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

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Craig of Radley

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument has a very narrow purpose, but I am content with the detail. As the Minister indicated, it follows from the review put in hand as preliminary work for the Armed Forces Act 2021. I do not recall what assessment was made of the average number of serious crime cases for investigation in the Armed Forces that might arise in, say, a 12-month period. If the Minister has a figure, it would be helpful to have it on record.

There would appear to be some flexibility available to the new provost marshal in how much to draw on additional help within the single-service establishments to match the level and complexity of any investigation he has embarked upon. Am I right in assuming that he would be able to insist on the level of single-service effort he requires always being made available? In other words, is he senior in rank and status to his single-service equivalent? Indeed, is it ever contemplated that he might be a civilian on contract? In the service environment, the importance of the chain of command needs to be upheld, and in that context I was pleased to note that the new provost marshal is required to inform the accused’s commanding officer. I raise these points to allow the Minister to expand a bit more on these details relating to this important new post and unit.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, just said, this is a very narrow statutory instrument. It is perhaps surprising that its debate has such a wide audience. On the defence side of things, we are quite used to either having Statements right at the end of business or discussing SIs in Grand Committee, where there are usually about four of us. It is important that your Lordships contribute to, listen to and are part of discussions about defence, because they are so important—but the two SIs today are both narrowly focused on service justice.

Normally I would delegate all this to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who unfortunately is not here today. In his absence I welcome the statutory instrument and note that it very much fits with the reviews we talked about on various occasions when looking at the overseas operations Bill, when the Minister repeatedly said that the Henriques report will say or do whatever. That is obviously part of this decision, as is the Lyons review.

Paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that the defence serious crime unit should

“bring together the Special Investigations Branches of the Royal Navy Police, Royal Military Police and Royal Air Force Police”.

It then adds,

“along with specialist investigative support.”

Building on the noble and gallant Lord’s questions about availability of support, can the Minister indicate what sort of additional support might be available? Beyond that, we on these Benches are content with the SI.

Armed Forces (Covenant) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Craig of Radley

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, this is a very detailed piece of work, all 73 pages of it, and I commend the efforts and industry of all those involved in preparing it for publication. But this covenant concept had its origins as far back as 2000, and even before; it was very much championed in the mid-noughties by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, when he was Chief of the General Staff.

In 2007, the Government recognised that all three services should be considered. They produced a Command Paper, CM 7424, dated 1 July 2008, The Nation’s Commitment: Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans. It opened with an enthusiastic message of intentions and promises, signed by the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown. However, in spite of the Command Paper’s promising title, his Government stopped short of legislation and sought to encourage local authorities, service charities and private businesses to participate voluntarily. It took the incoming coalition Government, while encouraging the voluntary approach, to introduce a statutory mention when updating the Armed Forces Act 2006.

As someone who has tabled or supported amendments about the covenant in the relevant 2011 Act, and in subsequent quinquennial updates of the 2006 Act, I have become somewhat involved with pushing the covenant’s progress and development through statute. But one needs a surgeon’s magnifying spectacles to discern the glacial progress, over a quarter of a century, to get even as far as today’s incomplete commitment. In 2011, all that the Government proposed was a minimalist inclusion in statute. It was to add a single-line clause requiring just an annual report to Parliament under a heading “Miscellaneous” in an identically named “Miscellaneous Part”, near the back end of that 350-page Act and immediately following Section 359. That section pardoned World War I servicemen executed then for disciplinary offences, recognising these deceased veterans as victims.

As a result of my objections, and following negotiations with Ministers in the Summer Recess, a new Part 16A headed “Armed Forces covenant report” was created. This gave the covenant the greater visibility it deserves in legislation. However, the Government then resisted my suggestion at the time that the central heading should be “Armed Forces covenant” and not “Armed Forces covenant report”. I was quietly amused to note that the Government introduced that semantic change in their amendments last year.

I was also pleased to see reference in paragraph 14 of the Explanatory Memorandum to my specific amendment which ping-ponged last December, leading to the Government’s undertaking to complete a report on the operation of the covenant duty next year. In particular, it will consider whether central government and any of its functions could usefully be added. The noble Baroness will need no reminding of the importance that I attach to this aspect of the review.

I was also struck that in paragraphs 1.31 and 1.41 of the statutory guidance, in section 1J and headed “the Armed Forces community”, “veteran”, when applied to former members of the Armed Forces, meant that they were in scope of the duty only if they are ordinarily resident in the UK. I accept, as a consequence of those authorities listed to exercise this duty all being those which have no overseas function, that that is true. But at all costs it must not be turned on its head and misconstrued as suggesting that classification as a veteran depends on being ordinarily resident in the UK.

Looking to the future, if central government were to have this duty, as I hope, a veteran and former member of His Majesty’s Armed Forces who has chosen to live abroad must lie within central government scope. Attempts to define veterans by location are wrong and would be better avoided. Even the definition used in the guidance is unfortunate if it causes confusion or upset to veterans, wherever they live. There is a duty of care to those who have served in the Armed Forces and retired—in agreed language, veterans. They must never be geographically shut out of the approved scope of that duty, to which they become entitled by statute; I hope that the Minister agrees. However, I support the SI.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to rise after the noble and gallant Lord, who brings a wealth of expertise to this afternoon’s debate on this statutory instrument. Like him, I am pleased to see the guidance and to have this opportunity to discuss the instrument. Also like him, I note that there are still some gaps in the legislation.

As I read through this statutory instrument, my mind turned back in particular to the 2021 Act and the fact that, at various points during its passage, many of the noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords who rose to speak asked about the role of central government. Although we acknowledge the importance of imposing duties on local authorities, I believe there is still a question about what duty we put on central government. At the moment, the legislation talks only about consultations with the devolved Administrations and certain departments: the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Obviously, that speaks to the three core aspects of the duties—education, healthcare and housing—but what thought have the Government paid to whether those duties should be widened to central government more generally? I ask this precisely because, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, pointed out, to the extent that the duties and benefits of the Armed Forces covenant relate to veterans, they should not be determined by their geographical location. It is wholly wrong to give somebody rights only if they are resident in the United Kingdom. If they are veterans who have served with His Majesty’s Armed Forces, they should be within scope.

Beyond that, I have a couple of specific questions associated with this statutory instrument. It is absolutely right that the Government are taking a broad view of what it means to be part of a family, going beyond the traditional view of a spouse and children of a traditional marriage. There are now many other types of family that would be affected, so that view is clearly right, but can the Minister explain a little more about how the Government would interpret, and how service providers should be expected to interpret, Regulation 3(3), which states:

“For the purposes of this regulation, references to A’s spouse or civil partner includes … a person whose relationship with A is akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners”?


At one level, that might seem self-evident. However, if we are looking at local authorities being requested to find housing, how established does the relationship have to be? How will it be evaluated and what guidance will be given to local authorities when looking at housing provision, for example?

Similarly, with a wide understanding of children, stepchildren and other relatives, we could see quite wide sets of family relations. To what extent will that be considered in looking at housing, for example? If stepchildren arrive every other weekend, should they be taken into consideration when looking at local housing provision? Similarly, how extensive a group of family members might be considered for education and school waiting lists? What are the implications of that?

Regulation 3(3)(b) talks about

“a former spouse or civil partner or a person whose relationship with A was formerly akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners.”

Again, how will that be evaluated? It might seem quite clear cut if somebody was part of an established relationship for 20 years, but how will a former partner who has been divorced, remarried and has not suffered as being part of the Armed Forces family in quite the same way be evaluated when people say, “We think we should be covered under the Armed Forces covenant”?

None of this is intended to sound churlish in any way; it is to probe the Government about how service providers are meant to interpret this. It is right that we should be generous and expansive in the way that we interpret the family, but it is also important that there are no ambiguities in the proposals put forward.

Finally, I could not see anything in the points on healthcare about dentistry. Maybe I missed it, but one of the big issues at the moment is the difficulty of people finding NHS dentists. If that is true for stable members of the population who do not move very much, how much truer will it be of the Armed Forces and their families? Is dentistry included, and if not, could it be?

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Craig of Radley

Report stage
Tuesday 8th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

I support Amendment 77, and I speak to Amendment 78 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Coaker. I am very grateful for their support.

When I returned in Committee to this issue of fixing a date, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, spelt out a bit more fully than had the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, at Second Reading the Government’s position on this long-standing issue. He said:

“I can confirm that the Government will update Parliament … with the aim of implementing any changes by the end of this calendar year.”—[Official Report, 10/2/2022; col. 1965.]


He went on to say that this was not an “in due course” response, which as noble Lords will recognise is the way favoured by Governments avoiding a firm commitment. But is “with the aim of” any more convincing than “with a view to”, as expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, at Second Reading? Neither formulation is definitive; both are woolly.

I recognise that the Government seem at last to be willing to do more than give this issue active consideration, which has been their stated position and what they have been doing for the past six years. Noble Lords will recall that the issue has been raised by Members of both Houses, including by me in meetings with successive Home Secretaries and other Ministers, through Oral Questions and Questions for Written Answer, as well as by some of the veterans themselves over the past six years or more. Against that background, it seemed reasonable to require the statutory time for this finally to be settled and for the loyal veterans who have waited for so long to know by when they will receive the answer to their request.

I had hoped that this Government would not resist this straightforward and simple amendment. However, following helpful discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, I sense that the Government are really on the side of these loyal veterans, some of whom are watching on the Parliamentlive channel as I speak. If the Minister responds to indicate a firm commitment to them and gives a Dispatch Box assurance that the House will be kept informed of that progress, I think that the House will feel that at last there is a positive light starting to glimmer at the end of this long tunnel. If such an assurance comes from the Minister, I shall not divide on Amendment 78 this evening.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support both amendments, and again pay tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for bringing the issue of veterans who have served in her Majesty’s Armed Forces Hong Kong. There are some issues that come back to the Chamber again and again, and they come in different pieces of legislation and are responded to by different Ministers at different times. This is a case in point.

If the Minister is able to give reassurance to the noble and gallant Lord, then so much the better. I hope that even the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, does not think that granting citizenship or indefinite leave to remain to those who have served with Her Majesty’s Armed Forces in Hong Kong will be a dangerous route to go down, and that the Government really will give a sufficient response to Amendment 78.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Craig of Radley

3rd reading
Monday 29th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in thanking the Minister, and join her in thanking her officials for the time they have been willing to take to brief the opposition spokespeople here in the Lords, and to answer questions in private, in Grand Committee and in the Chamber. It has been an important process and helpful to have had detailed responses, particularly on some of the legislative aspects, where my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford is expert and I am not. It has been very useful to have the legal input, and I am grateful for that.

Like the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I pay tribute to the Armed Forces. The Bill is important, and it is particularly important at this time to be putting the Armed Forces covenant on a statutory footing. We have now left Afghanistan—Op Pitting has just taken place—and, for many of our service personnel and veterans, there will be questions about the end of Op Herrick and what we have managed to achieve. For some, there may be consequences with which, I hope, the Armed Forces covenant will help them deal.

I very much hope that the two amendments passed in your Lordships’ House will go through the other place without needing to come back for ping-pong. I suspect that may not happen but, pending that, I thank the Minister again and hope that the Bill is passed as quickly as possible, because we clearly need it on the statute book by the end of the year.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, as one of the sponsors of a number of amendments, I have added to the work of the Minister and her Bill team. I add my thanks to her for the way she has dealt with them. The Bill team, having been faced with a very large number of late government amendments, have done a magnificent job; Jayne Scheier and all of them ought to be thanked very much for that effort. I hope that the Minister will not forget that I mentioned the Hong Kong veterans and have yet to have a decent reply about that. The issue has been outstanding for 35 years, so it is about time it was dealt with.

I hope, too, that the amendments we have sent back to the other place will be accepted. Time is short, Covid threatens and it would be sensible if the Government avoided ping-ponging it in this direction again. I thank the Minister very much for all that she has done on this Bill.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Craig of Radley

Committee stage
Monday 8th November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I do not support this amendment either. Indeed, I fully endorse the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. I do not for a moment question the good faith in and the fulsome support of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Tunnicliffe, for the Armed Forces. However, I believe that there is a concept, of which this amendment is an example, that has been aired from time to time over the past 30 years and more—a concept that seems to have sprung in part from the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s. The concept, or supposition, was that the Armed Forces were “civilians in uniform”, so their treatment, expectations and everything else about their daily lives should be seen and fashioned in that civilian primary context. However, it is a false premise.

I believe that the proposal in this amendment has been floated unsuccessfully more than once since the 1980s. Of course, members of the Armed Forces, like all their civilian counterparts, are human, but members of the Armed Forces have duties and responsibilities unmatched in the civilian environment. The fact that we are dealing with an Armed Forces Bill that affects the lives and well-being as well as the fighting efficiency of our Armed Forces underlines that point in spades. The fact that this Act has to be renewed every year and owes its origins to the time of Henry VIII exemplifies the unique difference in treatment, both in law and more generally, of the Armed Forces from the civilian world of employment over centuries.

Whether on or off duty, the behaviour of service personnel may be much praised, but if they fall short of good behaviour it is their service as well as themselves that attracts bad publicity and opprobrium. The more senior the individual, the greater the public dismay at poor or reprehensible behaviour. Both on or off duty, the service individual has a duty to behave responsibility, and who or what has or should have the responsibility to lead and encourage that? It must be the chain of command.

I have many times in my own experience explained why this is so fundamental to the ethos and fighting efficiency of the Armed Forces. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, spelled all this out in the clearest of terms in her introductory remarks in the first sitting of this Committee. She said, and it is worth quoting:

“It is worth emphasising that members of the military are governed by a more stringent set of rules and restrictions than those of us in civilian life. These rules are designed to maintain discipline and promote operational effectiveness so that they can get the job done. Many of these additional rules and restrictions to which service personnel are subject apply regardless of whether they are on or off duty.”—[Official Report, 27/10/2021; col. GC 146.]


That is worth listening to and remembering.

The regard for an application of such a unique regime must rely primarily on the chain of command. I am not alone in expressing concern and, at times, even dismay at the way in which the chain of command’s uniquely important role has been set aside or weakened, sometimes in the search for more transparent justice. However, no judicial system is perfect. The imperfection is processed and managed by gradations of justice, but that does not make it infallible.

The introduction of an Armed Forces federation, regardless of whether such an organisation could perform alongside the chain of command without confusion, overlap or mismanagement, would once more be to underrate the chain of command’s importance to the efficiency and ethos of the Armed Forces. Indeed, I am not sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, was saying, on what research or examination the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Tunnicliffe, have undertaken in support of this amendment. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce—and, I believe, all chiefs of staff since my day, over 30 years ago, including the present holders of that office—I agree that an alongside federation as proposed in this amendment would be a grave mistake. That body of expert opinion should be heeded. I do not support the amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I fear that the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Coaker, will not have very much support this afternoon. We on these Benches are also somewhat sceptical about the proposed amendment. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said that this was not a trade union, which we would clearly oppose, but it is also not entirely clear what an Armed Forces federation would bring that would serve an appropriate and necessary purpose. We therefore share a lot of the reservations raised by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce and Lord Craig of Radley, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. In particular, what precise problems do the noble Lords believe will be served by having this federation? In particular, in what way can it serve efficiency? Adding another mechanism does not necessarily seem to be a way in which to help efficiency.

The one area where I think something might be useful that would not, I hope, undermine the chain of command is that on some occasions, particularly at times with issues of pensions and pay, there could be better lines of communication. What was fed to me occasionally when I was involved in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme was not that people were saying, “We must have representation and a trade union or an Armed Forces federation”. It was more that they would like to understand better what was going on. So slightly better lines of communication would be welcome.

However, I do not think there is anything in this amendment that will really be necessary or particularly useful. In particular, I have reservations about proposed new Section 333B(2)(a), (c) and (d). What will the Secretary of State be providing on membership, voluntary subscriptions or financial support for this Armed Forces federation? Will those really be useful expenditures? Will they help our security, our defence or our Armed Forces?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment and agree that there is an increasing need for clarity not just today but in the immediate future about the legality of, for example, remote aerial vehicle kinetic operations that involve loss of life, whether military, paramilitary or civilian. Many recent operations have been conducted on an asymmetric footing and not all perhaps with formal, clear-cut international approval. Of course, the right to self-defence is well understood, but how confident are we that emerging technologies in defence weapons systems and their oversight will remain invariably with a human in ultimate control? How it that to be maintained in order to comply with the present laws of conflict as new weapons systems with new technologies are deployed? Are the laws of conflict being overtaken by the possibilities of new types of lethal weapons systems?

Presumably the legality of a remote aerial vehicle operation applies to long-distance control from ships as well as to that from a land base that is remote geographically from the target. Does that base have to be on national territory? What if it is not? What if the operation of the remote vehicle is shared with an ally? How has the operation been approved? What justifications are required for an armed response or for initiating one?

What if the child of a non-combatant civilian accidentally killed by a remote kinetic strike subsequently grows up and seeks to sue the individual or individuals responsible for the control or authorisation of the attack that killed their parent? Will the loss or destruction of any official records of the attack be any sort of viable defence?

As technology moves defence capabilities forward, we will soon enter the era of loyal wingman UAVs and how they interact with their human control. Swarming mini drones are also emerging. There will soon be more, as novel digital technologies are exploited; for example, in the Tempest programme, although I do not have knowledge of secret projects.

The Armed Forces personnel—and this is the key point—involved in kinetic operations exploiting these novel technologies must have absolute clarity about the legal position in which they are required to operate. It is time to know more about how the Government are examining this issue, as I am sure they must be. It is time to be kept informed about the considerations of this complex legal issue as it evolves. Reports from the Secretary of State to Parliament are a must. A review, which should be already in hand, should be reported to Parliament.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I rise as a Liberal Democrat to support this amendment and, like the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to apologise that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is not able to be present in Committee today. He asked an Oral Question last week, to which the Minister responded:

“UK Armed Forces do not use systems that employ lethal force without context-appropriate human involvement.”—[Official Report, 1/11/21; col. 995.]


I was not sure that the Chamber fully understood what “context-appropriate human involvement” was. It was a phrase that the Minister used many times. I wonder if she could elaborate this afternoon a little more on what she meant and whether now might not be the time to think a little more about AI, machine learning and some of the forward-looking issues. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, pointed out, this would be a forward-looking aspect to the Bill. It is surely time for us to think about that, because the ethical and moral questions of people being killed by autonomous weapons that have a life of their own are unconscionable.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Craig of Radley

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

I endorse what the noble and learned Lord has been saying about what was known as Gulf War syndrome. Of course, I was involved in that Gulf War but after it I was also involved for many years in the investigations and the attempts to get investigations into what was known euphemistically as Gulf War syndrome. There was a great reluctance, perhaps understandably in government, to accept that there was something special here. It took a great deal of persuasion, study and effort before it became more recognised. It was that experience that makes me believe what noble and learned Lords have been talking about, and how important it is that the Secretary of State and central Government, in effect, have a responsibility which may need to be discharged in this type of situation. I hope it does not arise again but if it does, it can be dealt with at the central level.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief because we have had contributions from all parts of the House—Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Cross Bench—supporting this amendment. I should be very grateful if the Minister answered the question I asked at Second Reading, which was:

“What assessment have the Government made of creating a duty for themselves to pay due regard to the Armed Forces covenant?”—[Official Report, 7/9/21; col. 766.]


Has the Minister had a chance to think about that so far? If not, would the Government like to think about it ahead of Report?

Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2020

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Craig of Radley

Monday 16th March 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I support this renewal of the Armed Forces Act. In previous debates on renewing the Act, I have taken the opportunity to raise the thorny issue of combat immunity and the failure of successive Administrations to provide clear statutory authority and legal guidance on how difficulties that arise are resolved and on how to avoid difficulties in future conflicts.

I and others have long forecast that such difficulties would arise from the incompatibility between the laws of armed conflict and human rights legislation. The ongoing ways in which human rights issues affecting the Armed Forces have been adjudicated have only added to the problem. It took a considerable time, but the difficulties have been acknowledged by Governments. A variety of promises and even some tentative solutions have been aired, but there seem to be insoluble stumbling blocks. Progress has stalled, although I was interested to hear what the Minister has just said.

There is talk of providing for possible combat immunity if appropriate when conflict starts, but surely that is like a sticking plaster. It might cover the wound, but it will not stop the injury or a festering sore. Surely, we have seen enough examples of the problems that have arisen, whether in the course and aftermath of armed combat and military offensives or in the field of counterterrorism, as in Northern Ireland and Operation Banner there. We must demand resolution. Interestingly, a temporary fix to the Northern Ireland issue involving the Attorney-General was mooted in a weekend newspaper. What do the Government have in mind or was that just flying a kite?

The wider resolution should be to have pre-prepared statutory arrangements considered, thought out and enacted in peacetime so as to be ready to be applied immediately as necessary in conflict. Successive Defence Secretaries have expressed concern, along with their determination to put this right, so I am delighted to hear that a new Bill addressing the issue is on the stocks. Maybe the Minister will be able to give an update, or if not now, by a letter in the Library.

As I have pressed for before, whatever statutory solution is found, would it not best be incorporated into the Armed Forces Act to ensure that the incompatibilities between peacetime humanitarian law and those of armed conflict and the Geneva conventions are resolved, and future incompatibilities thus avoided? A target to do so might be by the next enactment of the Armed Forces Act.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this statutory instrument which, as the Minister has pointed out, is a short but crucial piece of legislation. She has rightly highlighted the importance of our Armed Forces and the crucial role they play both in the United Kingdom and abroad, highlighted by their response to flooding, piracy, terrorism and challenges to fisheries. I realise that I might be going slightly beyond the remit of the legislation, but if we did not have any Armed Forces, they would not be able to do what I am about to ask. Might she be able to say a little about what the Armed Forces might be expected to do in the coming months and years?

We are now being asked to ensure that the Armed Forces can continue for a year. That is clearly important, but this is a year when we may, for example, see Parliament being prorogued. My one question is: given that the Minister said that the Armed Forces would essentially cease to exist if Parliament did not authorise their continuation, what would happen in the event that Parliament were prorogued at a time when such a statutory instrument was needed? Clearly, at the moment we are sitting and able to give our views, but this is an important issue for the longer term. I would be really interested to know to what extent the Government are assuming that the Armed Forces may be deployed domestically in the coming weeks and months. What provisions are in place for that?

Further, what do the Government have in mind for the integrated security and defence review? We were told that it was to take place ahead of the comprehensive spending review but that was all on the assumption that it was business as usual. However, the current situation is far from business as usual.

The Prime Minister has just announced that we should be suspending social contact, and, as far as possible, working from home. It is difficult to see how the Grand Committee could work from home. It is even more difficult to see how most of the Armed Forces could work from home. Obviously, civil servants and Ministers could work virtually when they are thinking about the integrated security review. Is that the plan or is there a possibility that the longer-term thinking about security and defence could be deferred so that Ministers and civil servants can give sufficient thought to what we might require? That is because what we might have expected to be the security challenges if we had been heading towards a review on 30 November 2019 will look quite different on 31 March this year. Are the Government thinking about any alternatives? However, we are obviously very supportive of this statutory instrument to make sure that the Armed Forces can continue at least for the next year.

Armed Forces (Terms of Service) (Amendments Relating to Flexible Working) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Craig of Radley

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the detail with which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has gone into this, particularly the assurance that no individual will be required to undertake part-time service. That is a most important assurance, and I was glad to hear it from the noble Earl’s lips. He mentioned pensions and the abatement of pay. This seems but one part of a story, and each individual who will contemplate it must have the whole picture before he or she is able to make any decision about whether it is worth applying for. I therefore hope that in mentioning the pensions as coming forward, the noble Earl will be able to explain exactly when that is to be available; presumably it must be in the near future.

My only other point may be going into the detail, but perhaps I need a bit of education on the difference between the territorial extent of an application and the territorial application of it. It seems that, for example, in this and in the next regulation there are differences in how this is handled. Perhaps, in replying either to this or to the later debate the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will be able to explain the difference between those two things, because I for one do not quite follow it.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it seems a long time ago that we debated the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act, partly because it was introduced into your Lordships’ House before it went to the House of Commons. I went back to my files and noted that I had talked about the devils in the detail, although I did not come up with that idea first; several Members of your Lordships’ House had talked about that. In particular, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker of Aldringham, said that,

“the devil is going to be in the detail of the regulations drawn up to operate the system”.—[Official Report, 11/7/17; col. 1187.]

It would be fair to say that while on balance your Lordships’ House was supportive of the ambitions of flexible working, some concerns were articulated across the House—I suspect even by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, raised one of the concerns that has just been raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, about whether flexible working would be imposed rather than chosen voluntarily. While it may appear this evening to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that somehow this is a simple Act and that these regulations look straightforward, the reason for wanting them to come through the affirmative procedure was precisely because there were concerns that the devil could be in the detail. There were slight suspicions that the regulations would lead to a situation where flexible working could be required of people in circumstances where perhaps the Regular Forces seem overmanned—that might seem unlikely, but that was the sort of concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt—which was why we thought this needed to come through the affirmative procedure.

The regulations as we see them look straightforward, although I am delighted to see that the Explanatory Memorandum is rather clearer and in ordinary English, for those of us who are not used to reading legislation regularly. I hope that the advice that will be given to service men and women will be even clearer than what we see in the Explanatory Memorandum. The rules look slightly opaque, and to put them into some sort of citizen’s English—even if it includes lots of three-letter acronyms that are much more familiar to the RAF or the Royal Navy than perhaps to the rest of us—would ensure that the information given to service men and women will make them want to look at using these provisions, and would be welcome.

The regulations look straightforward and very much in line with what the Minister outlined to us at various stages during the passage of the flexible working Act. That is perhaps not surprising, because, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, essentially we expect the Minister to listen and to respond. But we do not always know whether Secretaries of State or Chancellors of the Exchequer will manage to do likewise. While it is important that these regulations are discussed this evening, I do not see a reason to do anything other than affirm their progress.