immediate and automatic protection to wrecked aircraft, it requires wrecked ship individually designated in order to be protected. This means that shipwrecks remain vulnerable to disturbance, souvenir hunting, salvage activity or archaeological interference before formal designation has occurred. That process requires secondary legislation, and noble Lords across the committee will know how long it can take to obtain legislative slots. Indeed, it took 16 years until 2002 for the first designations under the 1986 act to come into force.

Those who've been lost at sea in the service of our nation should not have to wait for secondary legislation to deliver the protection they deserve. Clause 48 also seeks to remove the restrictive time constraints which apply to protected places and controlled sites broadly, since the First World War. For the former, or within 200 years for the latter, to ensure that historic military shipwrecks from before these rather arbitrary cut off points can also be protected there. Should my Lords, be no temporal limit to our gratitude to those who've died to preserve the freedoms we enjoy today? Clause 48 of this bill will not change the system, which has been well understood by responsible divers for many years.

Diving in protected places will continue to be permitted on a look but don't touch basis, and diving in a controlled site will continue to require a licence. But the changes in clause 48 will help to deter unauthorised salvage. Damage to our shared underwater heritage and the desecration of the final resting places of brave service personnel. So I do hope that it will remain part of the bill. I hope so too, because I seek to amend it. My own amendment 55 seeks to add to clause 48 and in doing so, clarify a worrying confusion in the law which pertains to military shipwrecks.

The UK has long asserted that sunken state vessels enjoy protection through the principle of sovereign immunity. This means they cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of another state. Crucially, the ships cannot have salvage services conferred on them without the permission of His Majesty's Government and as a proud seafaring nation with a history as long as ours. The UK has a considerable number of sunken vessels currently estimated to be over 5000, lying at the bottom of seas and oceans across the globe.

The principle of sovereign immunity is used to protect these vessels, their heritage significance and the last known resting place of the sailors who went down with them. Without the principle of sovereign immunity, our underwater cultural heritage would be extremely vulnerable to salvage. Since consent to salvage sunken sunken vessels is not required in law except in very limited circumstances. It ought to be, my Lords, as simple as that. But it may not be. The Crown Proceedings Act first muddied the waters in 1947, modifying the application of sovereign immunity to His Majesty's vessels by stating that the civil law of salvage would apply to them.

In effect, this removed the protection of sovereign immunity from sunken state vessels. This provision was subsequently restated in section 2.3, subsection one of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which brought the 1989 International Convention on Salvage into force in the United Kingdom. In the decades since, the Ministry of Defence has taken the view that section 231 of the Merchant Shipping Act only applies in UK territorial waters. That is out to 12 nautical miles, and that sunken state wrecks beyond our territorial territorial waters remain protected under the principle of sovereign immunity from unauthorised salvage.

That is certainly the interpretation reflected in the most recent guidance published in 2014 by the Mod and by DCMs. Though it predated my time as Heritage Minister, this was the guidance in place when I served at DCMs in the last Parliament. Since then, I've been alerted by the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee to legal research conducted by academics at Plymouth University Law School, which suggests that this interpretation may not be correct. Their finding is that the effect of section 230, subsection one of the 95 act, is to remove the protection of sovereign immunity from all state vessels wherever they are located, leaving sunken ships from the Royal Navy and other state vessels vulnerable to salvage without the permission of the United Kingdom.

The academics who conducted that research are naturally concerned to have reached this conclusion, but they are convinced of it and are very keen that action should be taken to remedy it, even if their conclusions are debateable, as points of law often are. I hope the noble Lord, the Minister would agree that this is not the sort of matter where there ought to be any doubt or any scope for unseemly legal disputes. The remedy I have suggested in amendment 55 is not the perfect one.

I'm limited somewhat, somewhat by the scope of this bill. But might I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, if he would look into this matter carefully to consider the legal research that's been conducted, and to see if there's the possibility of using this bill. To put the matter entirely beyond doubt, I'd certainly be very glad to discuss it further with him, and to do so in in concert with the legal experts who've looked at this in greater detail, I beg to move.

22:11

Deputy Chair of Committees

Amendment proposed clause 48, page 68. Line 15 at end. Insert the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. I beg to move that clause 48 does not stand part of the bill. There are two issues here, my Lord, my Lords. One relates to the wrecks themselves that contain military remains. The other relates to diving activities related to those wrecks, which the bill would now make protected would describe as protected places. My contention is that insufficient detail has been provided in relation to the nature and definition of wrecks themselves, and that there has been a lack of consultation with the diving community, who's hitherto legitimate activities could be

22:12

Lord Dannatt (Crossbench)

- -

constrained or rendered illegal by clause 48. As it stands with regard clause 48. As it stands with regard to the wrecks themselves, and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay has spoken at length about them, there can be at length about them, there can be no issue with the principle that warships that contain the human remains of servicemen and women who lost their lives carrying out their lost their lives carrying out their naval duties, should remain undisturbed, as it is the case with aircraft or with bodies recovered aircraft or with bodies recovered from battlefields.

However, there is an issue about which wrecks qualify to be covered by clause 48 of the bill. The noble Lord, the Minister will be aware from correspondence that he has received and that I've seen that many believe there is considerable ambiguity on what is proposed to be covered under clause 48, and what is not the definition of military service many believe, is too vague. Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay has proposed one alternative. There are many other alternatives. One such being I quote a commissioned military vessel or vessel under direct Admiralty command at the time of loss.

My point is that there are several definitions that could apply, and that this military service definition is too vague. Now. Time fortunately precludes a detailed scrutiny of the concerns raised, but my request on this aspect is that further consideration is given to the ships to be covered by this clause, and clarification is provided ideally by the Report stage, or indeed that this clause does not sound part of the Bill, pending further consideration and fresh legislation proposed. On another occasion, with regard to diving activities in and around designated wrecks, I declare an interest as chair of the Gloucester 1682 Charitable Trust.

Although I am not a diver myself, the noble Lord the Minister knows, as do the noble Baroness Goldie and the noble Earl Earl of Minto Earl of Minto, as former Ministers, that I've been raising the issue of the wreck of the Gloucester lost off Norfolk on the 6th of May, 1682. For several years I will not detain the House now with the otherwise fascinating story of the Gloucester. Lord Parkinson referred to it. The history of that is now a matter of public record.

But it's an interesting public record. But it has drawn me into an understanding of diving and the problems that clause 48, as drafted, creates for Lord Hobby diving community, which has tens of thousands of participants in this country. And I touched on some of those issues at Second Reading, and I'll try and be brief. The diving community has a number of concerns among the. Among the issues are that the prohibition on the use of grapnels anchors or shots should be removed as their use is essential on health and safety grounds to protect scuba divers, particularly in the uncertain waters of the North Sea.

The grounds for rejection of this objection pose a situation which in practice does not really exist. The damage that could be caused by such grapnels and anchors is absolutely minimal, and not going to be of a of a major nature, as the bill rather suggests. Another issue is around the entering of a wreck. There needs to be a sensible definition of what access is legal and what is not. Overprescription will not stop diving, but it will make illegal diving of some nature, which would render the divers insurance useless and therefore place divers at further risk.

And the third thing is, with regard to artefacts, a complete prohibition on removing anything will undermine the current system of reporting fines to the receiver of wreck, and probably not stop removals. As this cannot be policed. It is better that fixtures are left intact, but loose items can be recovered rather than them being lost to the currents and sea. My Lords, I submit that clause 48 raises many issues on which there has been insufficient consultation. The implications for the diving community are significant.

I believe it should be withdrawn pending further consultation with the communities concerned. I beg to move.

22:16

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

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

And I think amendment 55 is an attempt to rectify that situation by restoring the principle of sovereign immunity and aligning the

22:18

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

law on salvage with the spirit of what I think clause 48 is trying to what I think clause 48 is trying to achieve now, in setting out the case for his amendments, my noble friend has referenced a group of friend has referenced a group of academics who have highlighted this issue with the application of civil salvage law. In terms of section two, subsection one of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995. And I would also be grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, if he could confirm the Ministry of Defence's interpretation of that position.

Now, the government may very well believe there to be no problem, and the noble law of the Minister may not agree with the interpretation of the law by the academics mentioned by my noble friend. But whether the government agrees or not is the key issue. Not that the law can even be questioned in the first place. The fact that there exists sufficient legal ambiguity to allow academics to come to this view means that there is a risk of people attempting to salvage and recover military wrecks, believing that they are allowed to do so.

I do hope that the government agrees to meet my noble friend and those others who are concerned, so that the legal provision can be clarified on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, to remove the clause entirely. And I do remember with pleasure our extensive exchanges on HMS lobster. I most respectfully do not entirely agree with that proposal to remove the clause entirely. It is my interpretation that divers will remain free to visit sites in the same look, but don't touch bases.

That already applies to protected places. And I remember numerous letters as the Minister. In that context, what becomes unlawful is the disturbance, damage or entry into enclosed parts of a wreck without Ministry of Defence authorisation, and I believe the intention is to prevent poor behaviour by the minority who treat these sites as a source of souvenirs, which is not the ordinary conduct of responsible divers. My Lords, I do think we have a duty to prevent the desecration of the final resting places of all our war dead.

They gave their lives and service to our nation. That is the least they deserve. And if these measures can prevent such desecration by unlicensed diving, then I suggest they deserve our support.

22:20

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Baroness Stowell. >> Baroness Stowell. >> Well, first of all, can I thank everyone who's contributed to the debate? Can I start with Lord debate? Can I start with Lord Parkinson's amendment 55 a and thank you for bringing that forward in relation to salvage claims against military and Royal Fleet auxiliary vessels via section one of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which is a principal piece of primary legislation, as he knows in the UK that governs maritime law, ship registration and safety standards.

Can I reassure your Lordships that we will investigate the noble Lords concerns and comments about section 231 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995, before Report stage and come back with appropriate comments with respect to that, and I hope that's a reassurance to him about all of the various comments that he helpfully made for your Lordships' House. Can I or also, in moving to clause 48 and the debate on that, I thank the noble and Garnet Law, Lord Lord Dannatt, for his views on the Bill and acknowledge his concerns about clause 48 and the Protection of Military Remains act 1986.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 48. Of the Bill addresses the existing disparity between the protection of military aircraft and vessels under the Protection of vessels under the Protection of Military Remains Act, 1986. The 1986 act secures the protection from unauthorised interference of from unauthorised interference of the remains of military aircraft and vessels that have crashed, sunk or been stranded and of associated human remains, making it an offence to enter or interfere with the military wreck site without an authorised licence.

The act provides for two types of protection protected places and controlled sites as designated through a Statutory Instrument entrance in tranches. To date, a total of 129 wrecked vessels have been designated in eight tranches, the last coming into force on the 30th of March 2026. However, the Act has not currently allowed designation of a vessel which was sunk or stranded on or before the 4th of August, 1914 as a protected place, or to designate a site as a controlled site.

If over 200 years has elapsed since the crash, sinking or stranding of the vessel or aircraft as a result of these time limits, older military shipwrecks lack potential protection. For example, the Gloucester, which I know from our discussions and correspondence, is of particular interest to the noble and gallant Lord, which sank in 1682, carrying the future James II, and with the loss around 200 lives, is currently unprotected. Clause 48 amends section one of the 1986 act so that all military shipwrecks, which are the last resting places of serving personnel, are automatically protected and protected as protected places.

This ensures alignment with the protection already afforded to military aircraft. Aircraft. The clause also removes the restrictive time constraints that apply to both protected places and controlled sites, ensuring the nation's historic military shipwrecks, which are currently excluded from inclusion by virtue of the time limit specified, can be protected by providing automatic protection to all military shipwrecks. The Mod will enable a significant improvement in the way our maritime, military graves and underwater cultural heritage are protected.

Significant advances in underwater technology and technical diving are leading to more of our military wrecks being discovered. This, of course, is good news, but it also requires that we do all that we can to protect them. I think the noble Baroness was alluding to why one of the reasons why we were doing it, and it's that those advances in technology is one of the reasons. So we need to do all we can to protect them once they've been discovered and identified, to prevent them from being disturbed or damaged and prevent interference to military remains.

The recent discovery of HMS Tiger off the Isle of Wight is a prime example of why the amendments are being sought again to Baroness Goldie's point. HMS Tiger was discovered 118 years after she collided with HMS Berwick rather during a training exercise and was clean in two. Currently, she can only be designated as a controlled site simply due to sinking in 1908, effectively restricting access to divers. Though through the changes in the bill, HMS Tiger will become a protected place, permitting non-intrusive activities such as driving without a licence.

It is important that we protect UK military shipwrecks in UK territorial waters and international waters, and I hope that there is no doubt that our intention is to do all we can to offer better protection, to prevent unauthorised desecration of these historically important sites, which are often the last resting place of our serving personnel. Can I also say to the your Lordships' House the fact, and draw attention to the fact that many of the provisions already contained within the current act will remain? Clause 48 simply seeks to strengthen it.

Diving on protected places will continue to be permitted again to the noble Baroness Baroness Goldie point. Diving on protected places will continue to be permitted on a look but don't touch basis, whilst a licence to dive on a controlled site will still be required, giving all military wrecks protected place status will help to deter unauthorised salvage and the desecration of the wrecks and military remains of service personnel and, where appropriate, enable the Mod to prosecute those who flout the law in this respect.

Can I reassure the House that already provisions within the act to permit diving on UK military shipwrecks in UK territorial and international waters, but to assist divers in navigating their way around the changes? Proposed Mod will be updating and publishing their policies on underwater cultural heritage should the bill be passed. Can I also reassure the House that the Mod in consultation? Again, it might have been Baroness Miller in consultation with the British Sub-aqua Club, the UK governing body for Subaqua diving, has produced a set of questions and answers designed to inform their members and the diving community of the proposed changes, which were published on the 2nd of September 2026.

With those necessary reassurances. I hope the House would see the need for clause 48

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and the amendment would be withdrawn. My Lords, I'm very grateful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for his reply. As he rightly says, the technology and the increased technology and the increased availability of it to many more people is the reason why the the broader changes the government is seeking to make through this bill seeking to make through this bill are so timely and so needed. On my amendment 55. AM grateful to him amendment 55. AM grateful to him for undertaking to investigate the position in detail before we move to report.

I understand why before that investigation takes place. He doesn't want to say any more about it now, but reiterate my offer to speak to him further. If I can be of assistance, or to put him in touch with those who've conducted the research that has led me to table this amendment. If, as he mentioned at the end, his

22:28

department and DCMS are going to be updating their guidance documents in light of it, that will be in light of it, that will be necessary to do so, that there can be absolute legal certainty for be absolute legal certainty for those who wish to dive and enjoy the investigations and sport that the investigations and sport that that they do, but also for those, including divers who care so deeply

22:29

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)

- -

including divers who care so deeply about the sanctity of these these sites and the their heritage significance. So with gratitude for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

22:29

Deputy Chair of Committees Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)

Is it your Lordships pleasure >> Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is finally withdrawn. The question is that clause 48 stand question is that clause 48 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause is 49 and 50 stand part of the bill? En bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content.

The contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 50. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

56. Lord Craig of Radley. My Lord, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I rise to speak to amendment 56, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, for adding his Lord, Lord Hollick, for adding his name in support. I also thank the Royal British Legion for their Royal British Legion for their guidance in in drafting this amendment. This amendment proposes amending the National Fees Regulations of 2018 to waive fees for certain Armed forces. Veterans granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Noble Lords may be interested to learn that the terms of my amendment, featured in all three major party manifestos for the 2024 election.

Let me just

22:30

Amendment:56 Lord Craig of Radley (Crossbench)

quote briefly Labour. We will scrap the visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years, and their dependents and conservatives. We will extend the visa fees waiver introduced to cover Commonwealth personnel to include the direct dependents, and the Liberal Democrats will secure a fair deal for the Armed forces community by waiving application fees for indefinite leave to remain for members of the Armed Forces on discharge and their families. I thought nothing has happened since except in response to follow up questions, written questions.

Last year, a Home Office Minister said on the 13th of March we continue to keep this policy under review in the context of our wider considerations of various aspects of the immigration system, and the Ministry of Defence responded a week later that they were, quote, working actively with the Home Office to take this forward. In short, my Lords, prevarications apart, nothing has happened and to have a reply quote, we continue to keep this policy under review and our wider considerations of various aspects of the immigration system is surely classic Sir Humphrey speak.

I think the Home Office should be ashamed of itself. The immigration system must be under constant study, not a one off difficulty. But wider considerations are implied. The government has recently been priding itself on over 40% reductions in illegal arrivals and and increase in repatriations. There seems no crisis or wider aspect so great that the government cannot immediately introduce this universally and manifesto promised arrangement. Families of service personnel who was qualified for I different leave to remain are faced with visa fees which were 155 in 2003, but have risen to no less than £3,226 per person as of the 8th of April, a staggering increase.

So a spouse, partner and two children applying for ILR should now have to find almost 13,000 on top of their affairs and relocation costs to move to the UK. This is no way to be treating veterans and their families. This prevarication and inertia does not seem to be even related to the present government. For over ten years, I and others pressed the Home Office to grant to allow for members of the armed Forces who had been recruited and served in Hong Kong, who were members of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps.

Repeated Home Office answers were varied ways of saying it's under active consideration, or that a decision will be made as soon as possible. I once questioned this Home Office foot dragging, repetitive inactivity syndrome. The Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans had to wait over a decade for their approval. Of course, my Lords, the Home Office faces pressures over immigration arrangements, but it flies in the face of the government's commitment to the Armed Forces Covenant and treating veterans fairly, to have not yet honoured their manifesto pledge.

It is cross-party support from the noble Lord, the Minister, take this back and quickly resolve it with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Home Office. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 50. Insert the following new clause. 50. Insert the following new clause. Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses of children of serving or discharged members of serving or discharged members of the Armed Forces, as printed on the Marshalled List.

22:35

>> My Lord, I support the noble and gallant Lord Lord Craig of Radley amendment 56, which would waive fees for applicants for indefinite fees for applicants for indefinite leave to remain for spouses and immediate family members of serving

22:35

Baroness Penn (Conservative)

- -

personnel and veterans. I also have amendment 66 in this group, which seeks to achieve the same outcome seeks to achieve the same outcome through a slightly different route by requiring the government to bring forward secondary legislation bring forward secondary legislation within a specified time frame designed to address some of the concerns raised by Ministers in the concerns raised by Ministers in the other place around specific approaches and wording. But frankly, I don't mind what legislative approach is taken provided the issue is resolved, and I don't think I need to add to the noble and gallant Lords exposition of the issue.

But I would say to the noble Lord, the Minister, that typically immigration rules are changed twice yearly, with the next set expected in October. And so I'd ask the the noble Lord, the Minister, whether he could provide greater clarity on the government's time table for action, and whether he could reassure military families that this commitment by all three major parties, indeed will finally be delivered in the forthcoming changes this autumn. My Lords, turning to amendment 57 in this group, standing in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Newnham, and Lady Bennet, and the noble my noble friend Lord Harlech, for whom I'm grateful for their support.

At the heart of this is about how we support military families, but it's also about military capability. The Strategic Defence Review identified a workforce crisis, and when our armed forces depend so heavily on experience and invest so much in their personnel, retention matters as much as recruitment. And that's why I welcome the many provisions in this bill designed to strengthen service life. Amendment 57 proposes a relatively small change, but one that could make a meaningful difference to both military families and to retention.

The recently published Tri-service Families Continuous Attitude Survey underlies the reality for families. 78% of service families have children, and 1 in 5 have children who are under two years old. Yet a quarter of service families live apart during the working week, rising to almost 40% in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. Nearly 3 in 10 families experienced separation of three months or more during the past year. At present, serving fathers received two weeks of paternity leave at full pay. But for military families, returning to work after two weeks is not a return to a normal commute.

It means returning to a posting many hours away or to months of separation. And that's why this issue matters so deeply to those who serve, one serving soldier told the Duchess, 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. These challenges are reflected further in the tri Services Family Survey. 52% of spouses disagree that they feel valued by the service. 34% say they would feel happier if their partner left the military, while 44% have at some time in the past year encouraged their partner to leave. The factors driving dissatisfaction are revealing the impact on their careers, the amount of separation from their spouses, and the effect of their children are the top three reasons. Improving paternity leave is not a silver bullet, but the evidence consistently shows that it supports maternal employment, strengthens family relationships, and improves outcomes for children.

At a time when retention is a strategic issue, we should take seriously reforms that strengthen family life of those who serve, and the experiences of serving personnel themselves will illustrate why. One RAF officer recalled both children saw us remain in hospital with our newborn for 3 to 4 days due to challenges with feeding and jaundice, with only two weeks available, time spent dealing with complications or hospital stays can consume a significant proportion of the. Leave itself now, the noble Lord, the Minister may point to shared parental leave or the possibility of additional compassionate leave as options to resolve this.

However, service families often describe those options as difficult to access and inconsistently applied. One Army officer reported. I pushed and took shared parental leave, but I had to threaten a service complaint to do so with my work at the time. He added that if the process was difficult for a senior officer, it would likely be much harder for more junior personnel. Likewise, an RAF corporal told the Duchess I have my paternity leave handled three different ways, my three different children.

It comes down to that recurring line manager lottery issue. Unfortunately, that inconsistency in itself is part of the problem. Families should not have to rely on confidence, rank or managerial discretion to receive adequate support at such a significant moment in their lives. Soldiers, sailors and aviators should not have to worry about explaining to their commanding officer that their wife and baby are struggling with breastfeeding and need more support, or that their wives stitches are infected, or that he's worried that she might be suffering from post-natal depression but can't even be sure because he's not home enough to tell.

Of course, the impact of leave on operational readiness must be taken into account. Unlike maternity leave, paternity leave is not exempt from the provision in JSP 760 that the granting and timing of all forms of absence is to be at the discretion of the service and is subject to operational requirements and the general exigencies of the service. Nothing in my amendment changes this. The sacrifices made by those serving in our Armed Forces are shared by their families, and when a child is born, those pressures are felt even more acutely.

Two weeks of paternity leave is increasingly out of step with the realities of modern family life, with the practices of leading employers, and with the approach taken by many of our closest allies. With Australia offering eight weeks of paid paternity leave and the United States offering 12 to its military personnel. When Congress extended that entitlement, bipartisan supporters from both houses described it as a matter of military readiness and national security. I hope, therefore, that in responding to this group, the Minister will recognise not only the family case for reform but also the strategic one supporting military families at the moment they need it most is the right thing to do, but it would also be an investment in retention, morale and the long term strength of our armed forces.

22:42

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)

- -

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

But as the noble Lady Baroness Penn has powerfully outlined, and I won't repeat, the arguments for this are twofold. First of all, it's about the welfare of children. It's about children being able to establish a proper relationship, a proper foundation for family life, something that's going to be going through them, with them through their lives. It is also, of course, a an issue in terms of retention of service people, which is a big issue. It's an issue in recruitment of service people.

So it is an issue for the effectiveness of our armed forces. Now, at Second Reading, I addressed this issue and quoted a number of quotes from the survey. I think there's one I'll just add here. If we think about what two weeks is like, and this is an RAF officer from the survey, both children saw us remain in hospital with our newborn for 3 to 4 days due to challenges with feeding and jaundice. Even low level complications might result in the first week of maternity leave being spent in hospital.

Those are not circumstances in which for one week you're really going to be establishing a stable relationship extremely stressful, extremely difficult, extremely unnatural circumstances. And then maybe you have one week or maybe you have no week after that. So I really I know that at Second Reading, the Minister said that, well, there is a broader government review of paternity leave, but I don't think given we have the Armed Forces Bill before us, there is any need or any argument for waiting action can clearly and clearly needs to be taken.

Now. I come now to amendment 67, which is also in this group which appears in my name, which is which is a fairly simple amendment which puts on the face of the bill specification that the the government must establish a concessionary travel scheme for bus travel for veterans. Now, it doesn't specify. The amendment, doesn't specify exactly the detail of which that concessionary bus travel might be provided, how it might be set out, what levels it might be set at. That's clearly the sort of thing that's appropriately put to Statutory Instrument.

But I think if we think about the situation of a veteran, some may qualify for concessionary travel because they're older or because they have a qualifying disability. But what about the veteran at the age of 30 or 40 or 50 who has no qualifying disability, but perhaps after many years of service, returns to the UK? Not having a stable base here in the UK, and we know that there is a significant number of veterans who have real difficulty establishing themselves within civilian life, finding a stable place within civilian life.

Being able to afford the bus travel might mean being able to get to work, attend training access services, get an appointment, visit family or just remain connected in the community. This would be potentially a meaningful part of the support we could provide for veterans. Making a transition back into civilian life. Now, some people might say, oh, well, this is too difficult or complicated. Well, we have concessionary bus travel schemes operating right across the UK at very significant scale.

In England alone, there are 8.9 million older and disabled concessionary travel passes in the year to March 2025. Those pass holders made 624 million concessionary bus journeys in the year. The government reimbursed bus operators 795 million for those journeys. Of course, the scale that we're talking here would be a tiny fraction of that. But these systems already exist. They would not be a need to create new systems. And of course, we know that these schemes work in other parts of the UK as well.

I have previously noted your Lordships' House with great pride, the fact of free bus travel for the under 22 in Scotland, something that's been a hugely popular and successful scheme. So the question is not whether the government can administer a concessionary travel scheme, but who should be entitled to benefit from one. And I think this is a small, modest measure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that could really help our veterans and help our communities. My Lords, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I. Rise very briefly just to speak, in support of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley's amendment and my noble friend amendment and my noble friend Baroness Pens. I think there's a lot of shared aims with these lot of shared aims with these amendments of improving morale amongst our armed forces community. And, as we've heard, improving recruitment but also, crucially, retention, which is something that's really suffered over over a long period of time.

And I think it's important to recognise that, you know, service service personnel. Understand that operational need will come first. They accept when they sign up, when they swear that oath, they accept that there will

22:47

Lord Harlech (Conservative)

- -

be times where they will be away through a deployment. They will miss birthdays, christenings, miss birthdays, christenings, weddings. It comes with the territory. They might not always like it, but they accept it. I like it, but they accept it. I think what this gets at is not having that parental time that in having that parental time that in that crucial early, early stages of that crucial early, early stages of a of a new life. When you're at home, when you're on base.

So I think, I think that's, that's the difference. And I think we should be doing something to, you know, to bring ourselves in line with again, I remember saying this earlier on today with our with our Five Eyes counterparts. I think there's a trend here. Yes, across the different groups, across the different amendments that we are way behind what the rest of our allies are doing in, in these categories. Yeah. So with that, I'll.

22:48

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord Craig of Radley has over the years held His Majesty's government years held His Majesty's government of whichever complexion to account. In particular, as he mentioned In particular, as he mentioned earlier, over the rights of the Hong Kong military. He rightly reminds us that all of the main parties made commitments over waiving fees for the families of service personnel, veterans who served with our armed forces. Could the noble Lord, the Minister, undertake to give us some commitment to looking into this? Because my suspicion is that when he was on the opposition benches, he would have been speaking quite loudly in favour of reducing the fees, and that is clearly something which we should be doing.

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

22:50

The Earl of Minto (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I turn First Amendment 56, tabled by the noble and gallant 56, tabled by the noble and gallant Lord Lord Craig of Radley, and supported by my noble friend Lord Harlech. I'm pleased to be able to say that we on these benches do support this amendment. We have already waived the fees for indefinite leave to remain for Commonwealth citizens who have served in our Armed forces in recognition of the sacrifice to our nation that that service prevents. There represents. It is difficult to see any principle basis for stopping short of extending that same waiver to their spouses and children.

These are, after all, the families who have supported that service, often at real personal cost to themselves. My Lords, as has already been said, extending fee waivers of this kind to service families was a manifesto commitment. At the last election made by both my party and the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. Given that shared commitment, I hope the Minister will explain today why it has not yet been implemented and when government intends to act. I now turn to amendments 57 and 58 in the name of my noble friend Baroness Penn, amongst others.

I hope she will understand why. Unfortunately, I'm not able to support this. The current scheme already provides two weeks of paid paternity leave, with the ability to agree further paid leave on a unit by unit basis where circumstances allow. We believe that flexibility matters. Operational necessity varies enormously from unit to unit and deployment to deployment and decisions about what additional leaves achievable are, in our view, best worked out between the individual serviceman and his commanding officer. It is that commanding officer who understands the operational picture on the ground best.

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response to both amendments. My Lords. Let me given the hour. Let me

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me given the hour. Let me let me deal with this head on. let me deal with this head on. First of all, can I start with. The noble and gallant Lord? Lord Craig's Amendment 56, the government, the opposition, all of us, it seems to me, are committed to scrapping visa fees for non-UK veterans veterans who have served for four years or more, and their dependents, building on the existing fee waiver in place. Home Office and Ministry of Defence Ministers are working closely together to deliver this commitment in a way that is fair, comprehensive and achievable.

I understand that the noble and gallant Lord will have heard that language before he asked me to have conversation urgently with the Home Office to see what progress has been made, and I will certainly do that. And I think that is is the important commitment to make. Indeed, in terms of the Earl of Minto, he was asking for that as well. So let me I will follow that up, and I will certainly talk to the Home Office. But they will also have heard the very well constructed speech that the noble and gallant Lord made to ask, when is this going to happen? And it's about time it did.

So I hope that that reassurance, you can see the importance of putting amendments at Committee stage. Can I also turn to the. I thought again powerful speech made by Baroness Penn with respect to her amendment 57 and the various points that she made about childcare, about family life, about parental leave, all of those various topics and points that she made very eloquently. She will know that there is a government review which is going on around parental leave and pay, and many of these other issues.

The review is considering costs, benefits and

22:54

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

potential reforms across the the whole system as a whole. And the whole system as a whole. And the review principally covers civilian parental leave and pay entitlements. parental leave and pay entitlements. MoD will consider the outcome of that review and its applicability that review and its applicability to the to the Armed Forces. It would be premature to prescribe now specific, for example, six week specific, for example, six week model for the Armed forces before the wider review concludes, but I think this may be of interest to the noble Baroness.

The review is expected to conclude in early 2027, so that might start to give us some reassurance about where we go to with the various points that that she's raised. But can I just say to her, I think these are extremely important points. I think there are points that need to be heard, but as well as being heard, they need to be acted upon. And all I can say to her is that the continued putting of these amendments, the continued challenges to the system, to say, what more are you going to do to ensure that we get the entitlements that are needed, I think is important.

She will know within the armed forces when it comes to paternity leave, that for all eligible personnel. There are the concerns about its impact upon operational effectiveness. But surely as we move forward, there ought to be a way of matching the desire for better family arrangements with maintaining the operational effectiveness and particular needs of the of the armed armed forces. And we have to find a way of better balancing all of those demands that she quite rightly made through her amendment.

And I'll certainly do that within the department's as well. Can I say also, with respect to the noble Baroness, Baroness Bennett, she raises an important point that's continually made through her amendment 67 about the need for for travel, for travel, for subsidised travel, for veterans having travel in excess. And again, all of this we started, if she remembers a few, a number of years ago, like me, there were very few concessions. Gradually, concession after concession was made. Quite rightly, with respect to children, with respect to family tickets, all of those sorts of things.

And I think certainly we need to see what more we can do with respect to our armed forces and see whether there are additional concessions that can be made, which will be of benefit to to them to reflect the service that they hold. An example is in London. We already know there's a veterans oyster photocard, which entitles people to to free travel on a range of transport services, including buses that provide that demonstrates to us that progress can be made. So whether it's with respect to transport, whether it's with respect to various family entitlements or whether it's respect to with respect to the leave to remain point that the noble and gallant Lord was making with respect to the fee waiver, I think it demonstrates sometimes even to my own government.

I sometimes say, can we get a move on?

22:58

Just very briefly, I think the way the noble Lord has answered my way the noble Lord has answered my question in such a positive way is very encouraging, and it certainly made my day. Or perhaps I should say it's made my night, but I also thank the noble Baroness and the two noble Lords who spoke in favour of my amendment, which I thoroughly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accept as very supportive. Thank you. Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. The this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 57 Baroness Penn not Amendment 57 Baroness Penn not moved. Amendment 58. Baroness moved. Amendment 58. Baroness Goldie. My Lords, there may be some amongst you. Lordships. We looked at this amendment in my name and

22:59

Deputy Chair of Committees Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)

at this amendment in my name and had a flash of deja vu. And that is because, of course, we have in some manner been here before, except that I was the one facing a grilling from noble Lords rather

22:59

Amendment:58 Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

than the noble Lord. The Minister, during the passage of the Overseas Operations Service Personnel and Veterans Act of 2021, this House voiced its strong opposition to what was clause 12 of the Bill, and that clause stated that where the Secretary of State considers an overseas operation to be be significant, they must keep under consideration the appropriateness of making a derogation under article 51 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Now, there were many prescient points and much legal analysis made in our Committee stage deliberations on that clause, and after those debates, I informed the House that the government had agreed to accept the amendment to remove the clause.

The amendment I bring today bears some resemblance to the clause. The government at that time agreed to remove that I have just referred to, but it goes much further. And in that regard, I believe I have taken the sting out of one of the more damning lines of criticism which troubled the last attempt. That was the argument that the clause was simply unnecessary, because article 15 already permits member states to derogate from convention rights in time of war or public emergency, threatening the life of the nation.

But that, my Lords, is on the basis of could or may. The difference with my amendment today is that it places a duty on the Secretary of State to derogate from the ECHR when our armed forces are engaged in a significant overseas operation. In other words, my Lords, we have moved from a May to a must. This, of course, does not alter the fact that the United Kingdom could make a derogation under article 15 regardless. But I submit that for the sake of our armed forces, we have to move from could to must.

My Lords, as a former lawyer, I have always had sympathy for law which protects individuals in the pursuit of their legitimate activities, particularly when confronted with the might of the state. And I am in no doubt that the architects of the ECHR were driven by honourable and noble motors, because these rights and freedoms are very important. What I think was not anticipated was that increasingly the ECHR would attain a status which challenged the right of sovereign states to conduct their affairs as democratically elected governments might determine, and that vital national activities, such as the operation of our military forces in a conflict situation, would come within the reach of the e c.

Hence the emergence of emergence of the term lawfare milords. I have concluded, particularly as a former defence Minister, that the. This evolution of the ECHR in this manner is undesirable, unworkable and. For our national security, unsafe. Whatever the former merits of the e c, even its most ardent advocates accept the need for reform. Indeed, I understand that the new Attorney General has reportedly. In the updated legal risk guidance to government, softened the approach counselled by her predecessor, and if the noble law, the Minister is able to share more information with us about that.

I think the chamber would be very interested to hear his comments. Now, the second aspect of my amendment inserts a new section seven A into the Human Rights Act, 1998 to present prevent proceedings from being brought under that act in respect of any overseas operations by His Majesty's forces. Subsection four of that new section would also exempt members of the Armed Forces from the convention for the period of their deployment. I should be clear that my amendment is something of a compromise, because, as I said, the preferred position on these benches would be to leave the E altogether.

But that is not a debate for tonight. And it's not it's clearly not in scope of this bill, but it's not going to happen until we have a change of government. So given that, I believe my amendment is the only solution to prevent a potentially calamitous wrong that demands to be put right. And I am, of course, talking about the appalling, vexatious legal claims based largely on creative interpretations of human rights law made against our veterans and serving soldiers. And such claims have led to brave members of our armed forces being sued by lawyers, hounded by journalists, hauled through the courts and, in many cases, a torment lasting for years.

Now. All this despite the fact that the Human Rights Act and the convention were not originally intended to apply to operations outside a state's own territory. And during our debates on clause 12 and 20, 2021, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, now very pleased to see him in his place, gave a detailed history of how we got to a position where the convention was held to apply extraterritorially. As a result of the Orsini ruling in 2011. That was, in my view, a decision which has warped the application of the convention to such a degree that it has permitted deployment of the convention to launch wholly unjustified attacks on our troops serving in conflicts.

And the reason this is so serious is twofold. Firstly, the lawfare that has been directed at our armed forces over the past decade has had a serious impact on morale, recruitment and retention. We know that the sass raised concerns about recruitment as a result of this government's shameful decision to restart prosecutions of the Troubles. Veterans, further high profile prosecutions and civil proceedings relating to more recent conflicts have exacerbated the problems. And secondly, my Lords, we live in a world where the Secretary General of NATO is warning that we face a prospect of a major conflict with Russia by 2030, 2030.

Now, if that does indeed happen, we cannot go into such a conflict with our hands tied behind our backs. Russia is not a party to the EC, and we have seen how ruthlessly they prosecute their wars. Now, to be clear, my Lords, I am absolutely not arguing that we should match Russian brutality, particularly given the appalling, appalling reports of widespread use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and the barbaric treatment of civilians. But, my Lords, this is not a binary situation with clearly delineated and neatly drawn lines of what constitutes right and what constitutes wrong.

Those who argue it is black and white would have us believe that either you are in the E, C, h and abide by it even during times of war, or you act like the Russians have in Ukraine. But I reject that binary classification entirely. For between those two positions there exists a huge grey area. What I am arguing is that if we have any hope of fighting on a level footing in any future war, we cannot have the possibility of lawfare hanging over the heads of our soldiers now appreciate we will not reach a point of agreement on this issue tonight.

But could the noble law of the Minister at least tell me how the government plans to prevent human rights law from being weaponized against British troops in any potential future conflict? How will the government give them the certainty that they will be able to do their jobs in an environment of conflict, requiring immediate decisions of often potential lethality, without fear of years of ensuing harassment and investigation? The present situation is unsatisfactory. The EC is jeopardising our war fighting capability and our security, and I beg to move.

Amendment proposed after clause 50. Insert the following new clause Overseas Operations and the European Convention on Human Rights, as printed on the Marshalled List.

23:07

Deputy Chair of Committees Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)

>> It will be generally agreed that our country needs our armed forces, including the reserves and the cadets. More than ever, we need to encourage people to join and we encourage people to join and we need to look after them when they do, and we ask them to risk their do, and we ask them to risk their lives on our behalf. If we do that, we should ensure that they have the we should ensure that they have the appropriate legal protection.

They used to be a common law principle of so-called combat immunity. What that meant was that the courts did not get involved in measuring the responsibility for what occurs in the heat of battle aggression that may, with the benefit of hindsight, be seen to be excessive, should not be analysed. Many years later, in the studied calm of a courtroom, with lawyers employing slippery words like proportionality. And this is to say nothing of so-called blue on blue or friendly fire incidents, which are inevitable from time to time.

I would not want

23:08

Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)

- -

to give our armed forces a free pass. Legally, they would not want pass. Legally, they would not want one. The law of armed conflict is necessary and well established. The necessary and well established. The Geneva Convention and the accumulation of international conventions and treaties are generally described as generally described as international humanitarian law, and it's generally respected. But what it's generally respected. But what worries me, as it does the noble Lady Baroness Goldie, is the E, c, h, and its incorporation into our law by the Human Rights Act 1996.

It has brought the law into places where it has no business. The Strasbourg jurisdiction in this area has become exorbitant. It is hell, for example, as the noble Lady said, that the European. Yes, the European Convention on Human Rights applies to theatres of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Reference was made to Al Scaini. There's also a case called Al Jedda, and these cases brought about, among other things, the persecution of our troops by lawyers like Phil Shiner, a lawyer who was eventually imprisoned for his his deeds, but not without causing immense damage and immense expense before doing so.

And the causation, I fear, is quite clearly established by the decisions of human rights lawyers to rely on the convention in an appropriate way. Now, the rights embodied in the convention are in themselves wholly unexceptionable. But the living instrument approach has meant that judges have approached its application in what might be described as an open, textured way, resulting in real uncertainty as to what our troops are entitled to do legally. Article two the right to life has, for example, been held to justify a claim against the Ministry of Defence in connection with the supply of Land Rovers.

It's the case of Smith and Ministry of Defence. For some time now, the think tank Policy Exchange has focussed on the so-called problems of lawfare. Tom Tugendhat MP, now shadow foreign secretary, wrote a paper some time ago entitled The Fog of Law. It remarked on all these facets which are causing such a difficulty for our troops. We have now reached a position where our troops are embarrassed in front of allies, and we are accused by our allies of legal freeloading.

When lawyers try and explain our position on legal position. Now, lawyers are conservative in the advice that they give, if not in their politics. The result is that our troops are vulnerable to legal attack, and their leaders may well become inappropriately circumspect in their approach in the light of the legal advice that they receive. These amendments attempt to give our reserves and all our troops proper protection from the incursions of the E, C, h. And I asked the Minister for whom we all have great respect, to explain whether he considers whether the government considers the current state of the law is justifiable, and whether it is truly in the interests of our servicemen and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

interest. So I'm sorry, because I don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I'm sorry, because I don't rise. I'm very grateful to both Lady Goldie and to Lord Foulkes for their introduction to to the amendment and for explaining them in detail. And, you know, I am not a lawyer, so forgive me for not a lawyer, so forgive me for not being able to respond to some of the cases that Lord Foulkes has certainly raised. And from these certainly raised. And from these benches, we have complete sympathy with the principles of sorting out this lawfare issue, because it is clearly a problem.

But from our perspective, our concerns are. Having particularly listened to Lady Goldie is whether, under the terms of article 15 of E, C, h, even this level of derogation is permissible. And she quoted from section one of article 15, but not from section two, which says no derogation from article two. The right for life except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, from articles, articles three and four, torture and slavery and seven retrospective criminal penalties shall be made under this provision.

And I think that section means that it is not possible for the UK to derogate. Has. I just wondered when the noble Lady was.

23:13

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Minister, were there any discussions with the Council of Europe on this particular issue, Europe on this particular issue, rather than a particular court case, because we cannot be the only country affected by this. And it country affected by this. And it may be. It's particularly bad in the UK, but I, I am concerned that, the UK, but I, I am concerned that, as I understand it from not just the ex article 15 itself, but also the ex article 15 itself, but also the government's independent review of the Human Rights Act in, I think, 2023, which referred to the.

The progress of the Bill of Overseas Operations and Service Personnel and Veterans Bill 2019 to 2021, which Lady Goldie referred to. It is explained that the amendment was withdrawn partly because of the very strong feelings in your Lordships House, but it referred specifically to this point in article 15 in E C and the government then decided it could not continue with the amendment, so I would. I'm having asked Lady Goldie the question, which is perhaps slightly unfair, because she's no longer a Minister, ask the Minister at the moment whether or not any further discussions have been had with the Council of Europe on this particular problem, because, as we know, the ECHR is a living document and if there are issues, it is quite probable that the members would agree to some changes, perhaps expanding the level of articles that can be covered by derogation.

23:15

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

23:23

Baroness Goldie (Conservative)

- -

Well, my Lords, I think the Minister understands fully what Minister understands fully what it's like to be grilled at the despatch box in relation to the European Convention of Human Rights European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. May I first of all, thank the noble Lord Lord Foulkes and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their contributions, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord Lord Faulks for his elucidation of the legal aspects of this.

It is complex. There are interwoven components, and. I was following his interrogation of the Minister with a rather selfish interest, as the Minister nobly endeavoured to respond. What I think is emerging, and I'm really intrigued by this. I just gleaned from the contributions that actually there's a subject here meriting debate. And the conundrum is this, that the noble Lord Lord Faulks, has articulated what the problem is, particularly for our troops in conflict. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, I think there is a problem, there is a problem.

And indeed the Minister himself conceded, this whole issue is needing a more. And I think his phrase was extensive debate. But herein lies the conundrum. My Lords. I think we all now recognise it as a problem. I think we all now acknowledge that. However, we have arrived at this situation, the combined effect of E, C and the Human Rights Act is creating a challenge for our troops in conflict, which in 2026 is a much more foreseeable prospect than perhaps it was even five years ago.

And I am encouraged that there seems a willingness to engage in this debate. This is a serious matter, and I do suggest to the Minister that it is not one about his about which either his Department or his colleagues can remain passive or inert. I am very grateful to all who have contributed. I appreciate the Minister's response in the circumstances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

23:25

Deputy Chair of Committees

Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is finally withdrawn. Amendment 59. The Lord Bishop of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Norwich. My Lords, a moving amendment 59.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, a moving amendment 59. I will speak to amendment 60 in my name, and I thank noble Baroness Ladysmith for Newnham and the noble Lord Minto for their support. I declare also an interest as the father of a soldier. The amendments I am proposing aim to give the same

23:26

The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)

- -

protection to service police in the

23:26

Amendment:59 The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)

conduct of their duties as to their civilian counterparts. Amendment 59 would include service police within the offence of impersonating a police officer in the Police Act, police officer in the Police Act, 1996. Amendment 60 would give service police the status of service police the status of emergency worker within the meaning of the assaults on Emergency Workers Act 2018. Both amendments are structured to amend the existing civilian criminal legislation, rather than to create additional service offences.

The purpose of this is to ensure these protections apply both to military and civilian offenders. Service police operate both behind the wire and on the streets of Britain, where they respond to incidents involving both the military and civilians. They police high profile events such as significant military funerals, large scale ceremonial occasions and, for example, the Edinburgh Tattoo, as well as Friday nights in garrison towns, when things can get quite lively, they do not have a choice as to what incidents they come across on their patrol and must be prepared to act, including using lawful force to prevent crime and harm to others, no matter who is involved.

This inevitably puts service police at risk of being assaulted when on duty. Few service police officers do not know colleagues, if not themselves, who have been assaulted whilst on duty. Currently. If a member of the Service police is assaulted on duty, there are none of the enhanced sentencing powers afforded through the assaults on Emergency Workers Act 2018, which would be used if a civilian police officer had a similar assault service. Police are asked to face similar risks as civilian police and other emergency workers, yet they are not protected in the same way.

My Lords, this strikes me as unjust. Amendment 60 will add service police within the definition of emergency worker. The adoption of this amendment will act as a deterrent against assaulting service police and where assaults do occur, give the enhanced sensing powers to deal with offenders to the same standard as if the assault was against a civilian police officer. Similarly, My Lords Amendment 59 aims to give service police protection against impersonation both by military personnel and civilians.

At present, it is not a specific offence to impersonate a service police officer. Service personnel who do so are currently prosecuted under the military offence of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. Whilst there is no equivalent legislation to deal with civilians who impersonate service police officers for both military and civilian offenders, this is a gap in legislation which could allow does allow for the abuse of service police powers by impersonation, without appropriate consequences.

In recent years, offenders have been have avoided prosecution due to this gap in legislation, which I believe needs to be closed through amendment to the civilian criminal legislation in the Police Act 1996, rather than additional service offences. My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 50. Insert the new clause. The 50. Insert the new clause. The words as printed on the Marshalled

23:30

Deputy Chair of Committees Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)

List. >> I rise to support the amendments

23:30

>> I rise to support the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate to which I have appended my Prelate to which I have appended my name. The reason being that, as the right reverend Prelate has rightly pointed out, there are disparities in the provisions for service police versus civilian police, and that seems to be wholly wrong. So in for reasons of expediting business this evening, I do not propose to speak any longer, other than to say we wholly support the amendments from these ventures.

23:31

The Earl of Minto (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I, too, have signed >> My Lords, I, too, have signed both these amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, which I believe because I believe, has identified two important gaps in the law. Section 90 of the Police Act 1996 creates the offence of impersonating a member of a police force or special constable. The act is concerned with civilian police forces in England and Wales, established under the Police Act of 1996 and related legislation.

The definition of special constable is limited to 1.1 appointed for a police area. Members of the service. Police forces are not members of the territorial police force and are not special constables. They are members of the of the Service police under the Armed Forces Act 2006. As a result, the person pretending to be a service police officer would not obviously fall within the wording. Members of the police force or special Constable in section 90. I believe this is clearly an omission and that it needs to be rectified with regard to section to amendment 60, I believe I'm correct in saying that the definition in section three of the Assaults on Emergency Workers Act 2018 could include service police officers.

Subsection one B states that a person other than a constable who has the powers of a constable or is otherwise employed for police purposes, or is engaged to provide services for police purposes, is included within that definition. Service police officers are clearly engaged to provide services for police purposes. It might be useful for the noble or the Minister to confirm whether that is the government's position. However, more importantly, that act only applies to England and Wales, not to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Scotland does have a corresponding law. The Emergency Workers Scotland Act 2005, which creates specific offences of assaulting, obstructing or hindering emergency workers and those assisting them. The protected categories include constables, fire and ambulance personnel and, in circumstances, prison officers, coast guard personnel, RNLI crews, social workers executing child protection orders and mental health officers. My Lords, like the English and Welsh equivalent, the Scottish Act does not expressly mention service police officers. However, service police can sometimes be treated as constables when exercising powers conferred by service law or civilian legislation.

Whether the 2005 act applies to a particular service police officer will depend on the precise capacity in which they were acting at the time. Thus, the position regarding police service police isn't clear. Northern Ireland does not have a direct equivalent of the Assaults on Emergency Workers Offences Act 2018. That creates a single emergency worker as a defence. Instead, it has a mixture of general assault offences and occupation specific offences. A member of the Royal Military, Police, Royal Navy Police or if police, would not automatically fall within any general emergency worker definition in Northern Ireland because there is no equivalent statutory definition.

The problem here is that the service police work across the United Kingdom, and so the differential treatment under the law, the different jurisdictions, causes confusion and uncertainty. This, coupled with the fact that service police officers are not expressly covered by the relevant pieces of legislation, means that service police are not treated as equivalent to civilian police. I think this requires some thought from the government, and I will welcome an opinion on these matters

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from the noble Lord. The Minister. Well, first of all, can I thank the Earl of Minto but can I particularly thank the Right Reverend, the Bishop of Norwich? I, as you know, as I've spoken to him as you know, as I've spoken to him outside of the chamber and and had a number of conversations with him a number of conversations with him about this. I have asked my officials to look at both his officials to look at both his amendment 59 with respect to the impersonation of a member of the service police.

I've also asked for us to look at amendment 60, which is adding service police to the list of emergency workers regarding assault, and I will take those forward. I just to be clear, I cannot absolutely promise the outcome, but I do personally think there is a problem with respect to these these two issues, and I look forward to continuing the discussion with him to see whether we can come forward with something at report to plug. What do appear on the face of it, to be two gaps within the legislation within our country and other parts of it as well.

23:36

The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)

- -

My Lords, I'm very grateful for >> My Lords, I'm very grateful for speakers to Baroness Smith for her brevity at this late hour, when brevity at this late hour, when many of us want to be tucked up in bed. But it was worth staying up to hear the noble Earl, Lord Minto's analysis and. And that was particularly helpful around the different jurisdictions around these islands, and particularly the potential for amending laws in Scotland and Northern Ireland. But I'm immensely grateful to the Minister for all his hard work on this bill, but also for giving the commitment that he has to your Lordships' House to look at this in further detail.

My my understanding is that the Service Protection Authority have given legal advice that they do not believe that service police fall under the definition of emergency workers. So I think that's all part of the conversation to go on as this bill progresses towards the Report stage. So I'm most grateful. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

23:37

Deputy Chair of Committees Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)

Amendment be withdrawn. withdrawn. >> Amendment 60 Bishop of Norwich. >> Not moved. Amendment 61 Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Miller. My Lords, I rise to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to move the first three amendments in my name, which are in Group 12 amendments 61,

23:37

Amendment:61 Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

62 and 63. I am not going to do them justice at this time of night, because the First Amendment is calling for an independent review of armed forces recruitment and retention. And in order to do that justice, I really would need to rehearse the difficulties that we've seen in armed forces recruitment. Capita was mentioned earlier on in proceedings today. Issues of retention have also been raised. Given the lateness of the hour and the hope that noble Lords and indeed Hansard doorkeepers and everybody else will have, and officials in the box actually to get home at some point in the wee small hours.

What I would like to do is express the view that it is important for His Majesty's Government to have an independent review of recruitment and retention, in particular, because we hear at each time there is an SDR that we need to look at the size of our armed forces. We need to look at the size of the reserves. And yet there is very little clarity on the recruitment process and on retention. We've heard proposals this evening from the noble Lady Baroness Penn about increasing paternity leave entitlement precisely as a way of enhancing retention.

But, my Lords, we need clarity. The country needs clarity on recruitment and retention. And as Parliament, we need to be able to scrutinise the current provisions and perhaps give suggestions to His Majesty's Government about ways in which we could be improving the system. So, my Lords, I would like to raise that issue. I'm not going to go into any further detail this evening. Amendment 62 is one that I hope will be seen as uncontroversial, even by somebody sitting where the noble Lord, the Minister, is.

Obviously it's an amendment, but it's suggesting a duty to provide medical records on discharge. My Lords, that is simply to ensure that anyone leaving the services is able to go straight away, register with their GP, and in particular, if there are issues that they have, perhaps there's a medical discharge, but even not a medical discharge, somebody might be at risk of PTSD undiagnosed. Having those medical records is going to be crucial for the individuals, and it seems to be only right that their record should be provided as soon as is practicable.

And finally, my Lords, an amendment that ought to be self-evident. But I realise it may be that the noble Lord, the Minister, feels that it's not one purely for the MoD. It's perhaps more a DWP matter. But the amendment 63 suggests the insertion of a clause. Personal Independence Payment assessment exemption for amputees. And the logic behind that is that it seems very odd to keep requiring Pip assessments and reassessments when if somebody has had a limb amputated, that's not going to change between assessments.

It may be that robotics or other medical innovations change somebody's capacity to work. But given that we're talking about somebody who may have been have had a limb amputated as a result of their service, then relieving them of Pip reassessments would appear to be a an appropriate way of acknowledging the reasons why they've lost the limb and ensuring that we don't put them through unnecessary repeat medical assessments.

23:42

Lord De Mauley (Conservative)

- -

An amendment proposed after clause 50 insert the following new clause independent review of Armed forces recruitment and retention, as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as printed on the Marshalled List. I want to support the noble Lady Baroness Morris amendment 61, requiring there to be an requiring there to be an independent review of armed forces recruitment and retention at this late hour. Let me just say that at a time when there are nearly a million young people not in any of education, employment or training, we can't even recruit 10,000 a year. And our armed forces are well below the relatively tiny strength at which they are funded to be.

This suggests that something is seriously wrong with the recruiting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

process, and this report needs to be done. I need to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I need to. Speak to amendment 62 very, very briefly and just say, my noble friend raised the point about it friend raised the point about it being important for veterans to be able to have their details in their hands. The NHS guidance for hands. The NHS guidance for veterans specifically notes that it takes several months for the full

23:42

Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)

- -

takes several months for the full records to follow the veterans. And if veterans have complex health issues without the information, then the GP that they see are in deep trouble. And on the point about the amputees, there's a really important point in that unlike many amputees in the civilian world, most people in the military world who have amputations have also got a significant amount of other injuries as well. And it's already an issue about amputees in the civilian world having to have repeat Pip tests.

But it seems to me that it would be sensible to look at this particular area.

23:43

The Earl of Minto (Conservative)

- -

Very briefly. My Lords, the noble Baroness Smith of Newnham has raised some very important issues raised some very important issues in these amendments. Between 1919 and 2025. There are only seven years in which more people join the regular forces than left them, and the Strategic Defence Review was blunt enough to call the result a workforce crisis. I might add one further point on retention. Retention in the armed forces will not be improved by prosecuting veterans who served in Northern Ireland fighting the IRA.

My noble friend Lady Goldie has already mentioned the adverse impact the government policy is having. Retention will also surely be improved in delivering the investment in the forces housing that the government has promised. Two actions the government could take immediately to improve retention and recruitment. Drop this widely despised troubles bill and deliver the housing investment now, rather than pushing the funding further back as they've done in Defence Investment Plan. I completely concur with Baroness Brinton about what she said about the medical records, and I think that's that also needs tidying up really pretty quickly and would definitely help.

And I look forward to hearing the noble Lords responses.

23:44

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Excellent. >> Excellent. >> My Lords, let me just say this I none of us are going to do justice none of us are going to do justice to the amendments that the noble Baroness has brought forward. She made a couple of important points, made a couple of important points, as did Baroness Brinton, as did Lord de Mauley, and some of what the Earl of Minto said was was something to which I would need to respond in a positive way.

Others, perhaps not, but the. But let me just say this I think the important thing is that to do it justice, I. I think I need to write a letter which looks at retention, looks at some of the issues that have been raised, looks at the transfer of health records and the pit point that was made to. They are important points. And for me, just to say two sentences on this and two sentences on that is inadequate. So with the committee's permission, I'll write a letter, copy it to members of the committee and place a copy in the library.

And I hope if with that reassurance that the committee will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

23:45

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I'm grateful to all noble Lords >> I'm grateful to all noble Lords who've contributed, and particularly to the noble Lord de particularly to the noble Lord de Mauley for co-signing amendment 61 and to my noble friend Baroness Brinton. We look forward to the letter from the noble Lord, the Minister. And with that I beg leave to withdraw.

23:46

Deputy Chair of Committees Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)

SCU Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 62 Baroness Smith of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Newnham not moved and 63 not moved, and amendment 64. Baroness Smith of Newnham my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Smith of Newnham my Lords, this very small group, Lords, this very small group, unfortunately numbered group 13 is about the Defence Investment plan about the Defence Investment plan and in particular it felt appropriate to bring forward

23:46

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

appropriate to bring forward amendments that had been laid in the other place by my hon. Friends,

23:46

Amendment:64 Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

the. I think it was James McCleary the. I think it was James McCleary who tabled them, essentially to suggest that Parliament has an suggest that Parliament has an interest in ensuring that we hold His Majesty's Government accountable on the Defence accountable on the Defence Investment Plan, and in particular, Investment Plan, and in particular, I noted in his response to the noble Lady, Baroness Penn. Earlier on the noble Lord. The Minister said continued challenges are important, so I would like to suggest that amendment 64 is by way of a continued challenge, that it would be beneficial to His Majesty's Armed Forces and to the country to have a report on the Defence Investment Plan.

And clearly, it's not something where one needs the noble Lord, the Minister, to respond in any detail today, because we're calling for it six months after this act has been implemented or passed. So the key thing is that the defence Investment plan took a long time. It is still unclear whether the funding is going to be forthcoming. And so accountability and scrutiny seem to be appropriate. And the Final Amendment 65, a report on the impact of the Defence Investment Plan delays.

My Lords, the suggestion here is the request is that we have a report within six months of the act being passed. And again, this is very much about accountability. My Lords, the Defence Investment Plan was hugely important. It was also significantly delayed and even for the primes, the delays have been significant. But for the smaller defence companies, particularly dual use companies, there are significant questions of the impact about the impact of the delays and therefore we've specified quite clearly what we would want to see in a report.

I don't think I need to go into any more detail other than to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, if the government might indeed provide the reports, particularly the annual reports requested in amendment 64, because earlier on, the noble Lord Lord Coaker did point out in another part of the bill, there is no greater accountability than an annual report to Parliament. Please may we have one. I beg to move.

23:49

The Earl of Minto (Conservative)

- -

Clause 15. Insert the following clause reporting on the Defence Investment Plan as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. My Lords, enable Baroness Smith of Newnham once again is highlighting a significant amount of time debating a Lordships House glaring hole in the. In the funding of the DIP it just has to be addressed. The funding issues have not yet been resolved. Can the noble Lords Minister please confirm that his former boss. Now the Chancellor, will find the necessary funds to fill that gap in the budgetary and budgetary hole in the upcoming budget? Furthermore, we've also recently heard that the government will not set out the plan to hit 3% of the GDP on defence spending until the spending review next year.

So another six months of preparation lost another six months of status. It's not acceptable, my Lords. I hope that the government's rethinks.

23:50

Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)

- -

Well, let me just finish with an upbeat message of the fact that I upbeat message of the fact that I have never felt that I have been lacking scrutiny on the Defence Investment Plan, or lacking scrutiny on accountability with respect to defence spending. I've answered numerous questions from Baroness Meyer, from Baroness Goldie, from the Earl of Minto. I have not felt in any way that there's been a lack of scrutiny at all and and that's as it should be.

So I'm perfectly happy to stand here and that the amendments are completely unnecessary in terms of holding me to account of holding the government to account. Baroness Smith, Baroness Goldie Earl of Minto and most members of this House find it extraordinarily easy to bring me to this Dispatch Box to tell me how bad the government is, and me to say how. How much I am working hard to ensure that we deliver the defence of this country needs so completely unnecessary these amendments.

Absolutely no need for them at all. So that's my answer to at this late hour, to that particular amendment on the on the on the couple of serious points to make, the annual report, we have committed in the dip to an annual update to Parliament before summer recess each year on progress against the dip and any changes in financial investments. So the first one that the noble Baroness Barran Smith asked will be audited by the National Audit Office. The first will be published by July 2027.

Can I just say to the noble Earl of Minto, I've got a fresh burst of energy now, but if the. If unlike when we were talking about the establishment of the national. The Reserves and Reserve Forces and Cadets Association, and we didn't. The noble Lord didn't take too much notice of what the National Audit Office says because it didn't fit his argument. I bet if the National Audit Office come forward and say that the government's Defence investment plan is not going according to plan, and it's an outrage what the government.

I bet the noble Lord quotes at length the National Audit Office report. But there we go. That's the nature of politics. I understand that and so on. But the first Baroness May July 27th will be the first, the first annual report. And on the final point to make, the Chancellor will lay out how the 4.7 billion will be found with respect in the autumn, in the autumn budget around the dip. He'll have heard the Chancellor also say that the further plans will be set out in the spending review of 2027.

Can I also just finish with this? I don't know why it's a surprise to everyone in this House that that was said, because I've stood at this despatch box and said exactly the same thing. If you check Hansard on a number of different occasions, in answer to the noble Baroness Baroness Goldie. So with that, can I say, I hope the noble Baroness sees fit to withdraw her amendments. If not, bring them forward a report and let's have another debate on defence spending.

23:53

Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Minto for his support, really for challenging His Majesty's Government. And I'm grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for his ever ready presence, to respond at the despatch box. We may well come back to questions of the impact of DIP delays, particularly in terms of supply chains, because there are some very significant issues. But whether they are appropriate for an amendment to this particular bill, I think, is another question.

But with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

23:54

Deputy Chair of Committees Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)

Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 65 Baroness Smith of Newnham not moved. Amendment 66 Baroness Penn not moved. Amendment 67 Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle not moved. The question is that clause is 51 to 54. Stand part of the bill. En bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content. On the contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause 55. Amendment 68 Baroness Brinton not moved.

Amendment 69 and 70 Lord Harlech not moved. The question is clause 55 stamp out of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause 56 stamp out of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that this be the title of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content.

The contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, that concludes the committee's proceedings of the Bill. The House proceedings of the Bill. The House will now resume. My Lords, the Committee of the whole House to which the Armed Forces Bill was committed, has gone through the same, and has directed me to report it to your Lordships with amendment. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn that the House

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page