Fleet Solid Support Ships

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, the Defence Select Committee said that Ministers should ensure that warships are built in UK yards and that this designation continues to include fleet solid support ships. Welcome as these new ships are, why did the Government not accept the Team UK bid? Team UK’s bid showed 6,000 more UK jobs. How many jobs have been lost as a result of not accepting that bid, and how many of the ships will be made and associated work done in Spain? Time and again, Parliament has called for the UK Government to fully support our sovereign defence capability. Is not this just another missed opportunity to fully support the British defence industry?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

I do not agree with the noble Lord’s assessment of a very exciting opportunity for British shipbuilding. The bulk of these ships are going to be built within the UK, particularly in the shipyard of Harland & Wolff. It is a tremendous coup for Team Resolute that they have succeeded in this. There will be extensive investment in infrastructure in Harland & Wolff’s yard. They are warships, but that is precisely why the majority of these ships will be built in the UK. He suggests that all these complex programmes and platforms are built entirely in a single country, but that is not the case, such is the technical complexity nowadays. For example, the F35, a US aircraft, is partly built in the UK. Our Dreadnought submarines and the US Columbia-class submarines will share a common missile compartment, built in both the United States and the UK. We should be celebrating what is very good news for the British shipbuilding industry.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

The Minister in the other place put great emphasis on the extent to which the partnership with the Spanish shipbuilder would provide technological transfer and additional skills for Harland & Wolff and other British shipyards. Can the Minister here say a little more about that? If that is indeed part of the package, that is useful for the British in rebuilding our shipbuilding capacity. If it is not, we are perhaps being sold a pup. She said that in future we have to build things jointly with our partners. The Commons Minister went further than that and said that an obsessive and excessive concern with sovereign capacity and sovereignty as such—Britain doing everything alone—is

“some sort of prehistoric antediluvian approach”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/22; col. 965.]

Does the noble Baroness agree? If so, would she perhaps like to say that to a few members of the European Research Group?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

What I would say is that Navantia is a globally acknowledged shipbuilding expert. We are very pleased to be able to draw on its skills. For example, the agreement we have reached with Team Resolute means a vital skills and technology transfer. A small team of Spanish shipbuilding experts will transfer to Belfast, and Harland & Wolff will benefit from that. On the wider issue of how we build warships there is a desire to ensure that, where there are sensitive security issues, the majority of warships will be built in the UK. That is what is happening here. The majority of the blocks and modules from which the ships will be assembled will be built in the UK at Harland & Wolff’s facilities in Belfast and Appledore. Interestingly, some components will be manufactured at its sites at Methil in Fife and Arnish in the Isle of Lewis. I hope they have got their thermal vests out to prepare for the Isle of Lewis.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I wonder if the Minister could help the House with the position about the intellectual property in the design of these vessels.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The ships have been designed in the UK by BMT, a leading firm of naval architects. Intellectual property in the design rests with it. The Ministry of Defence does not generally seek to acquire ownership of intellectual property created by contractors undertaking work for the department. Rather, we seek to acquire free user rights that permit the department to use, modify and manage equipment as it sees fit through life, without infringing IP rights or incurring fees.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, while I am always pathetically grateful when we get an order for some ships, there are some real risks here. How big is the workforce at Harland & Wolff at the moment? When did it last build a ship there for the Royal Navy? Is it true that 60% by value of this contract will go to the Spanish firm, which effectively established its UK office just a matter of months ago?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As far as I understand it, Harland & Wolff currently expects the contract to support 1,200 shipbuilding jobs across its yards in Belfast and Appledore. As everyone is aware, Harland & Wolff has a strong reputation. It has been having a challenging time. As I said earlier, the extensive £77 million infrastructure investment will make a big difference to it and put it in a position where it will be poised to bid for future contracts.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, before leaving the European Union and since, we have been told repeatedly that one of the advantages of coming out is that British ships will be built in British yards. The use of the active verb in these sentences is important. I looked closely at the Minister’s answer to this Question in the House of Commons. He said that the ships would be assembled at Harland & Wolff. Where are these ships to be built? They are built in modules. Is the work to be in Britain or elsewhere? Is the bulk of this contract going to be abroad? The £77 million is welcome, as are the jobs, but what proportion of the contract is coming to the United Kingdom and what proportion is going to Spain? What other G7 country does this? None.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I can only repeat what I said in response to earlier questions: that the majority of these ships will be built in the UK. As I understand the technical situation, the majority of the blocks and modules from which the ships will be assembled will be built at Harland & Wolff’s facilities in Belfast and Appledore. Again, I repeat that this is very good news for British shipbuilding, particular on the back of the recently announced Batch 2 of the five frigates at Govan. This is all indicative of the very good state of the British shipbuilding industry. I refer the noble Lord to what the chief executive of Harland & Wolff had to say:

“I am pleased to see the Government seize the last opportunity to capture the skills that remain in Belfast and Appledore before they are lost for good.”


That is testament to the strength of this decision.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, is it a fact that the Government’s dispute with the DUP had something to do with the choice of Harland & Wolff?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As the noble Lord is aware, when it comes to the procurement of complex contracts such as those in which the MoD is frequently engaged, what matters is who has the skills, what the design looks like, and what offers to deliver well for the MoD and as a warship for the British shipbuilding industry.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, surely the noble Lord, Lord Browne, is right: ships assembled in this country are made up of components from all over the world. This has been the case for some time now.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I observe to my noble friend that the vast majority of the build work will take place in the UK. There will be an element of the aft blocks built in Spain, but by far the majority of the shipbuilding work will be here. We should celebrate this. It is a matter of commendation not depression.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the awarding of the contract to Harland & Wolff in Belfast. This was welcomed right across communities in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister give us an assurance that this will be the first of many contracts?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her encouraging remarks and for accepting the real world in which we live. Her aspiration is laudable. It is always our intention in the MoD to support the indigenous industry as best we can. We have a good reputation and record for doing that. Let us see what the future holds.

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

My Lords, it behoves us all to share the Minister’s view at the outset that this is very good news for British shipbuilding. We can nibble around the edges about what might be but we have to start from where we are. We have a national shipbuilding plan now; we are taking steps; we have had important new orders announced in recent weeks. This is all part of the strategy, and I hope the Minister will agree with me that the Royal Navy’s part in developing the ship- building industry is very welcome, as indeed are the growing links between commercial maritime and the Royal Navy that we have seen across the land.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. He identifies the underpinning wisdom and strength of the shipbuilding strategy, which Sir John Parker originally conceived with the specific intent of creating a sustainable indigenous British shipbuilding industry. We are now well on the way to doing that, and I thank the noble Lord for his recognition of that progress.

Mali: UN Peacekeeping Mission

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, for a decade now, the people of Mali have suffered the consequences of war, the multiplication of violent extremism and the ensuing violence. This has led to a state of crisis, with people facing refugee migrations and food insecurity, and to the suffering of, primarily, women and children. This in turn has led Mali to be ranked 131st of 163 countries for peace, and 137th of 145 countries for gender equality. I therefore support and commend the British personnel who have worked with others to try to create an opportunity for some stability. It is regrettable that there has been a move back from this because of the Mali Government. I hope that the Minister will be able to outline the Government’s policy for continuing the vital work of supporting NGOs, civil society groups, and women and children in Mali after this draw-down.

I declare an interest: I chair the UK board of peace- building charities, Search for Common Ground. It has been operating in Mali with the British Government’s support, trying to combat the sources of the problems there. I hope that this kind of support can continue. Will the Minister outline the Government’s development priorities? How is it seeking to use the Accra talks to progress them? What mechanisms will we use for our development ambitions in Mali?

Will the Minister also outline the role that the UK will play with ECOWAS, the AU, the United States and others to try to return Mali to a constitutional order? Of course the country’s future is in its own hands, but the UK has played a role: it has committed forces. A full draw-down should not bring about a full withdrawal of UK interest. On that, could the Minister explain why UK development assistance is planned to fall dramatically from the £22 million provided in 2019-20 to just £500,000 in 2023-24? Would the draw-down of military personnel not be exactly the right time to review development priorities so that a development vacuum is not created by UK personnel leaving?

Finally, I wish to return to the issue of the Wagner Group. I am on the record on a number of occasions pressing the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, for the UK to move on the proscription of the Wagner Group. I will now press the Defence Minster on this. The Wagner Group is acting directly against the interests of the United Kingdom and our allies. Commons Minister James Heappey referred to the human rights atrocities that it is carrying out. The UK has no interest that is not being undermined by the Wagner Group, and there should be consequences for UK relations with countries that seek to use the Wagner Group not only against their own people but against the UK’s national interests. I repeat my call for the Government to prepare and bring forward mechanisms that would see the Wagner Group proscribed. So far, the Government have not made any moves on this. When answering questions, the Minister in the Commons said that he would engage in discussions with the Home Office on this issue, so I hope for a suitably positive response from the Minister today to me on this issue, so that we send a very strong signal that, whether in Mali or elsewhere, the UK will act against groups such as Wagner—and particularly against the Wagner Group by proscribing them.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Purvis of Tweed, for their very helpful introductory remarks, and their tributes to the personnel we have had serving in the Sahel, particularly in Mali.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the delay. This was a complex situation. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, James Heappey, said in the other place yesterday that it would have been wrong to have had an immediate unthought-out reaction. I assure your Lordships that he has been working tirelessly in the area. He has been in Mali, Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire and Togo. His counterparts from France have visited Niger, Benin and the other countries extensively because it was important that there was some collective understanding about mapping out what we think the best situation is.

It is important to say to your Lordships something that my right honourable friend referred to in the other place yesterday. We should always remember the attitude of the African states. The impression seems to be emerging that African nations feel that they do not want us on their borders physically fighting the insurgency. They think that there is a danger that that accelerates conflict. They want us to work with them to support them in generating capability and in advising, along with other countries, how they might build for a more stable, secure and prosperous future.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in particular that this has come about not through absence of concern or lack of action. A lot has been happening behind the scenes. He raised the subject of the Accra initiative, which I will come on to. It is exciting. In fact, my right honourable friend will be in Accra on Monday and Tuesday next week, not this week, with representatives of the EU, the United Nations, France, the UK, the Economic Community of West African States, and all the member states of the Accra initiative to discuss exactly how they will go forward. We need a cohesive strategy that brings together not just a military response but the political and economic response. I hope that reassures your Lordships that very serious discussion and consideration has been given to how we take this forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked what this means for the United Nations mission, MINUSMA. That is initially a matter for the United Nations but, as he will be aware, the UK is very supportive of the United Nations. We have always done our best to be an influence for good in the discussions, whether on the Security Council or in the General Assembly. We will certainly look to continue feeding in what we think is helpful to those discussions. As your Lordships will be aware, MINUSMA has faced constraint in recent months because of the operational environment and the attitude of and decisions taken by the Malian authorities, but the mission still has an important role to play in achieving long-term stability in Mali and we will continue to play a role as a member of the Security Council in shaping MINUSMA’s mandate to try to ensure maximum effectiveness. The noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Purvis of Tweed, helpfully referred to the environment that has created this challenge for MINUSMA. We have to be realistic about that. We have to respond to the situation as it is on the ground.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked what we are doing and what aid we have been providing. In defence terms, we have been doing and will continue to do a lot. After Kenya, Mali is our biggest presence, but we have a British Army training unit in Kenya. We have a British peace support team there and other defence supports offering advice and help. In Somalia, we have a regular deployment of regular operational staff under Operation Tangham. It is supporting African Union peace enforcement operations, plus UN missions. In Nigeria, we have around 40 permanent staff providing bilateral support to Nigeria to help it deal with diverse security threats.

As we look ahead, particularly at what the Accra initiative will, I hope, invite by way of discussion and constructive thought about how we take all this forward, it is important to remember that we have been doing a great deal in the broader area through our diplomatic engagement and our aid programmes, and we will continue to support local, national and international efforts to promote long-term prosperity and security in Mali. A lot of the work MINUSMA has achieved there has been positive and beneficial but, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, said, it is one of the world’s poorest regions. He mentioned the bilateral aid we spent in 2021-22. Our multilateral contributions added an extra £60 million to that, and he will be aware that our work covers the delivery of critical humanitarian assistance, whether in relation to food insecurity, malnutrition or supporting those displaced by conflict. We have done a lot of work to empower women and girls through initiatives such as the Gao stabilisation fund. We are one of the largest bilateral funders of global health and education initiatives. Our resolve is to continue with that very good work.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, was particularly interested in these aspects but he asked, if I understood him correctly, where the MINUSMA mission goes. I have tried to explain where I think we are with that. That will require discussion at the United Nations and at Security Council level. If the question is whether the UK will deploy in another United Nations mission, any potential future UN deployments will be scrutinised carefully. They must clearly support both the mission in question and our own strategic objectives. If that arises, we will look at it responsibly, but I go back to saying that the Accra initiative is a very important development.

No one can be anything but deeply troubled by the presence of the Wagner Group. I think I can do no more than repeat the description accorded to it by my right honourable friend Mr James Heappey, who said in the other place that

“it remains a bunch of murderous human rights-abusing thugs and there is not a country on the planet that is any better for its presence”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/22; col. 405.]

I think that encapsulates the character of the group. It does what it wants to do, it does not care how it does it as long as it gets paid for doing so, and it is a very brutal grouping of individuals. We are cognisant of the threat it poses and aware that the other countries in the Sahel are equally conscious of that. The experience of Mozambique is interesting. Wagner was taken in initially to help in Mozambique and then kicked out because of the way it behaved when it was there. The UK, along with all our allies and partners working with the Accra initiative, are very keen to point out to these western African states that when they engage with the UK, France, the US, the EU and other western allies, they get a security partnership. They get something robust that wants nothing in return other than the advancement of our shared interests and security in the region. That contrasts sharply with the activities of Wagner.

I certainly look forward to hearing more from my right honourable friend Mr James Heappey when he returns from the meeting in Accra. I think it promises to be interesting. The long-term objectives of the initiative, which are basically to secure the borders, tackle insurgency in Burkina Faso and look to the longer-term future of stabilisation, security and prosperity are laudable. A lot of good will is being brought to the table to try to ensure that a coherent strategy is developed that can be delivered.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, as a Defence Minister at the time who helped negotiate our initial deployment to Mali, I of course support the deployment but, equally, I support our early withdrawal. The reality is that the political foundations on which the deployment was made have, unfortunately, crumbled.

However, my concern is this: the reality is that the capability we have delivered there is exquisite. The long-range reconnaissance group, with its vehicles, drones and long-range medical evacuation, has a capability that not many other nations can provide. Indeed, if we are to have an African solution to an African problem, I think many are being put off by that. Is that capability still required on the mission? If it is, will we consider gifting the vehicles we have in the region at the moment, many of which would come back and simply be put into retirement, and training those willing to take over from us to ensure that the capability will continue to be delivered?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My noble friend raises a very interesting point. I go back to my earlier observation about how the African states view involvement externally from the continent. We have to be sensitive to that. That is one of the areas of important discussion for the Accra initiative. I totally understand the point my noble friend makes. He will appreciate that I cannot give a specific response to it, but I am sure his point is noted and I will certainly make clear to my right honourable friend Mr James Heappey the concerns that my noble friend has expressed.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has been through a great deal of detail, but I do not think she mentioned the financial implications for the Ministry of Defence. Will there be some savings? If so, has she any idea what the figure might be? More importantly, can she assure the House that there is no intention that any of the units withdrawn will be withdrawn from the front line and that they will return to other duties on the front line?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My understanding is that a total of £79.85 million has currently been committed to the deployment through the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. I emphasise that the decision to withdraw is nothing to do with money—I wish to make that clear to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. It is to do with a fundamental change in the operational environment, which means that we are trying to support a peacekeeping mission when the host country is not prepared to co-operate on that objective and is enlisting the help of parties that have a directly inimical attitude to such an objective.

As to future funding, we have to look at the Accra initiative and see what unfolds from that. We have not yet asked His Majesty’s Treasury to fund that initiative. When we know more about what is needed and how much funding we will apply for, we will make sure that this is an agreed, cross-government effort. The noble and gallant Lord will remember that Operation Newcombe, our contribution to Mali, was resourced by two different funds. It was resourced by the special reserve for our support to Operation Barkhane and the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund for our contribution to the MINUSMA mission.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, we must all feel deep sorrow for the people of Mali if they are to be left to the tender mercies of the Wagner Group, as looks all too likely. I should have thought the Government of Mali would rue the day they got in with that lot. Can my noble friend elaborate, which she is very good at doing, on the phrases in the Statement and exactly what they mean? What is the implication of

“rebalancing our deployment alongside France, the EU and other like-minded allies”

and

“preventing further contagion of the insurgency”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/22; col. 401.]

in a whole string of countries in the region? Does that mean we will redeploy some of our troops, military effort and equipment to these other countries? Will we concentrate just on those that happen to be in the Commonwealth, such as Togo and Ghana, or will we put troops in Niger? Can she give us just a little more indication, even though decisions have yet to be made, on what the broad aim is—to leave troops in the area or to take them all away?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am not sure that it is possible to give a specific response to my noble friend’s question; reverting to the Accra initiative, I think a great deal of discussion has to be had as to how we take forward a concerted desire to support these west African states, with a mixture of military intervention—or military support rather—if that is required, and advice and support for the political or economic regimes. A number of factors have to be taken into account. Mali is, of course, an observer member of the Accra initiative along with Niger. In total, the initiative represents a very healthy and promising group of countries. One of the strategic challenges to be hammered out is just what my noble friend referred to: at the end of the day, what is it that the African states are looking for, and what can we do to support that endeavour?

I am not being evasive; it is just that I think a great deal more discussion has to ensue before clarity begins to emerge about some of these strategic objectives. My noble friend will be aware that we already do a lot in west Africa. We provide support in Nigeria and in the Chad basin, we are supporting the armed forces of Cameroon and we are working closely with the Ghanaian armed forces to develop ongoing counterterrorism training packages. At the end of the day, the threat of terrorism in the Sahel has not disappeared; it is there. Sadly, the presence of Wagner is likely to exacerbate the situation rather than facilitate solutions; that is another important component of everything that has to be discussed.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, while joining those paying tribute to the work that our peacekeepers have done in what is obviously an extremely challenging and difficult mission, I have two questions for the Minister. First, did we have any consultations with the UN’s department of peacekeeping operations before the announcement that the Minister and her colleague in the other place have made—and, if so, how did it respond to our intention to withdraw? Secondly, can she say what number of UN peacekeepers we will have deployed after this withdrawal has taken place?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

On the first question, I am not privy to what discussions took place. I shall make inquiries and respond to the noble Lord with more details if I am able to do so. As to the second point, I do not have specific information but, again, I will undertake to investigate and if I can provide more detail, I shall.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to MINUSMA and its work—in particular, the incredibly professional input by our own peacekeeping troops. MINUSMA will obviously continue. Does my noble friend agree that the capability and capacity of UN troop-contributing nations, particularly from Africa, will be really important? As my noble friend has pointed out, it has been shown time and again that the input from UK staff officers, trainers and other personnel can make all the difference. Can she say a bit more about the peace support team in Nairobi and the role that it will play?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Yes, I say to my noble friend that that source of support which we provide is important. Through that base, we are providing training to peace- keepers from a wide range of troop-contributing countries, the majority in Africa. A lot of good work is coming out of there and we see that role continuing. We think it is an important contribution to the broader environment of west Africa and certainly anticipate that the base will continue to be strategically important from which to continue providing that help. Again, trying to look at how all the pieces of the jigsaw will ultimately fit together, we need to await further discussions from the Accra initiative and see what the likely outcomes are. Then it will be easier for all the participating nations to work out what they can provide.

The encouraging thing about the Accra initiative is the interest it has generated. My understanding is that we have received interest and support from the Germans; we have also received positive responses from the Czechs, the Norwegians and the Dutch. I indicated earlier the extent of the nations covered—the United Nations and the EU as well—by the forthcoming meeting, next week, so there is a lot of interest. As I said earlier, it looks to me as though people are prepared to endeavour to pool their talent and expertise to see how best they can provide the support that is undoubtedly needed. As I said to my noble friend Lord Howell, terrorism is still there; it is not disappearing, and other factors are very troubling.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister has spoken at some length about the hideous human rights-abusing nature of the Wagner Group. I can only concur with her. Does she agree that this really adds force to the arguments for what is generally known as the UN mercenary convention—otherwise, in formal terms, the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries—which has been ratified by 46 states? Will the UK Government look again at signing that convention, promoting it and trying to set a new international framework against the use of mercenaries?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I will call on my colleague in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to answer the noble Baroness, and perhaps to do so more ably than I could achieve. I think we are all united in agreeing that what Wagner represents is repugnant. I do not know if I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on his specific point about proscription, for which I apologise, so let me tell him that there is a lot of sympathy with the sentiment which he expressed. I know that my right honourable friend James Heappey undertook to have discussions with the Home Office, and I would certainly be very much in sympathy with seeing what we can do along these lines. As to the noble Baroness’s question, it will fall to one of my colleagues to give a more specific answer.

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, there are obviously a lot of new initiatives coming up, which the Minister has described, as a result of the withdrawal from Mali. Will she undertake to talk to her colleagues in the relevant ministries about reporting back to Parliament, because we so rarely hear about peacekeeping in Africa?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble Earl raises an interesting point. From a defence perspective, I would certainly be sympathetic to providing a further briefing once more details are known. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ahmad would be equally sympathetic to providing that in relation to the broader issues of foreign affairs. It is a useful suggestion, so will the noble Earl let me take it away?

Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment) Rules 2022

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

That the draft Rules laid before the House on 17 October be approved.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument consists of changes to the rules applying to the court martial contained in Schedule 1 to the Armed Forces Act 2021. Three of the four changes implement recommendations from the review of the service justice system by His Honour Shaun Lyons.

The rule changes state that six-member boards are required if the offence is a Schedule 2 offence—serious offences, such as grievous bodily harm, which must always be referred to service police for investigation—or if the offence carries a maximum penalty of more than two years’ imprisonment. They introduce Rule 30 to determine when an additional member can be appointed to a three-member board. This is to address the concern that three-member boards hearing cases lasting several days may be vulnerable to an unexpected loss of a member, which would result in the board not being quorate or validly constituted. The changes also introduce Rule 30A to allow a direction to be made to allow proceedings to continue if a board is reduced from four to three or six to five members. They also extend those ranks applicable to sit on a court martial board to include OR-7 personnel; these are senior NCOs such as chief petty officers or staff sergeants. The rules introduce other minor amendments to the court martial rules in consequence of these changes.

To explain further, the first rule change implements His Honour Shaun Lyons’s recommendation that a six-member board should be required if the offence is a Schedule 2 offence or carries a maximum penalty of more than two years’ imprisonment. He found widespread agreement that the current five-member boards, which try Schedule 2 offences and offences carrying a maximum term of over seven years’ imprisonment, should increase in size to six and reach qualified majority verdicts, rather than simple majority verdicts, in which at least five of the six members have agreed. He also recommended that they try Schedule 2 offences and offences carrying a maximum term of over two rather than seven years’ imprisonment. He recommended that smaller boards, which will continue to consist of three or four members, should try all other cases and deal with sentencing in all cases where the defendants have pleaded guilty, as they do now.

We accepted this recommendation, which will allow the three-member boards to focus on the great majority of service disciplinary offences contained in Sections 1 to 41 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, and the less serious criminal offences which would normally be heard in the magistrates’ court in the civilian criminal justice system. Six-member boards will deal with the relatively small number of disciplinary offences carrying a sentence of over two years’ imprisonment, such as assisting the enemy or mutiny, as well as criminal conduct that would normally be tried in the Crown Court. We do not anticipate that lowering the threshold for when a six-member board is required—when the offence attracts a punishment of more than two years—will place an additional resourcing burden on the single services, with the existing pools of personnel provided for court martial services sufficient to meet the new requirement. However, we will monitor the situation for the first 12 months after introduction, in the same way as the other changes we are introducing to how the court martial operates, and consider whether any adjustment to this approach might be required.

The second rule change, to introduce a new Rule 30, has its background in the “pingdemic”—fondly remembered by many of us—which occurred during the Covid pandemic and which highlighted the concern that three-member boards hearing cases lasting several days can be vulnerable to the unexpected loss of one member. To deal with this, the Armed Forces Act 2021 gave judge advocates the power to add a fourth member to a three-member board to make it more viable and anticipate the board being affected by the loss of a member. The new Rule 30 details when this power can be used. Judge advocates have a wide discretion to appoint an additional member whenever they feel it to be necessary in view of the expected length or location of the proceedings. This approach is closely based on the existing Rule 30, which currently allows up to two additional members to be appointed in cases expected to last more than 10 days, or five in the case of trials being heard outside the United Kingdom and Germany.

The third rule change, new Rule 30A, follows on from the second and implements another of His Honour Shaun Lyons’s recommendations: that there must be a mechanism to cope with the death, sickness or other absence of a member occurring during a trial, which would reduce a six-member board to five members. This would reflect Section 16 of the Juries Act 1974, under which the default position is that a Crown Court trial continues despite the loss of up to three jurors, but the judge can instead choose to discharge the jury. New Rule 30A gives judge advocates the power to direct that the proceedings with a four or six-member board should continue

“in the interests of justice”,

despite the loss of a member, and that this direction may be made at any point after all the members have been sworn in.

The final rule change relates to changes made to the Armed Forces Act 2006 by the Armed Forces Act 2021 allowing personnel at other ranks—OR7—to sit as members of the court martial. These are senior non-commissioned officers, such as chief petty officers, staff or colour sergeants, flight sergeants and chief technicians. This was another recommendation made by His Honour Shaun Lyons. Currently, only officers and warrant officers may be members of a court martial and, unlike a jury in the Crown Court, the members assist the judge advocate in sentencing. Sentencing within the service justice system has a number of purposes: not least punishment, deterrence and the maintenance of discipline. OR7 ranks have the experience and an understanding of command and rank, and are well placed to be involved in the sentencing exercise, something that civilian juries do not participate in.

Extending eligibility for board membership to OR7s will also mean that the single services have a wider pool of experienced personnel to draw on. Your Lordships will recall from our debate on 18 October that this measure will also help with the new rule to increase the representation of women on court martial boards. It may also reduce the burden on officers required on boards where the defendant is of another rank. The existing rule about all members being senior to the defendant is unchanged, meaning that OR7 personnel will be able to serve on boards hearing cases only where the defendant is of the same or a lower rank.

The new rule will allow for one OR7 on a six-member board. This means that on any six-member board, there can be no more than two warrant officers, or one warrant officer and one OR7. For three-member boards, there can be either one warrant officer or one OR7. We believe that this balance of rank will ensure that the board has a broad range of experience and perspective on which to draw during their duties.

As I said, three of these four rule changes were recommended to the department by His Honour Shaun Lyons, a highly respected retired senior Crown Court judge, and the other rule change reflects a sensible business continuity measure for three-member boards. As such, I trust that noble Lords will feel able to support the approach we have taken with this statutory instrument. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, again, from these Benches, this statutory instrument seems wholly appropriate. In particular, bringing service justice closer to the civilian system and the parallels with the Crown Court seem wholly welcome. Obviously, there are reasons why courts martial can be necessary, and some degrees of detail will inevitably be different from civilian courts. However, the more we can have something that looks very much as though it brings parity and a clear sense of justice is hugely important.

I wanted to ask about bringing in senior NCOs. The Minister mentioned the statutory instrument of a couple of weeks ago, when she talked about bringing women in as lay members. To what extent is there a danger that women NCOs could find themselves brought into more courts martial than others? Could that be an undue pressure?

Other than that, there is nothing to do other than to look forward to the review of this measure in a year and, if we remember, to look at it again in 2026, when we have the quinquennial review.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI. We totally support it, because we believe it to be consequential. I have two questions, although she may have answered both, but, for the avoidance of doubt, are the numbers in this SI the same as the numbers from the Lyons review? I think they are but I would value the Minister saying so. I also wanted to ask what an OR7 rank was, because it is not clear from the Explanatory Memorandum. One rule of Explanatory Memorandums is that they are supposed to be legible and understandable by a reader who does not have prior knowledge. It fails on that point, but we now know who it is.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for recognising—it has sometimes been a difficult argument to advance—that the service justice system operates for a specific purpose in a very different environment. I welcome her acknowledgement of that. As she rightly said, we have been trying to ensure that the service justice system draws on the best practice and experience of the civilian justice system and Home Office police forces, to ensure that we are using the best examples and templates that we can find. I am grateful to her for highlighting that.

The noble Baroness asked a fair question about women. I guess that the nub of the question is whether they will have to work harder, as there are fewer of them, and it could place pressure on them. That is a very perceptive question. The change is being introduced in a way that means any impact on women is limited and proportionate. She will remember that the change we have already agreed is that there should be one woman on each board. Because it will impact only on ranks of OR7 and above of women in the Armed Forces, since service personnel below that rank are not eligible to sit as lay members, it is a manageable working proposal. There will be a 12-month exemption for women who have already sat on a court martial board for more than five working days, to prevent women repeatedly sitting on boards. We think we have reached a manageable proposition, but we will monitor the impact of the change—I reassure noble Lords about that—for at least 12 months. If we identify any adverse impacts, we will then decide what action we need to take to address them. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked specifically about OR7 ranks. I gave a generic description in my speaking notes, but paragraph 2.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that

“chief petty officers, staff corporals, staff sergeants, colour sergeants Royal Marines, flight sergeants and chief technicians (‘OR-7 ranks’) can sit as lay members.”

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I apologise to the Minister— I should learn to read more carefully.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble Lord is very gracious. Not reading things carefully is not a charge that I would ever level at him; it has been my uncomfortable experience to find that he reads things very carefully indeed.

The final question that the noble Lord posed was about whether these numbers reflected the Lyons recommendations, and I am told yes—this statutory instrument is as His Honour Shaun Lyons recommended.

I hope I have dealt with the points raised and I commend the instrument to the House.

Motion agreed.

Armed Forces (Tri-Service Serious Crime Unit) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2022

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 October be approved.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument makes a minor consequential amendment to Regulation 8(1) of the Armed Forces (Part 5 of the Armed Forces Act 2006) Regulations 2009. This change is required to support the establishment of the Defence Serious Crime Unit, or DSCU for short. It does this by ensuring that the new provost marshal and service police personnel of this tri-service unit are governed by the same legislation as the existing three single-service provost marshals and single-service police forces. This instrument amends Regulation 8(1) to include any reports prepared by, or provided to, the tri-service Serious Crime Unit to be provided to a person’s commanding officer when referring that person’s case to the Director of Service Prosecutions.

Although this is only a minor and consequential amendment, the original set of regulations it amends is subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that this statutory instrument must also follow this procedure. Other consequential amendments are being made to secondary legislation by the Armed Forces (Tri-Service Serious Crime Unit) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2022, which is subject to the negative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this narrow and consequential SI, which of course we totally support. It gives us an opportunity to have hopefully a final look at this gaggle of legislation that has been necessary to introduce these reforms.

I worry about whether there will be problems deciding what a serious crime is. One can see how it might become defined within a single service, and I am totally in favour of the tri-service unit, but this will involve single-service police forces designating a crime as important for the tri-service specialists. What criteria will be used to decide that it should go to the tri-service specialists? Who will make that decision? To what extent do the criteria differ from those presently used by the single-service specialist units? On personnel, how will the tri-service unit ensure it has the specialist technical capability to investigate serious crimes?

In the Minister’s introduction she touched on civilian involvement. Can she repeat that, for clarity? Does this mean that people recruited from civilian police forces or other specialists will have operational capability? In other words, will they be able to serve alongside military operational police? In those circumstances, will they still be civilian in character?

Having asked those questions, I repeat our total support for the reforms, in respect of which this is one of the last consequential amendments.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions. As all have observed, this is a fairly narrow field of activity; none the less, the questions are predictably penetrating and searching. I will try to deal with them.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked what sort of crimes the serious crime unit will be investigating. I can give some degree of detail, which I hope will be helpful. I should say that it will be generically responsible for the investigation of all serious crimes committed by those subject to service law. It is worth noting that the MoD working definition of “serious crimes” is not the same as that contained in the Serious Crime Act, which I think was at the heart of the question posed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig.

So to clarify, serious crime for the purposes of the DSCU is an offence listed under Schedule 2 to the Armed Forces Act 2006, an offence committed in proscribed circumstances, or an offence under Section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 for which the corresponding offence under the law in England and Wales is indictable, or any other offence which may not be dealt with at a summary hearing by a commanding officer. This essentially captures most criminal offences, which are triable only by a court martial, and some military offences such as the ill-treatment of personnel in initial training.

Prior to the DSCU standing up, the single services all have a different threshold for how they determine serious crime; as such, getting clear statistics on the full range of serious crimes is challenging. Official statistics for the most serious offences of murder, manslaughter, sexual offences and domestic abuse in the service justice system are published annually. In 2021, there were 239 service police investigations into these offences.

The rank of single service provost martial differs in each service and, as your Lordships will be aware, each is independent from the other and each has no ability to compel the other. But on 5 December, all single service SIB personnel will transfer under the direct command of the provost marshal of serious crime, who will investigate serious crime independently of the three single services and be answerable to the Chief of Defence People and Vice Chief of Defence Staff for the execution their duties. There are agreements that the single service provost martial will assist the provost marshal of serious crime in responding to serious crime in the first instance.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, also asked about governance arrangements. I have alluded briefly to what the line of accountability is. On the matter of governance, options relating to the strategic policing and governance board are being developed to ensure the most appropriate and effective governance mechanism is created for the DSCU and the wider service police.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, rightly pointed out that a lot of this is now tied in with the various reviews—such as by his Honour Shaun Lyons and Sir Richard Henriques. These have been very important contributions to the development all of this. I hope that we are now reflecting the important recommendations and sensible suggestions provided in these reviews to ensure that the system is fit for purpose to deal with these serious crimes, and that we will have the necessary specialisms. I think I indicated in my speaking notes there is now a healthy cross-transfer with the Home Office police forces, the College of Policing and the guidance offered by the Police Council. So there is very good cross-fertilisation of training and professional standards.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, asked specifically about Gibraltar. I did find an inquiry but the situation is a little complicated. I will read out this note only because the question was asked by a lawyer; others will struggle to follow it, but here goes:

“The Armed Forces Act of 2006 originally extended to all the British Overseas Territories and was part of local law but that expired in 2011 in the British Overseas Territories including Gibraltar as a result of a drafting error when the Armed Forces Act 2006 was renewed for the first time by the Armed Forces Act of 2011.”


The Armed Forces Act 2016 corrected this error—I am letting a noble Lord take his seat, as I see that the noble and learned Lord is listening with rapt attention to this—by extending the Armed Forces Act 2006 to the British Overseas Territories once again. But, and this is interesting, Gibraltar was not included because it had instead asked to deal with the issue using legislation passed by the Gibraltar Parliament. Under UK law, the Armed Forces Act 2006 continues to apply to the UK’s regular and Reserve Forces when they are in the British Overseas Territories, including Gibraltar, even if it does not form part of local law, just as it applies in any foreign state where UK Armed Forces are deployed. UK law therefore allows those in the UK Armed Forces who commit service offences in Gibraltar to be charged with those offences. The Armed Forces (Gibraltar) Act 2018 recognises that the Armed Forces Act 2006 applies in Gibraltar, so there is an application but by a rather circuitous route.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down—she probably deserves a round of applause for that last answer—can I press my two points a little further? First, I have this vision of the military equivalent of Constable Plod coming across a crime. Somewhere there must be a process where that crime goes up the chain of command and gets to somebody who says, “This is a serious crime and it has to go to the specialist unit”. Who would that be? The Minister can write to me if it is too difficult to answer now. Secondly, on the use of civilians, will they have operational powers? In other words, when they are working with the military will they have the power of arrest?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. I was not forgetting him and was going to endeavour to address those points. It is the provost marshal of the Defence Serious Crime Unit who is in overall charge, and who will therefore expect to assume jurisdiction over the sort of crime that I detailed to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. I will endeavour to find out more about the mechanics of the structure to see if I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about how this works in practice, but I understand that there are clearly understood lines of communication and information to ensure that the system works smoothly.

On civilians, the DCSU will be staffed and led by service police because, unlike civilian police, they can investigate offences wherever they are committed and use their powers overseas. They are trained and ready to deploy wherever the Armed Forces operate, including in operational theatres. Importantly, the DCSU will have access to civilian expertise by embedding reservists who are police officers in the Home Office police forces. Sir Richard Henriques recommended that the deputy provost marshal be a civilian but, due to restrictions on jurisdiction and operational deployment requirements, there is a need for the deputy provost marshal to be military. However, the DCSU will optimise the use of our skilled and experienced Reserve Forces, many of whom are serving civilian police officers within the Home Office police forces. They will be embedded within the new unit and play a significant role.

Perhaps I can provide further reassurance: the new unit will be independently inspected by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, so there is an overall independence of monitoring. I think that has dealt with the points that were raised, so I thank noble Lords for their contributions.

Motion agreed.

Royal Navy: Conduct towards Women

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we are all immensely proud of our Armed Forces and our Royal Navy, and pay tribute to their work to keep us safe at home and abroad. So it is extremely concerning to read recent reports of inappropriate behaviour, including sexual abuse, on the submarines providing our deterrent. Is the welcome report that the First Sea Lord has ordered into this to be made public? What is the timescale for that report and what is its remit? The recent survey by Sarah Atherton MP showed thousands of women had endured bullying, harassment or intimidation. How are the Government building the confidence needed in both the Royal Navy and our Armed Forces in general so that women have confidence in the system when they do come forward?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. As indicated, when these very serious allegations surfaced, the First Sea Lord acted immediately to express his profound concern and order an investigation. My understanding is that the investigation commenced on 24 October. There is a scheduled date of completion of 18 November, with the caveat that there is complicated work to be done. Helpfully, the complainant is, I think, prepared to appear before the inquiry. To reassure your Lordships, the investigation will include an individual from outside Defence, who is currently being selected for his or her independence, probity and integrity, who will be alongside that investigation.

On the House of Commons Select Committee report, I have regarded that as a pivotal influence in the MoD as to how we respond to behaviours within the Armed Forces. To reassure your Lordships, the committee made in total 53 recommendations and conclusions, and I am delighted to say that the MoD has accepted 50 of these. There were three that it did not accept on a matter of policy. We are busy implementing and have already substantially implemented these recommendations. We made an update report to the committee in July, and I will appear before the committee next Tuesday afternoon to further confirm the MoD’s position. Great progress has been made, but that does not in any way diminish the sense of horror when we read of allegations such as those which have surfaced.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Atherton report suggested that 62% of women in the Armed Forces who replied had experienced bullying, sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape or some form of harassment or discrimination during their military careers. It is good to hear that the MoD has responded to many of the recommendations of the Atherton report, and the Minister’s response in the House of Commons to Tobias Ellwood on the Question about the Navy does say that this is an historic allegation. Could the Minister reassure the House, and any women currently serving in the Armed Forces, that they are not at risk of rape or other serious crimes—because the legacy is not good?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. I think it is important to remember that nearly 90% of the respondents to the committee would recommend the Armed Forces to other women. I found that reassuring, but that is no reason for complacency on the part of the MoD. I can say to the noble Baroness that over the past year, since we responded to the Select Committee report, enormous changes have been introduced: we have zero-tolerance policies on sexual offending—people will be discharged if they are convicted; we have a zero-tolerance policy on behaviour below the criminal threshold—if they are found guilty of unacceptable sexual behaviour, there is a presumption of discharge; we have also dealt with the issue of instructors and trainees—any sexual abuse in that relationship leads to mandatory discharge; we have also vastly improved the service complaints system.

While it is discomforting for the MoD to see these negative reports appearing, it does mean—and I have first-hand information about this—that women with increased confidence in the complaints system are now reporting behaviour. I welcome that. It may not be pleasant for the MoD to hear about these things, but I would much rather that women had the confidence to bring these incidents out into the open, so we can address them.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, these are obviously deeply serious matters, whether all the allegations and reports in the media are correct or not. Can the Minister reassure the House that the work of the investigating team mentioned in the Statement—and also what she calls the large-scale changes in policy in the defence area in the last year—are really going to lead to meaningful, lasting and decisive change?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I very much hope that they will. I have described to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, where the teeth are in a lot of the changes that have now been made. There are real repercussions for miscreants now if they transgress and fail to observe the high standards of behaviour that we expect. But perhaps helpfully—to reassure my noble friend—we are in fact now publishing the annual reports on sexual complaints within the Armed Forces. We published in March of this year the single service sexual harassment surveys. We have also instigated a D&I programme to monitor and measure the efficacy of our initiatives, to make sure that they are delivering. In April of this year, we mandated climate assessments across Defence, and that is to try and ensure—as my noble friend rightly identifies—that the changes we are making are delivering the improvements we hope.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will recollect that, in the interim report into the behaviour of the Met police, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, revealed that hundreds of police were getting away with breaking the law and with misconduct. The reason for that was largely because, despite the importance of patterns of behaviour to the investigation of sexual predators and other alleged offenders, the misconduct procedures in the police force deliberately ignored patterns of behaviour and dealt with each allegation separately. They therefore could not corroborate each other. Can the Minister give us the assurance that the military misconduct and disciplinary procedures do not proceed on that basis—because it is a deliberate loophole to protect the institution?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the dramatic change which has been taking place within the MoD, leading to changes of policy and legislative change, has been accompanied by leadership training and education. One reason why women are now prepared to come forward is because, in improving the complaints system, we have introduced an independent route separate from the chain of command. Women now feel a confidence not just in reporting but because the system is robust and will deliver them a result and something will be done. I very much hope that, with the climate assessments mandated across Defence, any pockets of behaviour that were emerging and looked unacceptable would be rooted out and we would become aware of them. The system certainly is there to improve that transparency.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, when I was working at the Ministry of Defence in 2011, the First Sea Lord came to see me, wanting to lift the ban on women serving in submarines. I said that I was not sure it was a totally good idea to put men and women in the very confined space of a submarine, but he explained that the problem was that they could not get enough male volunteers. It was as simple as that. Most men and women on submarines do an excellent job. They are not guilty of harassment. It is a very difficult job. I ask noble Lords to imagine being confined in a metal tube under the sea for three months at a time on some occasions. They deserve our respect and gratitude. Can my noble friend please pay tribute to the majority of submariners, male and female, who serve us day in, day out, on the continuous at-sea deterrent? Of course, we must support the Royal Navy investigation to stamp out this activity, but the majority of people in the Submarine Service are doing a damn good job.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that very helpful observation. I am sure that we all join him in praising the work of the great majority of submariners. To introduce a little perspective to this, before these recent allegations surfaced, for its own information the Navy launched a conduct and culture review, to get a sense check of any current issues within the Submarine Service. That review is being led by Colonel Tony de Reya, a Royal Marine who is head of the Royal Naval conduct cell, and which will report by the end of the year. I end by saying that HMS “Artful”, an Astute submarine, is a finalist in the inclusive team award for the Women in Defence UK Awards 2022. That reaffirms my noble friend’s important point that very good things are happening in our submarine service.

Estonia: UK Troop Levels

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s troop levels in Estonia.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK has worked in close partnership with Estonia to ensure that our force posture is correctly calibrated for the current security climate. We will continue to collaborate with Estonia on an enduring basis to implement the commitments offered by the UK at the NATO Madrid summit, and to ensure that our troop levels are commensurate with Estonia’s NATO security needs. The implementation of our summit commitments will increase the overall capability of our forces in Estonia.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that the number of UK troops in Estonia is being halved? Estonia is a key NATO ally, on the front line of NATO and its border with Russia. Therefore, is it any wonder that the Estonian Government are extremely disappointed with us, with their Foreign Minister telling our media that this is an issue of existential security for Estonia? As we are a senior member of NATO, and given Estonia’s need for and call for existing UK troop levels to be maintained, is it not time for a rethink, given that Estonia’s security is our security?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble Lord will be aware that the second battle group currently deployed was always designed to be temporary. It was placed there at the start of the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. The noble Lord will also be aware that we are enhancing the lethality of the permanent EFP battle group, so we will maintain divisional level assets in country, we will augment these with episodic deployments of battle-winning capabilities, we are enhancing our EFP HQ, which will be led by a brigadier, and we are committed to the development of Estonian national divisional C2. So the overall commitment by the UK is being enhanced and strengthened.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, it was reported last week that Russia had carried out simulated nuclear drills. Do our troops in Estonia have NBC protective clothing and equipment available to them? In the event of the use of a Russian nuclear weapon, has NATO spelled out specific retaliatory actions and do any of them involve the use of British military personnel?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble Lord will be aware that the attitude of NATO, and of the United Kingdom and our allies, is to invite Russia to de-escalate this rhetoric. Frankly, it will be destabilising and unhelpful if it continues to be intensified. The noble Lord will also be aware that, in connection with our overall commitments to NATO and the contribution we make not just to the enhanced forward presence but to equipment and personnel support, we will ensure that our troops are equipped appropriately for whatever task might confront them.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom has a long-standing relationship in defence in that region, particularly with Norway. Will we co-operate with our Nordic and Baltic partners to make it quite clear to Russia that any incursion in any of the Baltic states is unacceptable, and that part of that must be to keep a substantial military presence in the Baltic states, which of course include Estonia, where we have a particular interest?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I reassure my noble friend that we work closely with our friends in the Baltics, not least in Norway and Sweden and with our other presence in that area. He will be aware that, with our NATO commitments, we are very much committed to having a mobile and enhanced lethality in the area. As I said to the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches, that is designed to ensure that, whatever threat confronts us, we are able to play our part in seeing it off.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, we have every reason to support Estonia, having helped it regain its independence in 1922. However, is not Estonia’s immediate, real problem that it is being bombarded every hour of every day by Russian cyberattacks and fake attacks which aim to undermine and demoralise the whole country? Can the Minister assure us that this kind of defence—which, in the modern world, is probably the most important of all—is being thoroughly reinforced by us to enable Estonia to withstand Russian undermining?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

That is a indeed a very important component of the threat that we face. My noble friend will be aware that assisting countries to deal with cyberattacks is, again, part of our contribution to our UK and NATO commitments.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that Britain has won a lot of credit in northern Europe by the commitment that we have made to Estonia? This is a very important part of our NATO commitment and in the modern Baltic states, in Poland and in the Nordic countries, this has been noted. Does she agree that it is not good optics for the UK to so drastically cut the level of its force commitment to Estonia? It is very positive that Sweden and Finland are joining NATO, but does she not agree that there is a risk that they may, in time, take over the lead in this area of commitment to defence?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The intention of Sweden and Finland to join NATO is very welcome. Anything that cements the co-ordination and collaboration of countries with like-minded principles and values in the Baltic area is to be welcomed. Our future force posture in Estonia currently comprises 994 UK personnel, but it will rise to 1,020 when the battle group rotates in March. That is in addition to the enhanced details of capability that I outlined to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, is there not at least a case to maintain the current numbers until the NATO divisional headquarters is fully operational next year?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble Lord will understand that, were we to retain that second battle group in Estonia, it would require significant extra investment and additional temporary winterisation of infrastructure and storage—and, of course, it would have a detrimental operational impact on the overall flexible deployment of the Army. We have a very good relationship with Estonia, as I said earlier. We have a robust and enhanced capability that we are making available to Estonia. I think that is a matter for commendation.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, why does the UK now have the smallest Armed Forces it has had at any point since the Napoleonic wars? Is it really realistic for the UK to play a full role in confronting the threat from Putin’s Russia with Armed Forces of that size?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As the noble Lord will understand, looking back to the integrated review, what became very clear was that the review identified that it is not just numbers we have to talk about but capability, technical advancement and what we equip our Armed Forces with. That now includes sophisticated technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotic activity. There is a whole manner of ways in which we are taking forward our troop presence and the capability of the Army that goes beyond thinking simply in terms of numbers.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend has made it clear that the doubling of the battle group in Estonia was a result of the invasion of Ukraine. Now that it has been halved, does this mean that the risk to Estonia has been reduced?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My noble friend will be aware that in the MoD we constantly assess and respond to threat as the character of that threat emerges. What we did at the inception of the illegal invasion of Ukraine was to offer support where there might have been a vulnerability. It is important now, in conjunction with NATO and our other allies in the Baltic area, to work sensibly to collaborate—but nothing in any way diminishes our commitment to support that area.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her well-deserved reappointment as Minister of State in the defence department—even though she is very good at putting me in my place when I am trying to cause trouble. Today I have a very serious question in relation to Lithuania. She will understand the problems with Kaliningrad and Belarus effectively surrounding Lithuania, and the line in between potentially creating problems. Can she tell the House what discussions the UK Government have had with other Governments about what we can do to make sure that Lithuania as well as Estonia is protected?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments. I sometimes feel that when he offers polite and complimentary remarks to me I should count my fingers afterwards—but I absolutely take his remarks in the spirit in which they are given, for which I thank him. It is a serious situation, and how we address the threats confronting Lithuania is all part of the overall NATO and UK approach to the Baltic area. We do not in any way seek to underestimate or diminish the threat confronting Lithuania, but I think that with the NATO summit plan that was announced back in the summer of this year, with the commitments being made by the individual NATO partners, not least the United Kingdom, we are offering up a very strong reassurance to the Baltic countries that help is to hand if they need it.

Ukraine

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to repeat a Statement made in the other place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Ben Wallace, on Ukraine. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Deputy Speaker, with permission I would like to make a Statement on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

We are now 239 days into the operation that President Putin planned to conclude within a month. Active Ukrainian offensive operations continue in the north-east, near Svatove, and in the Kherson region in the south. If Ukraine successfully advances on Svatove, a key road and rail junction, it will constitute another severe blow to the logistical viability of the northern sector of Russia’s Donbass front.

Yesterday, the new Russian commander in Ukraine, General Sergey Surovikin, offered an unusually candid public statement of the difficulty of the Russian position in Kherson, on the right bank of the Dnipro river. Pro-Russian occupation forces have now started to withdraw some categories of civilians east of the river. They claim 7,000 people have already departed, and aim to move another 10,000 a day, though we cannot yet verify those figures. Russia’s limited hold on the west bank of the Dnipro looks shaky. They are likely more seriously considering a draw-down of their forces in the area.

Russia’s ground campaign is being reversed. It is running out of modern long-range missiles and its military hierarchy is floundering. They are struggling to find junior officers to lead the rank and file. Meanwhile, their latest overall commander has a 30-year record of thuggery marked even by the standards of the Russian army. What will worry President Putin is that the open criticism is inching closer and closer to the political leadership of his country. Russia has strong-armed Belarus into facilitating its disastrous war, but the newly announced ‘Russian-Belarusian Group of Forces’, supposedly to be deployed in Belarus, is unlikely to be a credible offensive force. It is far more likely that Russia is attempting to divert Ukrainian forces from their successful counteroffensives.

As Russia’s forces are pushed back, they are resorting to directly striking Ukraine’s critical national infrastructure, especially the power grid. It should be noted that these facilities have no direct military role, but the impact is multiplying the misery of ordinary Ukrainian citizens. Notably, these strikes are partially being conducted by loitering munitions—so called kamikaze drones. Despite Tehran’s denials, these weapons are being provided by Iran, another sign of the strategic degradation of Russia’s military.

In the wake of these ongoing and indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure, the UK continues to give air defence missiles to Ukraine. We are proud to be the second-largest donor of military equipment, and last week I announced that the UK would be providing additional air defence missiles to Ukraine to defend against Russian missile strikes. These include AMRAAMs—air-to-air missiles—which, used in conjunction with the NASAMS air defence system pledged by the United States, are capable of shooting down cruise missiles. We continue to provide sophisticated electronic warfare equipment which gives additional protection against long-range drones and missiles.

Supporting Ukraine remains the Ministry of Defence’s main effort. We are helping Ukraine to replenish its stocks to keep up fighting. As winter approaches, we are developing a package to support Ukrainians through the winter, including 25,000 sets of winter clothing, so that they are more effective on the battlefield than their poorly trained, badly prepared and ill-equipped Russian counterparts, many of whom have been mobilised at short notice with little training, equipment or preparation.

As part of Operation Interflex, we are also continuing to train Ukrainian recruits in the United Kingdom alongside our Canadian, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Lithuanian, New Zealand, Norwegian and Swedish partners. We have so far trained over 7,000 soldiers and are currently on track to train 10,000 by the end of the year, with up to 20,000 to follow in 2023.

Furthermore, we have worked with allies and partners to establish an international fund, which will ensure a continued supply of essential lethal and non-lethal military support to Ukraine, as well as manufacturing capacity. To date, we have received pledges totalling approximately £600 million and continue to work with international partners to secure further funding. Today, we will launch the first urgent bidding round to identify and procure critical capabilities which can be rapidly deployed to Ukraine.

I would also like to share with the House details of a recent incident which occurred in international airspace over the Black Sea. On 29 September, an unarmed RAF RC-135 Rivet Joint civilian ISTAR aircraft on routine patrol over the Black Sea was interacted with by two Russian armed Su-27 fighter aircraft. It is not unusual for aircraft to be shadowed and this day was no different. During that interaction, however, it transpired that one of the Su-27 aircraft released a missile in the vicinity of the RAF Rivet Joint, beyond visual range. The total time of the interaction between the Russian aircraft and the Rivet Joint was approximately 90 minutes.

The patrol was completed and the aircraft returned to its base. In the light of this potentially dangerous engagement, I have communicated my concerns directly to my Russian counterpart, Defence Minister Shoigu, and the Chief of the Defence Staff has also communicated his concerns to Moscow. In my letter, I made it clear that the aircraft was unarmed, in international airspace and following a pre-notified flight path. I felt it was prudent to suspend these patrols until a response was received by the Russian state.

The reply by the Russian Ministry of Defence on 10 October stated that it had conducted an investigation into the circumstances of the incident and that it was a technical malfunction of the Su-27 fighter. It also acknowledged that the incident took place in international airspace. The UK Ministry of Defence has shared this information with allies and, after consultation, I have restarted routine patrols, but this time escorted by fighter aircraft.

Everything that we do is considered and calibrated with regard to ongoing conflict in the region and in accordance with international law. We welcome Russia’s acknowledgment that this was in international airspace. The UK has conducted regular sorties of the RAF Rivet Joint in international airspace over the Black Sea since 2019, and we will continue to do so. For security reasons, I will not provide further commentary on the detail of these operations, but I assure the House that this incident will not prevent the United Kingdom’s support for Ukraine and resistance to Russia’s illegal invasion.

The UK Government’s position remains unchanged, with consistent support, I am pleased to say, from across the House. We will continue to support the Ukrainian people to defend their homeland, and the rules-based system. It has protected all nations from such naked and unprovoked aggression over the last 75 years; it was also helped and shaped by Russia in that time. This Government will always defend it because these rules-based systems are fundamental to who we are, and provide peace and security for this country and our partners and allies. I commend this Statement to the House.”

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for the tenor of their remarks? It is a great pleasure to stand as a Minister at the Dispatch Box with business as usual. That is where we are at the MoD, that is what we are getting on with, and it would be perilous if we were distracted from that core mission. I want to reassure your Lordships that I have not just a deep friendship with the Secretary of State for Defence, but the most profound respect for him, as I think everyone has. I wish to reassure your Lordships that in the MoD, we consider that we have a vital task. Every Minister there has their head down and is getting on with it.

I will try to deal with some of the points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, sought reassurance about our resolve, and whether we will remain steadfast. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, echoed that sentiment. Let me say, without a shadow of a doubt, “Yes”. We have demonstrated our political and national will to support a country in peril and in need, and the victim of a quite outrageous breach of international law with this illegal incursion. We have demonstrated by deed what we are prepared to do by ourselves and in conjunction with NATO partners and with other allies across the globe, as we assist Ukraine in defending itself against this quite appalling and totally unjustified invasion.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said that President Zelensky should be assured. The MoD has very good and close relationships with Ukraine. I am absolutely certain President Zelensky knows we understand that, while our tumult within the United Kingdom is troubling and distracting, to put things into context, the problems confronting him are of a very different magnitude. None of us should ever forget that, living in democracy which we do. Democracies bring ups and downs, triumph and difficulties, but I know that in this Chamber there are persons of all political hues who have seen that at first hand. Our job is to never take our eye off what we are here to do as public servants and try to do that to the best of our ability. I am sure President Zelensky is aware of that.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the issue of defence spending. I can confirm that the Secretary of State is committed to the objective of 3% of GDP by 2030, and I entirely support that objective. He made it clear in the other place, earlier today, that it is not just a question of 1 January 2030 arriving and us looking for 3% of GDP. For it to make any sense whatever, because of the nature of the defence budget and the magnitude of it, there has to be a phased increase. That is what the Secretary of State will fight for, that is what he believes is necessary, and he is supported by his Ministers in that objective. While it would be for any new Prime Minister to put his or her stamp on that objective, I think there is a universal understanding across government of the essential importance of what the MoD does, and the need to ensure that it is funded as required. Otherwise, it cannot do the job it is tasked to do.

On the issue of the power grid and the disruption by Russia of Ukrainian energy supplies—an issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also raised in the context of humanitarian aid—as your Lordships will be aware, a lot has been happening. The UK is providing support for Ukraine’s early recovery through the multi-donor partnership fund for a resilient Ukraine. All of this is extremely important. Through UK export finance, His Majesty’s Government have made £700 million available in financial guarantees to help rebuild homes, bridges and other critical infrastructure destroyed by the war. This facility is part of UKEF’s £3.5 billion capacity to underwrite loans to Ukraine and to support UK businesses exporting to Ukraine with credit and insurance. I hope that indicates to your Lordships that, while the MoD obviously is focused on the delineated area of military support to help Ukraine defend itself, on that wider front a great deal of good work is being down by the UK, and in conjunction with partners. Everyone is cognisant of the need to be sure that there is a sustainable way of helping Ukraine, when this war comes to an end, to rebuild its country.

The issue of diplomatic engagements with Iran was raised. That is for my noble friend Lord Ahmad to respond to, as is it very much a matter for the FCDO. I remind your Lordships that severe sanctions have been applied by both the UK and the United Nations against Iran. We continually review how we can persuade Iran to reconsider what it is doing. I have to say that while Iran may be a problematic country in many respects, historically it is actually one of honourable traditions and pride in its international position. I would have thought it was appalled to see the footage of what these drones were achieving as they were delivered to innocent citizens of Ukraine, and that that might want to make Iran consider just where it is in this.

There was an important question on whether we can keep providing equipment. Yes, and not only have I on previous occasions listed the extensive types of equipment advanced but the Secretary of State, in the Statement I have just repeated, detailed further provisions of equipment, all of which is important to Ukraine’s ability to defend itself.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised Estonia. I can say that the 2nd Brigade—the battle group—was put in at the start of the Ukraine war, but it was only ever temporary. We made that clear and it is being withdrawn, but the fundamental presence remains. It is important to look at this across the piece, in terms of what we are providing to Estonia and in the surrounding countries. We are expanding our national headquarters in Estonia. There will be the balance of a full combat brigade, allocated at high readiness for rapid deployment across the Baltic region. There is an increase in the warfighting capability of our forces already based in Estonia. We are helping with the development of the Estonian national divisional C2 through training and mentoring, while seeking opportunities to embed Estonian staff officers within the UK divisional HQs. We are regularly in touch with Estonia. The Secretary of State spoke very recently to his counterpart in the country, and Estonia is very positive about what the UK is doing there.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, also raised the issue of people being moved by the Russians in the areas referred to in the Statement. I do not have details of where they are going. That is something we shall try to monitor, but it is a serious issue and, clearly, there must be concerns about their welfare and how they are being looked after. He also asked about the phrase used in the Statement of criticism “inching closer” to Mr Putin. By general acknowledgement—recently, the head of GCHQ made a statement in a radio interview about the situation in Russia—the anecdotal evidence we are picking up is that the Russian population is beginning to understand that there is more to Russia’s illegal war than meets the eye. I think many are getting reports back directly from family members; they are finding that distressing and beginning to question what is going on.

On the Secretary of State’s visit to the United States, at this critical time we think it vital that we keep closely and personally in touch with our most important allies, of which the United States is one. I know from speaking to the Secretary of State that the discussions were very constructive and very useful. They were an important opportunity to make sure that everyone understands the backdrop of what is happening in Ukraine. The House will understand that I cannot disclose further information about these discussions.

On the RAF incident above the Black Sea, there is really no more I can add to what I have already said. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked if I was aware of other incidents. I am not, and I think they would have been brought to my attention if they had occurred, but the matter was handled sensibly and wisely by the Secretary of State. The response the Russian Government gave was regarded as professional and, while there is much to condemn about Russia, I have said before that MoD maintain civilised levels of communication with our counterparts in Russia. That is evidence of it but there is no more I can add about the incident.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about China. It is a very important question. We continue to engage with China at all levels in Beijing, London and at the United Nations. We can seek only to influence and make clear to China that we are watching it, as is the rest of the world and whether its actions contribute to peace and stability or fuel aggression. We expect China to stand up for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and uphold its commitment to the United Nations charter.

I have tried to deal with the points raised and I hope I have managed to address the majority of them. I will, as usual, check Hansard. If I have omitted to deal with something, I shall write.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, on this of all days it is a very good thing that we are able to express our national unity behind the Government’s stance on Ukraine. I thank the Minister for the very detailed way in which she tried to answer the questions of my noble friend Lord Coaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

I have two questions. One relates to the inevitable problem of money and the Treasury. Has the MoD concluded its discussions and negotiations with the Treasury on how the armaments that we have sent to Ukraine will be replaced and on what timescale? Do we know that our defences will not be weakened as a result of what we have done? Is there a commitment on the part of the Treasury—especially given the Statement coming up in 10 days’ time or so—to replace all the kit and armaments that have been sent there? When is that happening?

My second point is not an MoD issue. Is the noble Baroness aware of what steps have been taken across Europe with our European friends and allies, and by us, to assist the Ukrainians practically with keeping their critical infrastructure, particularly their power infrastructure, going throughout the winter? I happen to have been in Ukraine in winter and it is a pretty horrific prospect if they are unable to heat people’s homes. What practical steps have been taken to help them counter the threat from Iranian drones?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. In relation to what has been supplied and how we pay when we come to replenish it, the MoD has proceeded on the basis that it will be paid for by the Treasury. That has been a negotiated position and it is one I would expect to be obtempered and to continue.

On Ukraine’s infrastructure, I indicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, some of what the UK was trying to do. As I observed earlier this week, the EU has shown commendable willingness to group together to support the endeavour, discussing with friends and allies how we best make an impact on supporting Ukraine. I reassure the noble Lord that the UK is working closely with the EU on providing Ukraine with military equipment, cyber resilience and humanitarian and economic support—not least with sanctions, energy resilience and countering Russian disinformation. There is work going on. It is perhaps a broader issue than for the MoD, and I am sure it is one that my noble friend Lord Ahmad would be very pleased to take up with the noble Lord.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

If there are no other Back-Bench speakers, I would like to ask a question on behalf of my noble friend Lord Campbell, who is absent from the Chamber. I think he perhaps misunderstood the timing of a Statement repeat rather than an Urgent Question repeat. I believe he was going to ask the Minister whether it would be possible to answer a question that both he and I have raised on a couple of occasions recently about the ability of the United Kingdom to continue to supply weapons to Ukraine and about the supply-chain issues. Clearly, it is something on which reassurance would be important.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I find it difficult to see in the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the demeanour of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, but as a proxy she is very capable. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is concerned and there is legitimate interest in how we replenish, how we fund and how we keep supplying. I can say that we continually manage and analyse our stock of weapons and munitions, so when the Secretary of State makes an announcement, it has been carefully considered before it is made public. We make these decisions against commitments and threats, because we have our own national security to think of.

We also have to review industrial capacity and supply chains, both domestically and internationally, so that informs not just the numbers of munitions we have granted in kind to the armed forces of Ukraine but the avenues of supply. I can say that industry has been extremely supportive in all of this, and, of course, the noble Baroness will understand that the UK does not work in isolation. We of course have discussions with our partners and allies and then we have discussions with the industry suppliers because it is quite a complicated jigsaw, as the noble Baroness will know. It is a complicated jigsaw because there are a lot of pieces that we keep having to make sure are fitting together. I want to put on record that industry has been very supportive. We work bilaterally with industry, but we also work closely with our international partners, as we are trying to make a coherent presentation and to avoid duplicating what one another is trying to do.

Armed Forces (Covenant) Regulations 2022

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces (Covenant) Regulations 2022.

Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have delivered on their manifesto commitment to further incorporate the Armed Forces covenant into law by introducing a new duty in the Armed Forces Act 2021. The Armed Forces (Covenant) Regulations 2022 implement key provisions of the new duty by doing two things: bringing supporting statutory guidance into force; and defining “relevant family members” of service members and former service members for the purposes of that duty.

In the 11 years since the Government put the Armed Forces covenant on a statutory footing, we have seen excellent work across the UK in support of the Armed Forces community. However, there remained concerns that some members of the Armed Forces and their families continued to experience disadvantage when accessing public services, particularly as they moved around the country. This was largely due to a disparity in the level of awareness of the covenant among local service providers. To address this issue, the Armed Forces Act 2021 introduced a legal duty on specified public bodies to have due regard to the covenant principles when exercising relevant public functions in the fields of education, healthcare and housing. These are the most commonly cited areas of concern for the Armed Forces community.

Bodies in scope of this new duty will be required to consider the needs of the Armed Forces community when developing policy and making decisions in these key areas. In this way, the duty will raise awareness of the covenant and its principles, which in turn will help to ensure that members of the Armed Forces community are treated fairly.

Regulation 2 brings into force the statutory guidance supporting the new duty. When exercising relevant public functions, the bodies in scope of the duty must have regard to this guidance, as set out in the Act. The statutory guidance will help these bodies understand what is required of them under the new duty. It does this by explaining the principles of the covenant and how and why members of the Armed Forces community may experience disadvantage, and by providing good examples of mitigating actions.

The covenant principles relate to disadvantage faced by servicepeople, including the relevant family members of service members and former service members. Regulation 3 therefore defines who is a relevant family member in respect of the new duty. Quite deliberately, a broad approach was taken in this definition, as a family group may look very different depending on circumstances, and those outside what might traditionally be defined as family may well be impacted by service life. Where family members are affected, it is usually due to their cohabitation with, or dependency on, a service member. This has, therefore, been used as the basis for the definition, which extends beyond immediate family members.

By assisting public bodies to identify groups impacted by service life, including family members, to whom they must have due regard, the guidance will be a key tool in raising awareness of issues faced by the Armed Forces community, and will help promote better outcomes for them when accessing key public services. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall start with my noble friend Lord Jones’s remarks. He mentioned the reserves and the covenant affecting military families. My son-in-law is an active member of 4 Mercian reserve. He was recently in eastern Europe and will be away again in a couple of weeks’ time. Given that my noble friend Lord Jones mentioned the reserves, I felt I should mention that for obvious reasons.

I thank my noble friend for his remarks. The point he made about Armed Forces Day is well made and speaks for itself. I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, the contributions that they have made to where we are now with the covenant, and the challenging questions they have put to the Government to try to improve it.

We too welcome the regulations relating to the Armed Forces Covenant as far as they go, but before asking some questions I shall remind the Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, did, that there was much debate about the covenant as the Armed Forces Act 2021 passed through your Lordships’ House. Many of us called for the expansion of the covenant to all areas of public policy and for it to apply to the national Government and the devolved Administrations. Alongside that we said that having “due regard” to the covenant should include other areas of public policy as well as education, healthcare and housing, which were outlined.

The Government resisted those calls, and we therefore felt the covenant was a missed opportunity by being too narrow, particularly the failure to place a duty on the national Government in the way that they placed a duty on others. They also failed to define what “have due regard” meant, how members of the Armed Forces community can seek redress if they feel let down and how the covenant is to be enforced. The Minister knows that we welcome the regulations and the new duties they place on specified bodies and persons to have due regard to the principles of the covenant when exercising certain statutory functions in the areas of healthcare, housing and education, but it could have gone further. Having said that, these are important regulations and will make a difference.

I have some specific questions. As some of the responders to the guidance consultation asked, why does the guidance not include prescriptive actions that bodies in scope should follow to demonstrate that they are meeting the duty of having due regard? The guidance notes the value of good recording as a means of demonstrating having due regard to the covenant. However, as the Government themselves note in the guidance that they have published, it is voluntary. Why was there never a statutory requirement to record actions that show and demonstrate that a public body is having due regard to the covenant?

How, therefore, more generally—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in particular, alluded to this—is the covenant to be enforced? What redress is there for an individual, family or organisation if they believe that the covenant is not being properly followed or implemented? As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked—and I will come also to something else mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord—what action will the Government take to publicise their new regulations to ensure that awareness is as wide as it should be?

I completely endorse the position taken by the noble and gallant Lord, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that paragraph 14.1 in the regulations is crucial. In response to the amendments made and the ping-pong that took place on the Armed Forces Act, the Government have said—to be fair to the Minister, she will have argued this within the MoD—that they will come forward in 2023 with a report on how the covenant has operated. I say to the Minister that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and I will be looking quite carefully at how paragraph 14.1 is implemented and how the Government meet their commitments. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, it is a particularly important point.

I come to something that the Minister has explained to me before, but it is important that this is put on the record. Tucked away in regulations will often be things understood by MoD officials and so on. The regulations that we have before us cover England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the British Overseas Territories, except Gibraltar. Will the Minister explain why Gibraltar is excluded from these covenant regulations? Clearly, Gibraltar is extremely important to us as a base for our Armed Forces. It seems a little strange. I am sure there will be a good reason for it —some treaty or other that makes its inclusion unnecessary —but it is important to have it in the record to help those who read our deliberations to understand why that “except Gibraltar” is there.

These questions highlight once again the importance of paragraph 14.1, which basically says that the Government will assess how well the covenant operates with respect to due regard and whether there are other areas of public policy that could usefully be added to the scope of the Act as it is now. We all look to see what happens under paragraph 14.1. These regulations are an important step forward. We welcome them; we just wish they could have gone a bit further. The implementation will be everything.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for what admittedly has been a fairly short debate but not in any way lacking in quality and penetrating questions, which is entirely what I would expect from the contributors. I shall deal first with the comments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. I thank him for his very useful historical context of the evolution of the covenant. It is worth remembering the journey that the covenant has travelled. I accept that progress may at times have been somewhat plodding, but I feel that, in recent years, we have got to a good place. These regulations are the manifestation of the important progress that has been made.

I pay tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for his perseverance in drawing attention to the role of central government and whether it should be brought within the ambit of the covenant statutory duty. I remember that we had informed and interesting exchanges at the time the Armed Forces Bill went through this House. We certainly felt that this was not an issue that should be summarily dismissed as being without merit. Our concern was that we were already biting off quite a lot in terms of what we were introducing in that Bill and in what was to be further covered by delegated legislation, and we did not want to bite off more than we could chew. The provisions now to allow for a review are meant to reassure, and I shall say a little more about them.

The review will consider the roles of the UK Government and the devolved Administrations in conducting the functions already in scope of the duty. It will also consider the extent to which they currently consider the covenant principles, as well as the benefits and costs of bringing them into scope. As the noble and gallant Lord is aware, the reason why I resisted his persuasive blandishments to include the scope of central government in the Armed Forces Act was because we did not think that it was quite within the scope of the original Bill. The Government are responsible for setting the overall strategic direction and national policy but they do not directly deliver the relevant healthcare, education and housing services to citizens.

Let me give your Lordships a little more information on the review itself. Members of Parliament will have the opportunity to assess and comment on the review in the debate on the 2022 covenant report. The Government have been working with stakeholders to establish an open and transparent evaluation process by which to investigate the evidence about whether new policy areas should be added to the scope of the duty; that point was specifically raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who was naturally interested in what criteria might be deployed to assess this. Potential additional functions will be assessed against clear and robust criteria that have been established and agreed with covenant stakeholders in order to provide advice to the Secretary of State, with whom the final decision rests.

To clarify, a blanket inclusion of all UK Government and devolved Administration bodies would not be appropriate to include within the list of specified bodies to which the duty applies because the “due regard” duty applies to specified functions that are precisely defined in law. Due to the broad-ranging work of the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, it would be impractical to seek to define precisely such functions for these bodies.

One of the questions asked by, I think, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, during our debates on the then Armed Forces Bill concerned why the duty was not extended to central government because it has a duty of care to the Armed Forces. However, the purpose of the covenant duty is to raise awareness among providers of public services of how service life can disadvantage the Armed Forces community in accessing key public services. That is why we have focused on these three areas of health, education and housing. As the noble and gallant Lord is aware, central government is directly responsible for the Armed Forces and the MoD has always looked after the welfare of service personnel. As he knows, there are various ways in which the Government can be held to account, from the requirement for Ministers to appear at the Dispatch Box and explain what has been happening to the facility for Members to put down Questions and seek debates. There is a variety of methods available for parliamentarians to call the MoD to account for what it has been doing.

Accompanied by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble and gallant Lord raised the issue of central government. I tried to cover the points that were made in my comments addressed to him. One other point that he mentioned concerned why the guidance refers to those who are ordinarily resident in the UK. The “ordinarily resident in the UK” restriction applies only to veterans. This restriction on veterans is in the Act, which is why it is in the guidance. The guidance clearly says that serving personnel are in scope

“wherever they are located—in the UK or abroad.”

Veterans who live overseas and are having issues accessing public services due to their service career will find that those issues are best raised with the relevant authority or embassy in the area in which they live because such services fall outside the responsibility of the UK Government.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

Mentioning embassies in that sense seems to bring in the possibility of central government interests and the FCDO.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

It may do so, but only tangentially, because the FCDO has a UK government responsibility to UK citizens abroad, which is a standard duty. It is why we have a diplomatic presence, and it is the role of embassies and consulates to assist these citizens. I suggest that that is different from placing a broad duty of care on central government in relation to the Armed Forces Act.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, specifically raised Regulations 3(3)(a) and (b) and the use of the phrases

“is akin to a relationship”

and, similarly,

“formerly akin to a relationship”.

I said in my opening remarks that the attempt to define family members had deliberately been made broad because, as a consequence of service within the Armed Forces, we often find circumstances which confront personnel that will not affect them in civilian situations. We are trying to be as flexible as possible.

The noble Baroness legitimately asks about there being a disagreement with armed service personnel; what if the veteran says, “I think that I was in what was akin to a relationship, and that is why I should get a house” or “be entitled to particular medical support”? It will be for the applicant who is seeking help or a particular service, in conjunction with the deemed provider of that service, to discuss whether they can resolve the matter. The regulations are not meant to be phrased unhelpfully—quite the opposite. They are meant to be as broad as they can be to ensure that this widespread blanket of support reaches as many people as possible.

This brings me to a point pertinently raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about enforcement—the teeth that can apply to this legal duty and how providers operate it. Enforcement is a complex area in general and I will deal with it in detail. Before I do, let me address the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and a final point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on dentistry. That very important issue will come under the health “due regard”, but it will not cover private dentistry, only the public service provider of dentistry services.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jones, for a very positive contribution in which he praised Armed Forces Day. I agree it is an important opportunity to acknowledge our service personnel and veterans. Within my own area of Scotland, it is something we celebrate with great respect, pride and pleasure. I was interested to hear what happens in the noble Lord’s area of Wales, as clearly Armed Forces Day has a pan-United Kingdom appeal, which I am pleased to have confirmed.

The noble Lord particularly raised reservists, and I was interested in his observation that they are perhaps underacknowledged. If he looks at the provisions regarding Future Soldier—the new model for how we see our military, infantry and army going forward—he will see some very exciting opportunities in there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I think I was addressing the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Jones, when we were summoned by Division Bells. I was talking about the role of reservists. Following the important review of reservists carried out by my noble friend Lord Lancaster, some really helpful and interesting virtues were identified. One quite simply is this: we have among our reservists skills that we might not regularly have in the regular Army. One of the desires is to ensure that we can offer reservists a more flexible career opportunity: that is, if we have need of a particular skill and a reservist possesses it, we can draw them in for a fixed period that they can work with and that their employer can cope with. That is why Future Soldier creates a template for an exciting future for our Armed Forces. Reservists will play a critical role in that.

The noble Lord, Lord Jones, also asked about engagement and consultation, specifically the matter of focus groups. The engagement that took place in drafting the guidance was comprehensive. We worked with our stakeholders to develop the statutory guidance, but we engage with a wide range of groups, including the devolved Administrations, covenant partners across government, the Armed Forces community, local authorities, relevant ombudsmen, and the service charity and welfare sectors. That gave us a very broad basis on which to frame our guidance.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

That is a very broad answer. I did ask a specific question, but I know that time is of the essence.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I looked at the Explanatory Memorandum. My understanding is that focus groups are designed specifically to encompass those groups that have an interest and have knowledge. I hope it is clear from the list that I just enunciated to the Committee that there has been very broad consultation, importantly, with the people who know about this, understand it, and have a stake in making sure that it works.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised a number of points, some of which I have already addressed, but particularly the important issue of the statutory duty of “due regard”. As a former lawyer, I well understand why he homed in on what exactly that means. The purpose of the statutory guidance is to help organisations understand and discharge their obligations. On enforcement, the duty we have created does not mandate particular outcomes. It is very important to be explicit about that. That is because it is not within the ability of the MoD to control what the deliverers do, whether they are devolved Administrations, local authorities or health boards. That is not what we want to do. It would therefore be inappropriate for the guidance to include a level of prescriptiveness that goes further than what is already set out in law.

We expect that, by raising awareness, we will reduce disadvantage. We do not seek to penalise or police public bodies because we are not in position to do so, but we do not want to do that anyway; they are autonomous and freestanding, and have their own responsibilities to discharge. If there was a disagreement or dissatisfaction, we imagine that the starting point would be that complaints would be pursued in the normal way, whatever that was for a health board, a hospital, an education facility or a housing complaint. I think that the vast majority of complaints would be resolved in that manner. Certainly in the first instance, any grievance should be pursued through the internal complaints process of the relevant local authority or public body. If the matter is still unresolved, I suggest that the relevant ombudsman would be able to consider the matter if the complainant did not think that the authority had followed its own policy correctly. In our work supporting the implementation of the new duty, we will certainly promote these mechanisms among our Armed Forces community.

As a last resort, and this would be a very heavy hammer to deploy, the opportunity to challenge an alleged failure to comply with the duty would be by way of judicial review. That would obviously be an unattractive prospect to many, but it could well be a legal option available to a class group of people if they were dissatisfied. To take the example of dentistry from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, it might very well be that the provision of dentists is not a problem in one part of the UK but it might be a huge challenge in another. I imagine that if veterans or service personnel in that area felt aggrieved then they could very easily put pressure on, and they might very well have resource to bring a class action. Remedies are there.

It is important to remember that the duty does not require certain outcomes to be achieved, just that these public bodies need to consider the covenant. That will lead to better policy and decision-making in relation to the Armed Forces. I hope that reassures the noble Lord that thought has been given to this and that we anticipate the system being workable and, for providers, deliverable.

Finally, the noble Lord asked me about Gibraltar. I recall—no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong—writing to him about this. My recollection is that Gibraltar is outwith the scope of the Act and not within its jurisdiction. However, it can apply the Act using its own legislation: technically, if it wishes to invoke in respect of its own forces provisions that we have introduced in the Armed Forces Act, it can use its own legislative powers to achieve that. So it is a technical issue of being outwith the jurisdiction of and not encompassed by the Act.

I have tried to deal with the points that were raised. I hope that I have covered them. If I have omitted to deal with anything, I will gladly undertake to write to your Lordships, of course. In the meantime, I thank noble Lords for their contributions.

Motion agreed.

Ukraine: NATO

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours [V]]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they next intend to meet NATO officials to discuss progress in the conflict in the Ukraine.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom continues to engage closely and regularly with our NATO allies as a key part of our response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Secretary of State for Defence met his NATO counterparts on 12 October, where allies reiterated unequivocal support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We will continue to act alongside our NATO allies to counter Russian aggression.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Ministers repeatedly blame the war for the economic crisis, and I agree. Can we have an assurance that with rampant inflation here at home, volatility in the international money markets and millions worldwide, including in the United Kingdom, facing deprivation, there are no circumstances whatever in which the UK would dispatch in isolation, or with others in NATO, combat military forces of any nature to engage in military action in Ukraine? We need to protect the international economy and seek to restrain Russian’s infrastructural bombing campaign before it is too late.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As the noble Lord will be aware, since the illegal invasion of Ukraine occurred the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of assisting the country in defending itself. We have been working closely in conjunction with our NATO partners and with our other bilateral partners and friends within the EU. That concerted effort is the best way, I think, to seek to reject President Putin’s illegal incursion; certainly the resolve of all countries to support the rule of law and respect the right of sovereignty is determined and resolute.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, will the Minister give us an update on Russia’s use of drones yesterday, which caused such devastation among civilian populations? Is there any way we can give additional support to Ukraine to shoot these down? Is it not time that we urgently seek an international treaty on the use of drones, for everybody’s sake?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the consequences of the drone attack on Kyiv have been devastating. I think that everyone has watched with horror as again civilians are targeted, people are killed and others are seriously injured. The right reverend Prelate will be aware that part of the United Kingdom’s support to Ukraine has been air defence systems. NATO, plus other bilateral states, with Ukraine, have been doing their best to support Ukraine in what it needs. We are cognisant of the danger presented by this form of attack by Russia. We are also aware that the equipment supplied to date has been greatly assisting Ukraine in seeing off this kind of threat.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

I think one way of discouraging the use of these murderous drone weapons supplied by Iran is to make it clear to Iran that this could have very serious and disastrous consequences for Iran itself. I want to ask my noble friend whether she would encourage at any such meeting that is going to take place a very careful examination of the changing position of China and foreign policy experts in Beijing. Has she heard reports that China is becoming increasingly worried that its control and influence over Mr Putin is diminishing, and that it is very fearful that he is going to use tactical nuclear weapons? Will she make sure that we make full use of any change of opinion in China? Without China’s support, there really is a good chance that Moscow might change direction.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very important point. I reassure him that the UK continues to engage with China at all levels in Beijing, London and the United Nations to make clear that the world is watching what China chooses to say and do and whether its actions contribute to peace and stability or it chooses to fuel aggression. We expect China to stand up for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to uphold its commitment to the United Nations charter. It has an important role to play and we want to be sure, as a sovereign state, that we keep open the lines of communication so that we can convey the very relevant points to which my noble friend refers.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, as a once young naval soldier in Germany and a former Defence Minister, I fully support western Governments in providing arms to Ukraine. Since membership of NATO involves mutual obligations well beyond this, will the Government publish a paper spelling out the pros and cons if NATO membership is granted to Ukraine?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As the noble and learned Lord is aware, the United Kingdom is sympathetic to Ukraine’s desire to join NATO. We are supportive of that aspiration, in line with the 2008 Bucharest summit declaration. However, at the end of the day, any decision on membership is for NATO allies and for aspirant countries to take.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The right reverend Prelate mentioned the drone attacks yesterday. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on Ukraine of the loss of power—about 30% of power has been lost—and is the West able to support Ukraine to keep the lights on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As the noble Baroness will be aware, the best that we can do, along with our allies and partners, is to support Ukraine in the defence of its territory in trying to see off the barbaric and illegal attacks to which it has been subjected by Russia. The principal concern has probably been the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, for understandable reasons. We welcome the efforts of the IAEA and United Nations staff to be on site, and we hope that will enable a robust inspection to be concluded. We are cognisant of the risk, and we will do everything that we can to continue to help Ukraine to see off the threat.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, the interest of the House in the progress of the military situation in Ukraine is entirely understandable, but can the Minister reassure the House that the Government recognise the two very separate objectives of conflict termination and conflict resolution, and that it is not in policy formulation that we aspire to resolve the conflict through military means alone?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

It has been clear from the outset that our desire—or mission, if you like—was to support Ukraine in its attempts to defend itself against this illegal aggression and invasion of its sovereign territory. That is our role, as it is the role of NATO and other partners. As to the future, and whether the conflict can ever be resolved and negotiations embarked on, that is absolutely for Ukraine to determine.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Was it not one of the beliefs of Putin, following his illegal invasion of Ukraine, that the members of NATO would split and start arguing among themselves? Is not one of the Government’s prime objectives, supported by all of us, that we maintain NATO’s unity in the face of that aggression? Can the Government reassure us that, at every opportunity, they will reiterate that to all our NATO allies?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble Lord’s point is well made. He will realise, from the evidence available to us, that in the actions of NATO members—not only in their regular engagements but at the summit in Madrid and the consequent developments from that, whether it was the comprehensive assistance plan or the development of DIANA, the accelerator for the north Atlantic—there is an absolutely united resolve to support countries that find themselves the victims of illegal activity, illegal aggression and illegal invasion. There is no question that the resolve of the member states of NATO is absolutely steady and stable. We are standing shoulder to shoulder to ward off evil—because that is what we are talking about.

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept that there have been very staunch attacks on civilians and a great number of attacks on hospitals, as well as attacks on schools and stations? When these are all put together, is it not very difficult to try to imagine that these are anything other than crimes against humanity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I have no hesitation in agreeing with my noble friend. We have all been appalled by the barbarism of Russia’s attacks in Ukraine, not least in Kyiv. It is quite clear that deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure are war crimes, and those responsible will be held to account. The ICC, with support from countries such as the UK, is doing a remarkable job in ensuring that crimes are investigated, evidence is gathered and the basis is laid for successful prosecutions.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, what concrete steps have the Government taken in their efforts to restore the stocks of missiles and other weapons which we have generously and properly supplied to the Government of Ukraine?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As I have observed to the noble Lord before, we continually manage and analyse our stocks of weapons and munitions against commitments and threats. We also review industrial capacity and supply chains, both domestically and internationally. These considerations have informed the numbers of munitions granted in kind to the armed forces of Ukraine and their avenues of supply.

Armed Forces (Service Court Rules) (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2022

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces (Service Court Rules) (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2022.

Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

I feel almost Gilbertian in this Gilbert and Sullivan-esque interchanging of roles.

My Lords, this statutory instrument consists of three changes to the rules that apply to the service courts: to provide an overriding objective for court martial, the Service Civilian Court and the Summary Appeal Court; to give the Director of Service Prosecutions responsibility for warning prosecution witnesses of trial dates; and to increase the representation of women on court martial boards.

The first of the measures in this statutory instrument implements a recommendation of His Honour Shaun Lyons’ review of the service justice system, which was published in 2020. The review recommended the introduction of an overriding objective for the court martial, based on Part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Rules for England. A similar rule has been used in the civil and criminal courts in England and Wales for some time. The overriding objective in the criminal courts is that cases are dealt with “justly”, which encompasses considerations such as the need to acquit the innocent, convict the guilty and ensure that cases are dealt with efficiently and expeditiously. The participants in the case are also subject to this duty as well as the court, which assists with active case management. This measure will mean that judge advocates and participants in proceedings in the court martial, the Service Civilian Court and the Summary Appeal Court are subject to similar duties and will assist case management in those courts.

The second measure in this instrument also implements a recommendation of His Honour Shaun Lyons’ review. The measure amends the current rules on notifying witnesses to give the Director of Service Prosecutions, rather than the Military Court Service, responsibility for warning prosecution witnesses of trial dates. This change will align practice in the service courts with the civilian criminal justice system for England and Wales, where the role is performed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Finally, this instrument inserts a new Rule 34A into the court martial rules, which requires the court administration officer to ensure that, if any lay members of the court are servicepersons, there is at least one man and one woman on the board. I emphasise that we are confident that the court martial, in its current form, is a fair, efficient and effective court, which delivers justice for our Armed Forces. However, due to the lower numbers of women compared to men serving in the Armed Forces, the chances of a woman being selected at random to serve on a court martial board are significantly lower than those of a woman being randomly selected to serve on a jury in the civilian system.

We want to redress that imbalance by means of this procedural adjustment, which aims to improve and enhance the representation of women on court martial boards. Rather than it being left to chance that a woman will be randomly selected, this change will ensure that there will always be at least one woman on every board. This will bring the court martial closer to the civilian criminal justice system, so that servicewomen’s voices, experiences and perspectives are part of the decision-making process.

This important change has its origins in a recommendation made in the highly regarded Defence Sub-Committee report Women in the Armed Forces: From Recruitment to Civilian Life. That sub-committee was chaired by the recently appointed Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my honourable friend Sarah Atherton. In the government response to the report, the MoD undertook to carry out work to increase women’s representation on court martial boards related to sexual offending. I am delighted to say that the Government are going further than the report recommendation, as we think it is right to ensure that women are better represented on boards dealing with all types of cases.

I reassure your Lordships that the MoD has very carefully examined the impact this will have on women who serve in our Armed Forces. It is true that this measure will mean that women are slightly more likely to be selected to sit on a court martial board than currently. The total number of women required to populate all three services’ boards is 192. This is an increase of 48 more women per year than the current 144, and is 4.2% of the population of women eligible to sit on a court martial board, due to rank and seniority requirements. The total number of men required to populate the three services’ boards would be 672, which is 1.7% of the population of men eligible to sit on a court martial board.

This difference, however, will not result in women being treated less favourably than men. Service as a lay member of a board lasts only around two weeks and is a normal part of the duties of any senior NCO or officer. It can also be useful experience for future command, as commanding officers play a key role in the service justice system. To mitigate the risk of the same women being selected repeatedly, we will also introduce an exemption of 12 months for those women who have already sat on a court martial board for more than five working days.

We believe that increasing the representation of women on court martial boards ensures that they are always part of the decision-making process in service justice. It will better reflect our society and reinforce the important role that servicewomen have, not just in our Armed Forces, but in the service justice system. I beg to move.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, in supporting this draft SI and accepting that revision is not an option, I still have a couple of points to raise. The overriding objective introduced in all three types of service court seems, on first reading, to be almost entirely motherhood and apple pie, or should almost be taken for granted as sound administration. But I accept that, in the legal world, it is perhaps better to have every likely “i” dotted and every possible “t” crossed. It also follows a recommendation of his honour Shaun Lyons, whose knowledge and expertise in service law and procedure is well recognised and respected. It is right, therefore, that this new section is inserted.

However, I noted, although the accompanying memorandum does not mention it, the extra Rule 3A(2)(h)(v), which is not in the criminal court’s rules. It reads,

“the need to maintain the operational effectiveness of Her Majesty’s forces.”

I imagine some printing amendment will replace “Her” with “His”, but this raises the question of who decides. Presumably the Defence Secretary is responsible for such a judgment, but can he tell a court marital what to do? It may be so unlikely that the situation never arises; in which case, why put it in at all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, once again we have had an interesting debate. In many respects this has been a more technical SI than the earlier one, but none the less, it has generated points of interest and I will do my level best to address them.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, raised the very important issue of who decides. This duty created by the instrument to consider operational effectiveness is vital, and the noble and gallant Lord was good enough to indicate to me where his area of concern lay. I have tried to do some research into it, and I will try to deal with the points that he raised.

It will be for the judge advocate alone to decide what should or should not be done to take account of the need to maintain operational effectiveness. However, it is important to put this provision in context. The overriding objective is that cases be dealt with justly. Some slight mischief was articulated about this being motherhood and apple pie. The essential components are good, but that is because we are replicating what already exists in the civilian criminal justice system, and it works. I make no apology for transporting that into our court martial procedures because I think these are virtuous and will greatly improve our court martial system.

The reference to operational effectiveness does not change the overall objective that cases be dealt with justly. Nor does it affect in any way a defendant’s right under Article 6 of the ECHR. It is there to recognise that the services courts deal with cases where defendants, board members and witnesses will generally be services persons, who will often have other important and sometimes unpredictable commitments.

The role will give judge advocates the flexibility to take this into account. The kind of scenario where we expect it to be relevant would be, for example, where the date of a trial might need to be brought forward or, indeed, delayed, or a witness might be allowed to give evidence via live link. Certainly, I reassure your Lordships that the Judge Advocate-General was consulted and agreed with the use of the phrase “operational effectiveness” in the context of this change.

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for raising an important point. I have tried to address it. The fact that the Judge Advocate-General is content with the position I think provides significant reassurance.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

Just to be clear, is the Minister saying to the Committee that the Judge Advocate-General has the say and, regardless of whether the Secretary of State agrees with him, the Judge Advocate- General wins?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

That is what I am saying. Indeed, I add to that by observing that it would be profoundly undesirable if the Secretary of State, as a government Minister, were getting involved in the discharge of justice under what should be an independent criminal justice system, albeit within the services justice environment. It would be most undesirable for the Secretary of State to get involved. The Judge Advocate-General alone will decide what should or should not be done to take account of the need to maintain operational effectiveness.

I think I have dealt with the commentary of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about why this is phrased as it is. It is not some cosy set of aspirations; it really is intended to deliver what has been working well in the civilian criminal justice system and to try to ensure that our services criminal justice system benefits from that. I thank her for her observation about the absence of her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is, of course, always a welcome presence in these debates where legal issues arise. I am sure that he would have had some pithy observations to make on the technical content of the Sis, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for confining her remarks to general observations.

The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked some specific questions, including how often the board sits. Court martial boards sit in assizes of two weeks with 24 periods in any year; that is, 48 weeks a year. The noble Lord also asked whether the measure of extending female representation on the court martial board should be extended to the judge advocates. There is a mix of men and women judge advocates now; we have both men and women. The role is being introduced to align better with juries where women are represented in civilian courts, but there has been under-representation in the analogous role within the services justice system.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his kind remarks about the SIs and where we have got to in delivering improvements for Armed Forces personnel. I particularly noted his phrase, “commend the Government”. It is certainly not something I have been hearing very regularly in recent times, and I thank him for that. On his reference to Article 6 of the ECHR, the MoD has consistently shown a desire to comply with human rights legislation and conventions, and the convention is an important part of the framework within which we operate; hence the various references to Article 6 throughout the SIs.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, also asked about the composition of a court martial board in general; I think that his question related to lay personnel. This measure will have an impact only on women in the Armed Forces at ranks of OR7 and above. To help your Lordships, I asked for clarification on this. In the Royal Navy, the rank of OR7 is chief petty officer; for the Royal Marines, it is colour sergeant; for the Army, it is staff colour sergeant; and, for the Royal Air Force, it is flight sergeant/chief technician. Service persons below that rank are not eligible to sit as lay members. Eligibility is currently set at OR8 personnel but from January next year it will be OR7. We are broadening the scope in the hope that this will facilitate the presence of more women. Also, as I said, there will be a 12-month exemption for women who have already sat. That is important, because it is a sizeable chunk out of otherwise operational time. If any woman has sat on a court martial board for more than five working days, this provision will prevent them repeatedly sitting on boards.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

This is a really important point, which, as I said, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I were discussing. If somebody outside this Committee read our proceedings and saw the word “lay” they would assume that these people are members of the public, even though the instrument deals with non-service personnel and the military courts. The Minister putting this on the record is quite helpful for those who read our proceedings to understand exactly what we are talking about.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. We are sometimes guilty of using vocabulary in the environment with which we are all familiar. These are lay members who are not legally qualified; they sit as a presence roughly comparable to a jury. The noble Lord is right that they are “lay” not in the sense of any members of the public coming in but in the sense that they are in the Armed Forces and not legally qualified.

I have tried to address the points that were raised; I hope that I have managed to do so. I thank your Lordships for your contributions. This instrument takes us another step forward in making our service justice system stronger, better and fairer.

Motion agreed.