Armed Forces Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th November 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

53: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause—
“Flexible Service scheme report
A Minister of the Crown must make provision to improve the uptake and use of the Flexible Service scheme, for both women and men, and report its progress by the end of 2022.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is based on recommendations in the House of Commons Defence Sub-Committee Women in the Armed Forces report, “Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life”.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Good afternoon, my Lords. I look forward to continuing the interesting debate that we have had on the Bill.

As I know all Members of the Committee will agree, these are extremely important amendments. We can see their importance not only because of the concerns that all of us have raised in Committee and beyond, but because, as we read last week, the Defence Secretary himself has written to Armed Forces chiefs, asking to meet them to discuss his concerns over the progress of the implementation of various recommendations. I understand from press reports today—perhaps the Minister will be able to update the Committee on this—that the Defence Secretary is meeting them to discuss some of the issues raised in the amendments. The BBC says:

“The defence secretary told the BBC it was ‘really important we get the culture right’ in the Army.”


We all agree with that.

The purpose of the amendments is to try to understand how the Government intend to deal with some of the concerns that have been raised and some of the serious issues that various reports have highlighted, including media reports that we have read in our papers, and to move forward on them. The evidence for and recommendations in the amendments are based on the Defence Select Committee’s report that was published just a couple of months ago; it is also the source of some of the data that I will quote and is the basis of the amendment before the Committee. It is therefore incumbent on us to understand what, if the Government say that the amendments are unnecessary, they will do to achieve the effect of the recommendations. Clarity from the Minister on that would be welcome to us all and those outside who read our proceedings.

I beg to move Amendment 53, and will speak to Amendments 54, 55, and in particular, 66B. They are all amendments based on an excellent recent report from the Defence Sub-Committee into women in the Armed Forces. The report stated that it was

“disappointed … with gaps between the many policy documents”

on women in the Armed Forces

“and practice on the ground”.

It added that

“the 2021 Armed Forces Bill”—

in other words, what we are discussing—

“may represent a missed opportunity to address critical issues.”

So here we are with these four amendments, which seek to understand from the Government what has actually happened.

Some of the report’s conclusions were that:

“Services are failing to help women achieve their full potential … barriers still affect female recruitment, including an impression that it is harder for women to thrive there … Within the military culture of the Armed Forces and the MOD, it is still a man’s world. There is too much bullying, harassment and discrimination—including criminal behaviours”,


which we discussed earlier in Committee,

“like sexual assault and rape—affecting Service personnel … Juggling Service life and family life can be hard for all Service personnel, but especially for military women”.

These were the conclusions of that Sub-Committee and are the sorts of things we need to hear about from the Minister. How are the Government going to seek to address them? Nobody would want to read about some of those things; all of us want them addressed. We need a clear plan of action. We need bold and unequivocal action from the Minister in solving these challenges.

In 2019, the Wigston review identified a

“pressing need to reform the Service Complaints system”,

echoing the findings of the ombudsman that BAME and female personnel were disproportionately affected by such behaviours. Wigston made 36 recommendations, all of which the Government, to their credit, accepted. But the question two and a half years on is: where are we on the implementation of those recommendations?

The Defence Sub-Committee’s recent report said that the recommendations in the Wigston review were “positive” but that

“progress is slow, and frequently there is a gap between the raft of policy documents in place and actual practice on the ground.”

Many of us, if not all of us, in the Committee would welcome a statement from the Minister as to how the Government intend to accelerate this progress so that we do not read in another report in a year or two that progress has been made but it is slow.

The most recent Service Complaints Ombudsman annual report found that female personnel were overrepresented in the service complaints system—21%, compared with their representation in the UK Armed Forces of 12%. What do the Government intend to do to rectify that situation? In 2020, female service personnel were disproportionately represented in the service complaints system. Female personnel had nearly twice the rate of service complaints that males had. Although this overrepresentation was found in all categories, it was primarily driven by differences in levels of bullying, harassment and discrimination. The rate at which female service personnel raised bullying, harassment or discrimination service complaints was four times the equivalent figure for male service personnel.

The Defence Sub-Committee made a number of recommendations and we have tabled amendments to raise some, but not all, of the most important of them. Amendment 53 forces a Minister of the Crown to

“make provision to improve the uptake and use of the Flexible Service scheme, for both women and men, and report its progress by the end of 2022.”

Amendment 54 forces the Secretary of State to make recommendations of the Service Complaints Ombudsman binding on the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence, and Amendment 55 ensures that the covenant annual report includes a metric to monitor the experiences of veterans by sex or gender and by other protected characteristics.

I say again to the Committee, to reinforce the point, that these are not my recommendations; they are based on the Defence Select Committee report. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister believes that the amendments are unnecessary and not needed, and, if so, why that is.

Amendment 66B seeks to establish a defence authority responsible for cultures and inappropriate behaviours that is outside the chain of command. Again, this was a direct recommendation from both the Wigston review and the Defence Select Committee. I say to the Committee that we have tried very hard in the amendment to be reasonable and to understand why the Government or others might object to that. That is why we have put that the Secretary of State must review whether it is desirable to establish an independent defence authority. If it is not desirable, why is it not, and why would the things identified in the various Defence Select Committee reports and in the Wigston review and in many other reports, including the experiences of personnel who gave evidence to these various committees, mean that such an independent authority is not needed, and how can the people who have made those significant complaints in many areas of service life be reassured that their concerns can be dealt with and things can be improved without the establishment of such an authority?

I say to the Minister that there may be flaws in the amendment, and the Government might say “Item C doesn’t work with respect to legislation, it’s not needed, it’s not drafted correctly” or whatever, but two or three of us have tried to put these things together without the legal expertise of the MoD, and what they seek to do is represent the spirit of the various committees that have reported, to try to deal with concerns that have been raised.

As I said, the Defence Secretary himself is clearly worried and concerned by the various problems that have arisen and that we have read about in our papers recently. None of us in this Committee would try to justify any of that; all of us would want something done about it. But what I am saying to the Minister is that “We need to do something about it” is not good enough. What is it that we are going to do? What practically is going to happen? What policy changes are going to take place? What sense of urgency is being put in place at the MoD to drive this on?

Clearly, if the Defence Secretary himself has written to defence chiefs to say “I want to see you to understand why there are problems and these problems are not being fixed as quickly as I would want”, this is now an opportunity for the Minister to reassure the Committee that the Government have a grip on this and “This is what the Government intend to do”. If these amendments are unnecessary, “This is why they are unnecessary, because this is what the Government are doing to take into account all the various recommendations”.

I thought the Defence Select Committee report was a very sobering document. I am not a military person, but in any walk of life, if you read that two-thirds of the 4,000 women who gave evidence had experienced bullying, sexual harassment or discrimination during their time in the Armed Forces, it does not matter what the organisation is. It is not an attack on the Armed Forces; it is not an attack if you are talking about this as a Civil Service or as a police force or as an industry. There is something that really needs looking at, to understand how it is possible that of the 4,000 women who came forward to give evidence to the committee, two-thirds reported that there had been a problem.

None of us would want that. None of us condones that: of course not. But the question is, what are the Government doing about it? That is the purpose of the amendments before the Committee today—to try to put some meat on the bones and say “These are some of the ways that were recommended by the Defence Select Committee as ways of helping with respect to this particular problem”. The Defence Secretary thinks there is a problem. I think there is a problem. I am sure that many noble Lords in the Committee think that there is a problem. But we want to understand what the Government are going to do to tackle these very real issues. That is the purpose of the amendments before us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am sure that your Lordships are, as ever, immensely impressed by the noble Lord’s command of this matter. I think he is the only person on the Committee who really understands it and I am very grateful to him. I will look in Hansard to consider all his remarks—and, yes, I do undertake to write to him, because there are serious points in there and I do not have the information before me.

Before I conclude my remarks on this group of amendments, I was saying that the response to the Defence Committee’s report will be significant and I think your Lordships will be reassured by it. I will certainly be pleased to update your Lordships once the Government’s response to the report is published and I might even, I suggest, do a Peers’ briefing on that topic when it is forthcoming.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her response which, as usual, sought to engage with the questions. That is always very helpful to the Committee. In particular, we all look forward to what she mentioned in her last point: she said to the Committee words to the effect that there will be a significant response to the Defence Select Committee report, which we have been referring to. I am sure that the Committee will look forward to that response.

I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for not mentioning that she had added her name to the amendments. I did not mean to be rude. I had it in a note that I wrote to myself but I just went over it, so I apologise for that.

In addressing the specific amendments, on Amendment 53 I wrote that I understood what the Minister had said. I think I nearly understood what the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, was saying. That reflects my ignorance, not his explanation, and it was an important point. I would be interested to see that, but I understood the points that the Minister made about Amendment 53. However, like all of us, I am going to have to reread Hansard a little to fully grasp some of this—and Amendment 54 is a classic example of needing to read it. As I understood it, the Minister said that if the ombudsman makes findings, they are binding; but if they make recommendations, they are non-binding, but that is okay because they can be judicially reviewed. I need to read what she said because, again, the role of the ombudsman is important for us. On Amendment 55, perhaps I need to look again, but I think she said that the Committee will be pleased because the Government are going to go further than is stated in the amendment so, in that sense, more will be done.

Before I make a couple of general points, with respect to Amendment 66B I refer the Minister—if the Committee will bear with me for one moment—to something that I will read. She referred to the Diversity and Inclusion Directorate as one of the reasons that a defence authority was not needed, but paragraph 147 of the report says:

“Although the Wigston Review identified a pressing need to reform the complaints process, the MOD has not fulfilled the recommendation for a Defence Authority, to handle complex BHD complaints outside the chain of command.”

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Browne, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Craig, for tabling this incredibly important and forward-thinking amendment and the ensuing debates around it. As we have heard, Amendment 59 seeks to force the Government to conduct

“a review of the implications of increasing autonomy associated with the use of artificial intelligence … for legal proceedings against armed forces personnel that arise from overseas operations, and produce recommendations for favourable legal environments for the United Kingdom’s armed forces operating overseas, including … how international and domestic legal frameworks governing overseas operations need to be updated in response to novel technologies”.

As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, this was first debated during the passage of the overseas operations Bill and, just like then, it is about future-proofing this legislation as well as ensuring protection for our personnel from the increased risks when using new technology. I understand my noble friend Lord Browne’s concerns about the mismatch between the need to be future-focused when it comes to technology and emerging threats, and the legislation we have in front of us.

Technology is not only changing the kinds of threats we face but changing warfare and overseas operations in general. Clive Baldwin of Human Rights Watch said that

“we are seeing a breakdown in what is the beginning and the end of an armed conflict, what is the battlefield and what decisions are made in which country … The artificial distinction of an overseas operation with a clear beginning, a clear theatre and a clear end is one that is very much breaking down.”—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 6/10/20; col. 67.]

I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on how the Government view this and what changes they have in mind.

The Prime Minister was surely right, when giving his speech on the integrated review last year, when he said that technologies “will revolutionise warfare” and announced

“a new centre dedicated to artificial intelligence”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/20; col. 489.]

and an RAF fighter system that will harness AI and drone technology. It sounds impressive—it is impressive—but, as my noble friend Lord Browne said, as military equipment gets upgraded, we do not know whether the Government necessarily plan to upgrade the legal frameworks for warfare and what this means for legal protections for our Armed Forces personnel.

--- Later in debate ---

There is at least a case to be made for keeping recruitment at 16, but I would like to hear the Minister’s responses to some of the specific questions about mental health outcomes and other questions. If the evidence is overwhelming, clearly we should take that into consideration in any votes on the amendments, but equally we have to bear in mind that people recruited at 16 were not forced into it—they chose to join—so there are questions about what motivated them to join in the first place. That needs to be considered as well.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I did sit down; I apologise.

On Amendment 62, like other noble Lords, I can see no justification for saying that somebody recruited at 16 should be required to stay in for longer than people recruited at any other age. I really have finished now.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a bit nervous of standing up.

I will make some brief remarks, if noble Lords will bear with me. It is somewhat strange for me: my noble friend Lady Massey, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and I have spent years campaigning on children’s rights and on 100% of occasions have been exactly as one on all these issues. I therefore fully understand the proposal outlined in Amendment 61, but I have always been persuaded by the argument that has been put forward: for some young people in some situations, recruitment into the Army at 16 offers a way out of the situation in which they have found themselves. It is often a desperate situation—not for all the recruits at 16, but certainly for a number of them.

I was persuaded by this as much as anything. Most of the schools I taught in for 20 years before becoming a Member of Parliament and then joining your Lordships’ House were in the most deprived and desperate communities. One of the options available to those young people was the Armed Forces. Indeed, we used to use the uniformed organisations, admittedly not the Army, but certainly organisations such as the cadets, the Scouts and the Guides, if it was girls, to try to instil some structure into completely chaotic lives. I have always felt that, in some situations, recruitment at 16 gave some young people an opportunity that they otherwise would not have had. I have always been persuaded by that argument and certainly that is our position formally from the Front Bench.

I do not want to get into an “I have done this and other people have not” discussion but I have been to the college at Harrogate—not that you have to go to places like that to have a legitimate or honest opinion. I went there when I was shadow Secretary of State a number of years ago and it was fantastic. It was brilliant and the experience of the young people and the dedication of the Army personnel who were responsible for them was first rate. The young people talked openly about their experience there. You can be cynical about it and say that they were set up to do it and they would not say anything else because they would be worried about getting in trouble, but I did not feel that, to be honest. Maybe I was duped—who knows? However, I felt when I was there that those young people expressed a view that supported the fact that they were allowed to be recruited at 16.

I know that there are very deeply held views on both sides on this. They will cut across party lines, probably. As I have said, I am completely persuaded and always have been by that argument that it creates opportunity. That is the position that the Front Bench of Her Majesty’s Opposition have at present.

There are concerns and I think the Minister would say that some of the allegations that have come out need to be addressed. Some of the statistics from the report quoted by my noble friend Lady Massey are concerning. We need to understand the rights and wrongs of the bullying and of the sexual allegations. We need to get to the root of that. As Amendment 62 points out, maybe there is something there that needs to be looked at.

A very serious debate has taken place here and people have very deeply held views. It is a debate that has been going on for decades about whether it is right to recruit young people at that age because they are too young, or whether is it right to create an environment in which they can join at that age if they are properly supported, protected. They are looked after but they are given an opportunity that were it not available to them there would be significant problems in their lives. That opportunity should be made available to them, but that then puts an added responsibility on all of us to ensure that they are properly cared for and properly looked after as part of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

First, I can say to all contributors that, wherever one comes from in relation to this debate, this was a cracking debate. It was really interesting, with genuinely thought-provoking contributions from all round the Committee. I thank contributors for that.

The subjects under discussion are, essentially, fairly simple to understand. To look at these two relatively small amendments is perhaps misleading, because they are the genesis of the content that is the trigger for the debate. Essentially, we have amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, with Amendment 61 supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. Amendment 62 is once more supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.

These amendments seek to raise the age of recruitment to the Armed Forces to 18 and to ensure that those recruited while under the age of 18 serve the same period of time as those who enlisted at the age of 18. To be honest, what I have detected is a fundamental philosophical divergence: the proposers and supporters of Amendment 61 think that such recruitment is bad; the Government take a different view. I will try to address the concerns articulated by your Lordships in the course of the debate.

I want to be clear about one thing: we comply with the law. We are not in breach of the law in doing what we do. We remain clear that junior entry offers a range of benefits to the individual, the Armed Forces and society, providing a highly valuable vocational training opportunity for those wishing to follow a career in the Armed Forces. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lancaster, who spoke eloquently and authoritatively from a very personal standpoint as to the merit he sees in this system. That opinion should weigh with us.

What I am very happy to do—if others want to respond to this, I am more than happy to support that—is facilitate a visit to the Army Foundation College at Harrogate. I offer to join that visit myself. I, too, have not visited that college, but I would be very happy to do so. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who specifically asked whether I would be prepared to do that. I hope that, following the impressive marketing strategy from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, relating to the foundation college, there will be a good take-up of this invitation. I will take that away, engage with those who might be interested in attending and see whether we can get a visit to Yorkshire sorted out.

A number of noble Lords quite rightly raised our duty of care in Defence. We take our duty of care for entrants under 18 extremely seriously. Close attention has understandably been given to this subject in recent years, especially after the tragic deaths at Deepcut. We have robust, effective and independently verified safeguards in place to ensure that under-18s are cared for properly.

I will give a little more detail on that. Mental health and well-being are a priority across Defence and all training establishments. We are clear that the duty of care to all our recruits, in particular those aged under 18, is of the utmost importance, and that those aged under 18 should be treated with special consideration. The 2020-21 Ofsted report, Welfare and Duty of Care in Armed Forces Initial Training, noted the well-co-ordinated care and welfare arrangements for regular and reserve recruits and trainees. At the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, Ofsted was particularly impressed by the strong ethos of emotional and psychological safety, as well as the high standards of all facilities and accommodation. The AFCH has dedicated safeguarding, mental health and well-being leads to support students while they are at the college.

As others have indicated, the provision of education and training for 16 year-old school leavers provides a route into the Armed Forces that complies with the law and government education policy while providing a significant foundation for emotional, physical and educational development throughout an individual’s career. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. She made a very balanced contribution and acknowledged her acceptance of these virtues.

As others have said, there is no compulsory recruitment into the Armed Forces. Our recruiting policy is absolutely clear. No one under the age of 18 can join the Armed Forces without formal parental consent, and that is checked twice during the application process. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, adduced an example and thought it would be extremely undesirable if the individual whom he envisaged were to go into the Armed Forces but, presumably, in that situation, parental consent would not be given, and one could understand why not. In addition, parents and guardians are positively encouraged to be engaged with the recruiting staff during the process. As has been acknowledged, service personnel under the age of 18 are not deployed on hostile operations outside the UK, or on operations where they may be exposed to hostilities.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Grand Committee

I hope that noble Lords are reassured by the approach we are taking to Henriques, and therefore I ask them not to press their amendments. In the same vein, I formally move the amendment in my name.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, first, good afternoon, everyone; it is a great privilege to be here again for the second meeting of the Committee, after what I thought was a really interesting and thoughtful discussion on our first day. As I have said to the Minister in the various meetings I have had with her, we support the establishment of the unit and think it is a good step forward. But we have questions to ask and, as the Minister can see from the amendments that we have tabled, issues that we wish to raise and press the Government on, to ensure that we make this new unit as effective as possible.

I will speak to the government amendments but, first, will say to the Minister that I was struck by one of the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in the debate we had the other day on the first group of amendments. He talked about the need for public confidence and trust in any system that we set up. This is really important, and we will come to it when we talk about some of the amendments we have tabled, and some of the probing of the Government that we want to do. In reading around this group of amendments, I was struck by one of the statements made by the court in the judgment of the Mousa case, which was:

“One of the essential functions of independence is to ensure public confidence and, in this context, perception is important.”


I respectfully ask the Committee to bear that in mind as we go through these various amendments.

We strongly welcome the detailed report of Richard Henriques, and the recommendations, and we hope that the Government will implement the recommendations as soon as possible. This goes to the heart of what my noble friend Lord Robertson said. We want to press the Government on what they mean by implementing the recommendations and the timeline for all of that. The report is especially pertinent, and I wonder whether the Minister might like to take the opportunity to say something about the allegations in the Sunday Times about a Kenyan woman being murdered by a British soldier, with no action apparently being taken and evidence suggesting that the case was actively suppressed. I think all of us would hope that the establishment of this unit would prevent that sort of thing occurring in future.

I will speak to these recommendations that the Government have put down. As I said, we welcome the establishment of the serious crime unit. However, as the Minister said, the Government’s framework amendment does not fully implement all the recommendations. Indeed, as I have already pointed out to the Minister, she wrote to us all on 22 October, only just over a week ago, saying that the amendment would implement three of Sir Richard’s recommendations. This is why many of us are wondering what this means.

In her opening, the Minister said that there were three and that four have been added to that but, as we know, Henriques makes more than 20 recommendations relating to the establishment of the serious crime unit. If there are three in the letter and four in this—unless I have misunderstood what the Minister said to us—what has happened to the other 13 that relate specifically to the unit? The Minister will understand the Committee’s desire to know more about what is happening to the rest of these recommendations. There were 64 in total, but 20 relating to the serious crime unit. What has happened to the others? What is the timeline for it? Will the Government implement the other 13—if that is the right number—or are they saying, “We’ll have a look, but we’re not very keen on these”? We need to know from the Government what exactly is happening to those other recommendations. Which are not going to be adopted? Which are the Government thinking about? We need some understanding of the timeline; I think many of us want greater clarity on that. What is happening with respect to that, and when can we expect to know more about the number of recommendations that will be implemented?

There are a number of other things that we need some clarity on. The Minister’s letter said the amendment would ensure that the new provost marshal for serious crime will be under a duty to ensure that investigations by the tri-service serious crime unit are independent. I know the Minister has sought to answer this, but the Government use the words “seek to ensure”. In the court of public opinion, people would say that we should not seek to ensure that all investigations carried out by the tri-service serious crime unit are free from improper interference; it is an expectation that they are independent. Surely we should not merely seek to ensure that.

As I said before, I am not a lawyer but I think most people would say that any independent process should be free from improper interference full stop, yet the Government’s amendment talks about seeking to achieve that. Clearly, that is why a number of us—I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Robertson, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—have concerns about the use of these terms. I press the Minister on this. If the court of public opinion sees the word “seek”, it will not believe that in all circumstances that means it will be free from improper interference. It is important that the Minister reads into the record exactly what “improper interference” means in this respect. It almost implies that there is such a thing as proper interference.

Our Amendment 44 lists many of the things that the Henriques report says should be part of the tri-service crime unit. Again, to be fair, the Minister has intimated that the Government intend to do some of this, but that is why many of us are asking why we do not put it in the Bill. We all have experience of legislation and know that there is often debate about why something is not in a Bill. Why is it left off? Why is it left to the Government, of any colour, to say, “We will do this later on. We will come back to it. We agree that this is important but we are going to look at how we do it”? We are saying that if it is important, it needs to be put in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am not going to press my amendments and I say to the Minister that that was a very helpful reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. She will have heard from a noble of Lords in this Committee that there are real concerns about the operational independence of the work of the new serious crime unit, and that really goes to the heart of it. Something in the Bill that deals with that would be of immense reassurance to us all.

I say as well to the Minister that we will have to come back to one or two things on Report, not least the Henriques recommendations that the Government clearly are not going to adopt. I will give one example. It is disappointing to know that the deputy provost marshal is expected to be a military officer. Again, that gives evidence for the view that we have to be really careful in how we ensure that the public have confidence in the mechanism that we are setting up. It is a good thing to do, but we have to ensure that that independence is not only enshrined in legislation but is seen by the public to be real as well.

Amendment 38 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches. I will particularly speak to Amendments 48 and 66A. As the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, pointed out in introducing Amendment 66A, it very much builds on those he sought very hard to bring forward on the overseas operations Bill. The suggestion at the time was that perhaps that Bill was not the right place for such an amendment.

The idea of a duty of care seems to be beneficial, and the amendment is laid out in very clear detail. I have a suspicion that the Minister might come back with a whole set of reasons why even this Bill is not the right place, and that the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, about unintended consequences might come with the suggestion that there will be scope for some sort of legal interpretation and that this might create all sorts of problems. However, does the MoD not have a duty of care to service personnel and their families? Should this not be very clearly stated? If the Minister does not accept that Amendment 66A as currently proposed would be a desirable addition to the Bill, could she undertake to think about an alternative amendment that could be brought back on Report?

Amendment 48, relating to service personnel and mental health, is important. As other Peers have pointed out, the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, are important in bringing personal insights. Often when we talk about legislation relating to the Armed Forces, we are a bit technical. We talk not necessarily about individuals but about generalities. It is clearly important to think about the individual because it is precisely the individual who matters in each of the three amendments in this group.

However, I have some sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, that Amendment 48 specifically refers to veterans affected by events in Afghanistan. There may be a case for saying that, on the face of a Bill, we should be a little more general rather than being quite so specific. If the Minister’s only objection to Amendment 48 happens to be something along the lines of not being able to talk specifically about people being affected by the withdrawal from Afghanistan, perhaps again she might suggest some alternatives. Very clearly, there are a huge number of serving personnel and veterans who have been affected by the withdrawal from Afghanistan, precisely because they served there on multiple occasions, so this case is very specific.

All these amendments enhance the Bill. I hope the Minister will see her way to accepting parts of at least some of them, even if she cannot accept all of them in full. If she cannot accept them, we will obviously bring some or all of them back on Report.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in the important group before us. There are clearly many issues around mental health support but I have an optimistic note. We heard contributions from very senior former military officers—not least the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, who moved the exceedingly important Amendment 48, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, who supported it—and former Secretaries of State for Defence talking about mental health in a way that would not have happened 20 or 25 years ago. That is significant progress and we should all be proud of it.

Perhaps that stigma we all worry about is starting to lift. Is it good enough and are we there yet? No, but my noble friend Lord Robertson spoke movingly about his experiences, shocking as they were. I am certain that those officers who served in Northern Ireland, and elsewhere across the world, could recount their own stories of horror. Others of us could recount horrors that have occurred in our own lives: the right reverend Prelate may have had very distressing things to deal with in talking to people during his ministry. Within the context of the Armed Forces Bill, though, mental health is now something that we can talk about and discuss. That is why this amendment is so important, although maybe there are problems with it; the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, pointed some out.

We can almost see in the drafting of Amendment 48 the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. Yes, it refers to Afghanistan: proposed new subsection (1) talks about

“targeted support for serving Armed Forces personnel who have been affected by the United Kingdom’s withdrawal”

from Afghanistan, but before that it refers to

“additional mental health support for … Armed Forces personnel, including but not limited to”

that support. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, includes a recognition that Afghanistan may be on our minds, for obvious reasons, given the bravery of our service men and women there and the horror of what we have just witnessed, et cetera. But I suggest that, in drafting his amendment, he was very aware of the fact that there are people who have served, and are serving, in countless places across the world whose trauma could need additional support.

To be frank, the Minister may have some official statistics on this. I do not know the actual number of those affected, but it would be useful for the Committee to know from the Ministry of Defence its assessment of the level of need, if that is the right way of putting it, with respect to this provision. Perhaps I may tell her one thing that drives me absolutely insane: people know that I try to tell it as it is but, from the Government’s announcements over the last few months, I have no idea exactly what is happening to spending on mental health in terms of additional support for veterans or their families, both serving and in the future. There have been numerous announcements; I hope the Committee will bear with me if I refer to two or three.

At the end of August, the Government announced that Armed Forces veterans would benefit from extra support, including extra mental health services, thanks to a further £2.7 million in funding. Is that additional funding and what is it on top of? It would be helpful to know what the spending on mental health support was last year, is this year and will be next year. Resources are clearly an issue and it would be really good to know what the official level of spending is on mental health support for our serving personnel and veterans. What is it now and what is projected as we go forward?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

50: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on dismissals or discharges from the Armed Forces on grounds relating to sexual orientation or gender identity
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the number of people who have been dismissed or discharged from the Armed Forces on the grounds relating to sexual orientation or gender identity.(2) The report under subsection (1) must include cases where—(a) there is formal documentation citing sexual orientation as the reason for their dismissal, or(b) there is evidence of sexual orientation or gender identity being a reason for their dismissal, though another reason is cited in formal documentation.(3) The report under subsection (1) must make recommendations for appropriate compensation to be awarded, including but not limited to—(a) the restoration of ranks,(b) pensions, and(c) other forms of financial compensation. (4) The report must include a review of the cases of those service personnel who as a result of their sexual orientation were convicted of service discipline offences as a consequence of engaging in conduct which, if occurring in the same circumstances today, would not now be an offence and make recommendations on how to address such convictions.(5) The report must include dismissals and discharges back to at least 1955.(6) The first report under subsection (1) must be laid no later than six months after the day on which this Act is passed.(7) The Secretary of State may make further reports under subsection (1) from time to time.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who were dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexual orientation and to make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 50 in my name, which is in this important group of amendments. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Lexden, for their amendments in this group. I very much support and appreciate them.

I will try to keep my remarks relatively brief to give other noble Lords time to speak. This is a crucial set of amendments. The Committee will know that homosexuality was banned in the British Armed Forces until January 2000. That is quite astonishing, given that the law was changed in 1967. The ban was lifted by the then Labour Government and I was very pleased. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, was Secretary of State at that time. If he was not, he would no doubt have been working towards that. The fact that homosexuality was banned in the British Armed Forces until January 2000, some 33 years after the 1967 Act, is shocking.

[Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)]

My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that I left the Ministry of Defence in October 1999, so I cannot claim the credit.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I would say that my noble friend laid the ground for it.

My serious point is that it has left a situation in which thousands upon thousands of ex-service men and women were dishonourably discharged, or quite outrageously forced from the service, simply because of their sexuality. It is simply unbelievable given the standards we have now and simply unacceptable that it happened. The practical impact of that discrimination —loss of pension, loss of livelihood et cetera—let alone the mental health damage and the stigma attached to it, was simply unacceptable and unbelievable. I want to draw attention to that. I would be interested to know from the Minister what the Ministry of Defence’s estimate—the Government’s view—is of the number of people impacted by this. I have seen estimates in the press of up to 20,000 people. I do not know whether that is correct; maybe noble Lords have better information than me, but it will be interesting to know what the actual figure is.

We have heard the Government say that there will be a restoration of medals. That seems good, but its progress has been slow. What will the Government do more of to try to accelerate that progress? There is clearly a need for further compensation, for pensions to be reformed and all those sorts of things. The Minister must now consider the restoration of ranks, pensions and other forms of compensation to honour appropriately those who have served our country with courage and distinction. That is what Amendment 50 seeks to do. Fighting With Pride gave compelling evidence to the Select Committee on the Bill about the damage that the ban on homosexuality has done to LGBT+ veterans. What steps will the Minister take to proactively identify those who were discriminated against? What discussions has she had regarding further forms of compensation for those affected?

I was grateful that the Minister in the other place said so clearly that

“the historical ban on homosexuality in the armed forces was absolutely wrong and there was horrific injustice as a consequence of it.”

I could not have put it better. It is absolutely shameful for our country. How do we go about fixing this injustice? That is what we all want to do. The Minister said that the Government would resist a similar amendment as it would

“complicate our efforts to address at pace this injustice.”

I do not understand what was meant by “complicate”. Surely the amendment would give a clear direction and encourage action. The Minister then said that fixing this injustice

“is at the heart of our veterans’ strategy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/21; col. 929.]

When will we get to see this strategy and will the idea of compensation be included?

When giving evidence to the Bill’s Select Committee, Craig Jones from Fighting With Pride said:

“When people were found or suspected”,


of homosexuality,

“they were arrested, often late at night, by the Royal Military Police. They were taken away for questioning, and that questioning … went on for days. Many of the people who were questioned had no legal support, or no ‘accused’s friends’, as we sometimes call that in the Armed Forces. They were searched, and the process went on for a very long time. After they had been charged, many were taken to military hospitals for medical inspections, which were a disgraceful breach of trust between members of the Armed Forces and the officers whom they were in the care of.”

I could not agree more with the Bill’s Select Committee’s report, which stated:

“Diversity is a source of strength for the Armed Forces and all should welcome and encourage a more diverse Armed Forces.”


Surely part of that is righting this historic wrong.

I was moved by an article that I hope noble Lords saw in the Mirror a few weeks ago. It outlined some of the case studies of some former veterans, forced to leave the Armed Forces after some years of service. It was heartbreaking and unbelievable. It brings tears to your eyes when you read it. We were all shocked by it, but what we want is speedy action from the Government.

I will mention one positive sign: is it not great that finally in our country, on Remembrance Sunday this year, Fighting With Pride will be able to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph? That is a symbol of the change that we all want and the action that needs to be taken, but it needs to take place sooner rather than later. I press the Minister not only to share our shame and sense of outrage at this injustice but to explain to the Committee what we will do about it to end it more quickly than we seem to be at the moment.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 50, and I will also speak to Amendments 57 and 58. It is a real privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and his opening statement in support of his amendment to remind us of the harm and damage done to armed service personnel who wanted nothing other than to serve their country. Because of their homosexuality—not necessarily their conduct—they were forced out of the armed services, and they have had to live with the consequences. Some still do, in terms of the employment that they are prevented from getting.

I was not able to be in my place to speak at Second Reading, but I take this opportunity to say that I am particularly grateful for the collaboration that has brought about Clause 18, on

“Posthumous pardons in relation to certain abolished service offences”.


I place on record my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, her entire Bill team and Professor Paul Johnson. I also wish to record my immense admiration for my noble friend Lord Lexden—my dear friend. I commend his contribution on the Bill, and Clause 18 in particular, at Second Reading. He and I have benefited from the wisdom, fortitude and knowledge of Professor Paul Johnson of the University of York, whose work with officials has produced some extremely fine drafting—he is the expert in this field. Professor Johnson, my noble friend Lord Lexden and I have worked together for five years on the issues of pardons and disregards that are before noble Lords today, and I hope—indeed, I believe—that we are about to see the fruits of our endeavours.

Indeed, when I was preparing these notes, I reflected on the day in 1991, 30 years ago, when I joined Lisa Power, a member of Stonewall, and Robert Ely to give evidence to the Armed Forces Select Committee to call for the ending of the ban on homosexuals serving in the military that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to. Robert Ely, along with Elaine Chambers, both former armed services personnel, joined others and formed a group called Rank Outsiders to make the case for ending the ban and the harm done by it. Robert and Elaine showed immense courage, and I pay tribute to them and the founders and members of Fighting With Pride. I also thank Stonewall for its tireless campaigning, carried out across the decades, in putting the case for and promoting equality and equal treatment. I am proud to be one of its cofounders.

As I said, I fully support Amendment 50, which deals with the consequences of the injustices. I associate myself with the comments and concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. As he rightly reminded us, one could be dismissed from the armed services merely because of homosexuality, and there were some appalling cases and investigations that followed.

I now focus on Amendments 57 and 58, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lexden, which would insert two new clauses into the Bill. Their purpose is to expand the current disregard and pardon schemes, which provide a means of redress to those previously convicted under now-repealed—I repeat: repealed—offences for engaging in same-sex sexual conduct that today would be entirely lawful.

Current schemes do not encompass the wide number of service discipline offences that were once used to regulate Armed Forces personnel who engaged in consensual same-sex relationships. For example, the Army Act 1955 alone contained at least three separate offences—disgraceful conduct, scandalous conduct of an officer and conduct to prejudice of military discipline—that could be used to regulate the same-sex sexual conduct that would be lawful today. These offences, along with other civil offences, need to be included in the disregard and pardon schemes to provide those so cruelly treated by now-repealed laws with the justice they deserve, as my noble friend Lord Lexden explained at Second Reading. Great injustice would remain if action were not taken in the way that he and I have proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, this may have been a short debate but I do not think that any of us can doubt the passion and commitment that have been evident in the contributing speeches.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for moving Amendment 50 and the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Lexden, for tabling Amendments 57 and 58. All three amendments have undoubtedly been tabled with deep compassion and humanity, with the intent of righting a past wrong. They are all concerned about the historical effect of the criminalisation of homosexual behaviour in the Armed Forces. As the Minister in the defence department responsible for diversity and inclusion, I feel a personal commitment to deliver improvement; I say that in a manner that I hope reassures noble Lords.

Amendment 50 seeks to place an obligation on the defence department to commission a comprehensive report on the number of service personnel who were dismissed, discharged or charged with disciplinary offences due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, and to make recommendations for compensation and restoration. I am pleased to remind the Committee that the Government accept entirely that the historical policy prohibiting homosexuality in the Armed Forces was absolutely wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is right: there is a sense of shame. We recognise this and are looking, where appropriate, to address the historical injustice suffered by members of the LGBT+ community as a consequence.

Our priority is effectively to look at what the Government can do to better understand the impact of pre-2000 practices on LGBT+ veterans and swiftly put in place a series of steps to address past wrongs. We acknowledge that many individuals, including the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, would like to understand how many people were affected by past practices. This is not a straightforward task. I must say, focusing solely on it would detract from our primary goal of righting historical failures, which is what we are engaged in doing and, I hope, what the Bill reflects.

While we agree that identifying how many people were affected has value, this must not overtake our efforts to find further tangible ways to do right by those who were treated unjustly. We therefore resist the amendment because it will constrain the work already under way now. Having said that, the MoD is working at pace to identify the cohort of individuals affected due to this policy. This will not be a quick process; it will take time.

We are also investigating historical records to see whether we can establish members of the Armed Forces who were encouraged to leave the Armed Forces due to their sexual orientation and gender identity. However, this latter cohort, as your Lordships will understand, will be much harder to identify, given that their personal files may not explicitly link their departure to their sexual orientation and gender identity.

In February this year, we announced the restoration of military medals to Armed Forces personnel discharged on the basis of their sexuality. Since February, we have received a number of applications in response to that well-publicised announcement. These are being actively considered.

On the scope of current legal disregards, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, indicated, the Home Office and the MoD are working together to consider whether any further services offences can be brought within the scope of the disregards scheme. The current legislation—the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012—is very specific as to the offences that can be considered for a disregard, with the scope being limited to offences that have since been abolished or repealed and that criminalised homosexual activity. I am sure that many of your Lordships will be aware that our decision to address this issue has drawn the support of organisations such as Fighting With Pride and Stonewall, and we continue to engage with these and other stakeholders as we work together to make it clear that the military is a positive place to work for all who choose to serve.

As noble Lords have heard, there is a significant amount of cross-government activity, which includes, but is not limited to, working with the Cabinet Office, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. I thank the noble Lord for attending the meetings, which I attended with my colleague and noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is reassured by what I have been able to say today, and will agree to withdraw his amendment.

As we know, Amendments 57 and 58 seek to extend the disregard and pardon schemes to include all service discipline offences, whether repealed or not, for which gay service personnel were convicted or cautioned. They also seek, where applicable, to provide posthumous pardons to deceased service personnel. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, for indicating that he will not press these amendments. As I just said, on the scope of current legal disregards and pardons, the Home Office and the MoD are working together to consider whether any further services offences can be brought within the scope of these schemes.

There is a significant amount of cross-government activity to resolve the issue of historic hurt. As the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, indicated, we are already in conversation with him—as well as with the Home Office and Professor Paul Johnson of York University—to find the best course of action to implement the necessary legislation to address this issue. It is complex; there are technical complications in understanding which Acts apply and how we must draft remedial provisions. We must be mindful to mitigate the potential risks that a whole-scale adoption of these amendments in both this Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill may cause.

This will not be a straightforward task. We need to continue to develop cross-departmental policy and correctly identify the approach to be taken. We therefore resist the amendment because this Bill is not the most suitable place to make these amendments; rather, the proper legislative vehicle is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, where the scheme can be properly and effectively extended and managed. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, will have gathered from the attitude of my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford that he has a very willing pair of hands prepared to look at all aspects of this.

I remind noble Lords that Clause 18 of this Bill seeks to amend the pardons scheme to ensure that those who served in the Army and the Royal Marines before 1881 and were convicted of now-abolished service offences are posthumously pardoned. I suggest that these actions demonstrate the full commitment made by this Government to rectifying what I earlier called the shameful and wrongful treatment of those who have served. I therefore assure the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and my noble friend Lord Lexden, that the Government are determined to redress this historic slight—“slight” seems an inadequate word; I think it is an historic injustice—against our brave and loyal servicepersons.

I hope that your Lordships have taken comfort from what I have said today: that far-reaching and consequential work is going on in this area. Naturally, the outcome of this work will never truly replace the hurt suffered by those affected. However, I hope that it will provide a degree of recompense and demonstrate that this House, this Government and this nation stand resolutely and proudly with both former and serving members of the Armed Forces who are drawn from across the LGBT+ community.

For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her response. Many people hearing it will be reassured not so much by the Government’s intentions and so on, but by what shone through: her honest answer and her clear determination to want to get something done. That is what is actually reassuring. I do not know whether I am supposed to say that as a Labour politician or noble Lord to a Conservative, but on this occasion there is, frankly, nothing that disunites any of us here. The noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Cashman, have campaigned long and hard on these issues for much longer than I have. I hope they will also have been reassured by a government Minister who, instead of hiding behind weaselly words, talked about a sense of shame that our country should have—because it should. That reassurance gives me confidence that she will push this forward.

There are questions to be answered as to how far we will be able to get the Home Office to move, if it is the Home Office that needs to do so, and what legislation will eventually be passed. I do not really care which department is responsible for passing the legislation; what I am concerned about is that the legislation is passed. If it is the Home Office it is the Home Office, and if it is the Ministry of Defence it is the Ministry of Defence. This was a historical injustice. It is almost one of those things where you look back and cannot believe that it actually took place, but we are having to deal with many historical injustices at present. We cannot be judged on those but we can be judged on how we respond.

The only thing I would say to the Minister is that the restoration of the medals has not gone as quickly as it might have done and some of the other things are not going as quickly as they might. I accept there are huge difficulties. People will have been paid to leave the Army and all sorts of excuses will have been made, when the real reason was that they were pushed, bullied and intimidated out simply because of their sexuality. That is unacceptable. I do not know how many people there are; I read the figure of approximately 20,000 in the papers. But if it was 100 or 200—if it was 10,000, 15,000 or whatever—that does not alter the principle that we should be ashamed of what happened, but proud of the fact that we are now going to try and do something about it. I say to the Minister: can we please do it as quickly as possible, and not have this dragging out for years and years? We owe it to those who are still living and to the memory of those who are no longer with us. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 50 withdrawn.

Autonomous Weapons Systems

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for acknowledging the difficulties that accompany definitions and prescriptive attempts to define. UK Armed Forces do not use systems that employ lethal force without context-appropriate human involvement. This is an important area; it is clearly an area of evolving policy and it is an area where we are absolutely clear that the best way forward is to continue our international engagement with the group of governmental experts.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Artificial intelligence is clearly an increasing part of the modern way of warfare but, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and my noble friend Lord West, it brings with it enormous moral challenges. I think what the House wants to hear is for the Minister to say unequivocally, and as a matter of principle, that there will always be human oversight when it comes to the use of artificial intelligence; in particular, that human oversight is involved whenever there is any decision about the lethal use of force.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

It is not possible to transfer accountability to a machine. Human responsibility for the use of a system to achieve an effect cannot be removed, irrespective of the level of autonomy in that system or the use of enabling technologies such as AI.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, the two proposals before the Committee in this group have the same aim: so far as serious crime is concerned, to make the procedures similar to those in our criminal courts. The first amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, supported by two other members of the Committee. We are indebted to him for his historical analysis, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for his unrivalled experience, which will be of great assistance to the Committee. The second proposal is the new clause tabled under my name and that of the noble and learned Lord; I am grateful for the support I have received.

My proposed new clause does not go so far as Amendment 5, but imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to commission a panel to review the courts martial and, in particular, to consider bringing courts martial into line with specific Crown Court procedures. I would be content if either amendment or my proposed new clause were accepted. On reflection, I find the mandatory terms in Amendment 5 very attractive.

I first raised my concern about the court martial system for serious offences as far back as 2016. The Ministry of Defence moved with unaccustomed speed to set up an independent inquiry led by ex-Judge Advocate Shaun Lyons. We are indebted to it, and to Ministers, for their speedy action. It was the case of Sergeant Blackman, already mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, that aroused my interest; many in the Committee will recall the case. My experience of courts martial is limited. I was a young officer newly arrived in BAOR, and it became known to alleged wrongdoers that there was a barrister in their ranks. To my adjutant’s dismay, there were other priorities, with the South Wales Borderers preparing to go to Malaysia. Little did my potential clients know how wet behind the ears I was, not having yet done a pupillage. Apart from a few courts martial then, I had nothing to do with the system when I returned to a lifetime of criminal practice. Since then, I have kept an interest in well-published cases, both as a Defence Minister and as Attorney-General. When I put in place a protocol for various prosecuting authorities, including the military, involving the supervision of the Attorney-General, I was in fact not troubled by the military.

My proposals are not concerned with the courts martial that deal with minor offences; they concern only some of the most serious offences. However, a verdict of 2:1 in any case does not fit particularly well the standards and needs of the 21st century. I propose that serious consideration be given to bringing courts martial that are trying specified serious crimes into line with ordinary criminal procedures. I do so for the following reasons. First, our Armed Forces—I am proud to have served in them—are today much less separate from ordinary civilian life than in the past; indeed, some civilians are tried by court martial. Secondly, our forces are mostly based in the United Kingdom and live in, or close to, civic communities. They are not the press-ganged sailors and soldiers of bygone centuries.

Thirdly, trials of serious cases are comparatively rare. Perhaps the Minister can remind us how many murder, manslaughter or rape cases we had in the last year. I think we are all concerned with the rate of conviction in rape cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, mentioned. Such trials should be presided over by experienced judges who try such cases day in, day out. Even then, only a minority of the circuit judges are licensed to try cases such as murder or rape. Although I was a Crown Court recorder for many years, with the powers of a circuit judge, I would not be given such responsibility. Those who are licensed to try such cases are very experienced. I know that sometimes, maybe fairly regularly, Judge Advocates sit in our criminal courts, but that does not mean they are licensed to try such cases.

Fourthly, there are now well-hallowed procedures in our criminal courts for trial and the taking of verdicts. I confess that I had my doubts when the proposal for majority verdicts was first put forward, but long experience at the criminal Bar has proved beyond doubt that the procedures are both just and efficient to render justice without undue delay. In such cases, the judge should be nominated by the Lord Chief Justice and the jury should comprise 12 jurors. Soldiers, sailors and airmen should have the same rights as ordinary citizens. The number 12 was hallowed by the eminent jurist Coke many centuries ago.

When a criminal jury now retires to consider its verdict, the judge gives a direction that it should seek unanimity. It is then given considerable time to achieve this. Only when sufficient time has elapsed and there appears to be no prospect of reaching such a verdict is the procedure put in place whereby a verdict by fewer than 12 of its number can be accepted. It is told again to try to achieve unanimity, and only then, when it fails, is a verdict by at least 10 of its number acceptable. The numbers required for a majority verdict speak for themselves; it is the overwhelming majority. When the verdict is delivered, the numbers are announced publicly in court—quite different from a court martial.

The Minister has sought to justify a 2:1 verdict as arising only in minor offences, but such a verdict can have serious consequences for the individual. I have my doubts about a practice in courts martial that I am told of, whereby the most junior member of a court martial is expected to announce his decision first, and so on in the military hierarchy. If I am right—I may be wrong—it could be quite intimidating, in particular for a junior member sitting for his first court martial.

If our proposals are not accepted today, I hope the ground has been laid for the inevitable reform next time the legalising of our Armed Forces by Act of Parliament is considered. Every soldier, sailor and airman should have the same right as an ordinary citizen of a trial by a jury numbering 12.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I start my first contribution in Committee by thanking the Minister and her officials for the courteous briefing and the informed and courteous way in which she has conducted the Committee and this work. It is extremely helpful to us all, so it is worth publicly thanking the Minister for that and for the way she has tried to engage with us.

I had a great speech written—well, I do not know if it was a great speech, but I had one written—in support of Amendment 5. However, one of the important things that the Minister does is to try to respond to the debate, and I want to pick up on what I think have been some brilliant contributions to this discussion. We all support a covenant. We all support the Armed Forces Bill and what is in it. We all believe that this is a step forward, we are all pleased that the Government are putting a legal duty on local authorities to do this, and so on. We all agree with the Bill so the discussions taking place here are about how we can make it even better, and to get the Government to clarify some of their thoughts and put their intentions on record for people to read.

I was particularly moved—I say this with trepidation because I am neither a lawyer nor a military person, but I think it is important in these debates to speak from where the public would come from—by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said: this element of the Bill, on how the military deals with sexual offences and some of the most serious crimes, goes to the heart of the confidence that the public have, or do not have, in the Armed Forces. You can see that as an analogy with the police at present; I come from a police family so I understand that issue. Surely that is the point that the Bill is getting at.

I know the Minister will point to the reforms that are going to be made, the welcome introduction of the tri-service serious crimes unit and so on, but we all agree that some of the things that we read about—and I intend to quote some because it is important to put some of the statistics before the Committee—are truly shocking. We saw a particularly horrendous example in our papers at the weekend. I know that the vast majority of the military, whether they be privates, sergeants, officers, Royal Navy, airmen or soldiers, want this dealt with as well.

The challenge for us in the Committee is how the system that we set up will best reassure the public that these matters are being dealt with—how it will help with the reputation of the Armed Forces but also allow service men and women to get the justice that they too deserve. That is the purpose of Amendment 5, which I put my name to and was moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

If it is not to be done in the civilian courts, which is what the amendment is pushing for, how will we know—and how will the public be reassured—about some of the things that they are reading about, where terrible, unacceptable sexual crime, rape and murder take place and have no consequence, or where people do not believe that the system works and therefore do not come forward? That is the challenge. As noble Lords have said, the amendment is all about jurisdiction. What jurisdiction would best deal with these offences in the way that I have outlined?

It is not just me. Judge Shaun Lyons and Sir Jon Murphy recommended that the most serious crimes should be removed from the military justice system; the recent report by the Defence Select Committee recommended the same; and Johnny Mercer MP, who was a Defence Minister, has now said he believes that should happen. These are serious bodies of opinion supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, as well as other issues that have been raised.

I know much of this will come forward when we talk about the tri-service serious crimes unit, but I want to put on record the recent Times article that I was particularly struck by, which said:

“Complaints of rape and sexual assault made by girls under 18 in the military have risen tenfold since 2015, Ministry of Defence figures reveal.”


That is shocking—and it is from the MoD’s own figures, unless the Minister says that the Times has got it wrong. The article says that

“girls under 18 in the armed forces have made 41 complaints of rape and sexual assault to the military police since 2015 … equivalent to one report for every 40 girls. This makes girls in the armed forces more than twice as likely as their civilian counterparts to report a rape or sexual assault to police.”

The amendment is intended only to pose the question, given the statistics being reported, of whether a change to the jurisdiction would, first, give more confidence to people to come forward; and, secondly, give more confidence to the public, because such horrific incidents and cases, which we all abhor, are best dealt with by the civilian courts.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

8: Clause 8, page 9, line 17, at end insert—
“(d) a relevant employment function,(e) a relevant pensions function,(f) a relevant compensation function,(g) a relevant social care function,(h) a relevant criminal justice function, or(i) a relevant immigration function.”

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are getting used to various constituencies. I expect the Minister to come forward with Scottish towns for us to compare with Welsh ones.

This is another important group of amendments. I shall speak also to Amendments 10 to 13. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for signing up to the amendments in this group, which expand the definition of the covenant to include more policy areas. Oh, I think I can hear her speaking remotely. It is nice, because in the other place you get used to barracking, so it makes you feel a bit more at home.

We all believe that the Armed Forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between government and service communities, guaranteeing them and their families the respect and fair treatment that their service has earned. Clause 8 places a duty on specified persons or bodies to have due regard to the principles of the covenant, if they are exercising a relevant housing, education or healthcare function. However, service charities are rightly concerned that the scope is too narrow, containing nothing specific on issues such as service accommodation, employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. The service charities themselves have pointed out that this narrow focus could create a two-tier Armed Forces covenant.

The Government’s own press release announcing the Bill stated that it would

“ensure armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are not disadvantaged by their service when accessing key public services.”

It stated that it would

“embed the Armed Forces Covenant into law by introducing a legal duty for relevant UK public bodies to have due regard to the principles of the Covenant, a pledge to ensure the UK Armed Forces community is treated fairly.”

That is an excellent statement by the Government, but despite this promise there is a wide chorus of concern that Ministers have failed to follow that through. Help for Heroes said that

“by limiting the scope of the legislation to Healthcare, and some aspects of Housing and Education, rather than the full reach of the Covenant, many issues of vital concern to veterans … within the criminal justice system”

could be excluded. It added that:

“The absence of social care is a significant issue”.


The Army Families Federation said:

“This limited scope will address only a small proportion of the disadvantages that Army families face.”


The Royal British Legion called on the Government to extend the Bill to cover

“employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice, and immigration,”

and the Naval Families Federation said that it would

“welcome a widening of the scope to include all aspects of the Armed Forces Covenant.”

I have tabled the amendments in this group so that the Government are able to fulfil their own promises to service communities but also to take account of the very real concerns that so many military charities have raised. Amendments 8, 10, 11 and 12 do exactly what they say: they expand the scope of the covenant in the Bill to include employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. It would be interesting to know why the Minister is opposed to that.

Amendment 13 is perhaps less explicit but has the same intention. It requires the Secretary of State to set out how powers in the Bill could be used to widen its scope to address all matters of potential disadvantage for service personnel under the Armed Forces covenant, again for employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. I expect that the Minister will say that the Government have chosen the scope of the covenant duty carefully and in consultation with the Armed Forces community, and that they think that these issues will make the greatest improvements to family life. Indeed, they will make some difference. However, the Royal British Legion has said that the Government have not produced any statistical or other evidence for this position and that it is not aware of any specific consultation with the Armed Forces community which resulted in that conclusion. I would be interested in the Minister clarifying that point.

The near unanimous evidence submitted to the House of Commons Select Committee on the Bill showed that those working with the covenant on a day-to-day basis are clear that the policy scope is too limited and does not reflect the reality of the issues presented or their complexity and, indeed, interaction. Evidence from users of the Veterans’ Gateway, which is part funded by the MoD, shows that finance and pensions top the list of issues raised, and the Government themselves have publicly claimed employment to be the most critical issue affecting veterans’ life chances. The legislation must be wide enough to ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage are addressed and that the postcode lottery on veterans’ access to services is addressed. I will be interested in the Minister’s response.

I want to pick up on one other point related to Clause 8. The Delegated Powers Committee has called for regulations defining “relevant family member” to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Can the Minister confirm or otherwise whether the Government intend to accept that recommendation? I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

Does the noble Lord intend to move his amendment?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I apologise—I thought I had. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I first apologise for the technical glitch. This is the first week of new remote contributions to Grand Committee. It is such a shame that we always notice the problems rather than the vast majority of smooth remote contributions. I pay credit to all the staff involved in helping those of us who are disabled Peers and can attend only remotely at present.

I commend the Minister for the principles behind the Armed Forces covenant, which are an admirable start to providing that morally binding commitment to current and past service men and women. But frankly, as these amendments seek to point out, it is somewhat patchy at the moment on the services that current and former service men and women would be able to access. Why is one function included and another excluded, when the barriers to accessing services are exactly what the covenant is trying to resolve?

Amendments 8 and 10, to which I have added my name, would add a number of functions to the relevant functions listed under proposed new Sections 343AA and 343AB. Amendment 13, to which I have also added my name, addresses how the Bill can widen the scope to other forms of potential disadvantage for service personnel under the Armed Forces covenant, including employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has addressed very ably why this is needed, so I want to focus briefly on access to social care as one illustration.

The covenant already recognises that health is a vital service, where serving personnel and veterans can face particular problems, but social care—whether for the serving person or veteran, or for a member of their immediate family—is not. While social care is commissioned by local authorities it can, due to the circumstances of the individual, often involve a number of bodies. Some are within central government, for example on disability benefits; some are public bodies, for example health and local authorities; but some are also private, such as for those who are given a personal budget and will purchase their personal care that way. It can be very difficult and messy to navigate if you are new to it or have had to move.

Let me give an example to illustrate this point. Serving families with a severely disabled child have found it extraordinarily difficult when moving from one posting to another to transfer their child’s essential social care support, without falling off the bureaucratic cliff and having to go through reassessments in their new area, then waiting for the reports from those assessments. No services were given at all, so all help was denied them until the end of this new process. The child’s needs had not changed; their serving parent had merely been posted elsewhere. To be clear, this is not just a bit of social support every now and then. Disabled children, like the one I am describing, may have severe epilepsy or be fed with a tube, or be on ventilators some or all of the time. The help of carers at home supports the unpaid parent carer, who is already on duty pretty well 24/7.

Shockingly, the consequences of not having that help mean that a child might even be taken into care and away from their parents, not because the parents cannot cope but because one of them has been posted elsewhere. Adding social care to the covenant would protect the family and prioritise the ways of continuing the help that they are getting, when the move has made the difficulties entirely apparent.

For service men and women, and veterans, the complexities about access to services if they have mental health problems can be just as acute. Too often, we think of mental health as solely the domain of the NHS and those specialist charities such as Combat Stress, which I have been working with. The reality is that severe mental health problems disproportionately affect access to every part of the individual’s life, including discrimination in employment, access to criminal justice and compensation, and even to pensions, as well as social care. If the principles of the Armed Forces covenant are to ensure the well-being and support for current and former Armed Forces personnel, surely it cannot be possible for certain parts of the public sector to ignore it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I can understand why the noble Viscount articulates that point. If we draw a distinction between active service personnel and veterans, I imagine that our active personnel in service at the moment are more likely to be interested in health and education. I think that our veterans are more likely to be interested in health and housing, for obvious reasons.

One of the difficulties with the noble Viscount’s suggestion is that we do not know, and we have no reason to know, whether anyone is encountering problems. To take the example from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we do not know whether a parent has a problem with getting her child adequately placed in a suitable facility until that person comes and tells us that there is a problem. We are trying to ensure that they have a much simpler route to finding the solution they need because of what the Bill is doing. That is why the obligation is being placed on the delivery end. The individuals seeking the particular facility or the help actually want to go to the provider and say, “This is what I need, please can I have it?”

In the disappointing eventuality that help is not forthcoming, if that person is in service then there will certainly be help available within the armed services to support them. If the person is a veteran, there is a plentitude of help from charitable agencies, some of the Armed Forces charities and other support charities. If there were a delay or obstruction in the necessary service being received by the person who needs it, I hope that that would be very quickly picked up so that the person knows they could go to the provider and say, “You’re failing me. You’re falling down on the job. That is not good enough.” It is very difficult for anyone else to know whether that person, first, wants a service, and, secondly, has been disappointed or obstructed in trying to get it.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for a very constructive reply. While she was responding, I looked again at the power to add bodies and functions in the Bill. To take up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and some of what the Minister was saying, it seemed that she was not saying that there was never going to be a need for bodies that need to “have due regard to” to be added to the covenant, but the issue is the practicality of it. From looking at the Bill, I wonder whether an appropriate amendment could come forward on Report to put a bit of meat on the bones, rather than the Bill just saying that there is a power to add bodies and functions. If I have not mistaken what the noble Lord said, maybe there could be some kind of timeframe and greater certainty, but perhaps we will be able to look at that in response to what the Minister said and the suggestion that he made. I thought that was very helpful.

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, for his contribution and the point he made about what “due regard” means. I hope we do not have a judicial review about that. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I know what “due regard” means. I am sure you can argue it, but I think we all know what it is supposed to mean. I will leave that to the lawyers.

I also apologise to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Smith, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. As many of us will have done, I read lots of documents and Bills related to this over the weekend. I did not properly read Amendment 64, which raises a really important issue that the Minister, to be fair, sought to answer. I will read this out, because people read our affairs and they will not know what we are talking about when they read it; I apologise, but it is important. The noble Baronesses suggest that the covenant

“should be extended to cover civilians subject to service discipline who have been employed by the UK Armed Forces while on deployment.”

I think a lot of people would think that was probably already the case. The Minister, to be fair, said that of course the Government have due regard to people who had done that, because they have a duty of care, responsibility and so on, but the amendment seeks to put that into primary legislation. It is certainly something worthy of further thought and consideration. I appreciate that the Minister sought to answer this, but it is a particularly important amendment. I think that in bringing it forward, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Smith, have done the Committee a service. That is what I have to say about the attention to detail.

With those brief comments on what I thought was, again, a helpful debate, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

9: Clause 8, page 9, line 18, at end insert—
“(za) the Secretary of State;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place the same legal responsibility to have ‘due regard’ to the Armed Forces Covenant on central government as the Bill currently requires of local authorities and other public bodies.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

This amendment again applies to the covenant. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Smith, for their support on this amendment. It seeks to extend the application of the covenant to central government. Using the test that I always use, I think people would expect that to be the case, but no doubt we will hear from the Minister why the Government seem to be resistant to it.

We all believe that the Armed Forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between government and service communities, guaranteeing them and their families the respect and fair treatment that their service has earned. The Bill creates new responsibilities for a wide range of public bodies, from school governors to local authorities, to deliver the covenant, yet central government is not included. Amendment 9 seeks to change that. In practice, without it, we would create a situation, which I think sounds farcical, in which a chair of school governors, for example—and you can make other examples up—has a legal responsibility to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant, but government departments, including the Ministry of Defence, do not. I find that really strange, to be frank.

As the Royal British Legion has pointed out, many of the policy areas in which members of the Armed Forces community experience difficulty are the responsibility of national government or based on national guidance. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said at Second Reading, it is

“questionable whether it will be successful without incorporating central government, with its policy responsibilities,”—[Official Report, 7/9/2021; col. 742.]

into the Bill. The British Medical Association has called on the Government to

“expand the ‘specified persons and bodies’ section under clause 8 of the bill to include … Her Majesty’s Government and Secretaries of State with responsibility for the functions specified within the bill.”

Giving evidence to the Bill Select Committee, General Sir John McColl of Cobseo said:

“I do think that there is a strong argument for the inclusion of central Government functions … At the moment, the central Government traction that we have is that there is a moral requirement for Government to comply with the Covenant. That is fine as long as it works, but in some cases it absolutely does not work.”


It should be a part of this Bill, in primary legislation.

The MoD has said, in defence of not including central government in the Bill, that it was already in many ways subject to a duty of regard to the covenant. Personally, I do not think that is enough; it is insufficient. Central government should be included in the Bill. The Bill Select Committee report said:

“The Committee notes that by excluding central government as a responsible public body, Service accommodation is not covered by the duty of due regard. The Government may wish to consider adding this as an area where the duty applies in the future.”


Again, that is just one example of the Bill Select Committee looking at this and giving a practical example of what happens if central government is not included in the Bill. With those remarks, I will leave it there. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 9. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has already said, at Second Reading a number of noble Lords, including me, raised the fundamental problem with the Armed Forces covenant. While local authorities and other public bodies offering key services are listed, there is one glaring omission: central government is not required to have due regard to the covenant, and the noble Lord has just ably explained why that is such a contradiction.

The Government need to understand that in creating the covenant they have created demand and expectation. To use the closing comments by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, from the previous group on my Amendment 64, if you asked anyone outside the Bill they would think that the Government were already included. That service accommodation is not included is a helpful pointer to why the Government need to reconsider.

Without the same responsibilities for central government and its services to provide the covenant, frankly it is nothing more than warm words. I am sure there are plenty of arguments to say that it should, and probably will, be covered by different parts of government services, but the point is that the amendment can remedy that. The amendment would go further than the Government want to at the moment, but if the Government do not accept that they need to have the same responsibilities as other bodies, frankly they are not truly committed to delivering the covenant.

The police covenant being proposed at the moment in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill has this same lack of responsibility for central government while imposing it on other bodies. I have to say that it is beginning to look a bit worrying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

With the greatest respect, that might seem a tempting analysis of the situation, but the bottom line is that an inequity and disparity would be immediately introduced in the United Kingdom, because a Government would be bound and other devolved Governments would not be. That is profoundly undesirable.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. She is in a bit of trouble on this one. Logically, I do not think that some of what she said holds together. In her answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, she clearly talked about negligence, people being sued and things like that, whereas what the noble and learned Lord talked about, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, talked about very movingly from his own experience, is that we are seeking to require central government to have due regard to the covenant. Placing that obligation on central government in the same way as we are placing it on local authorities and other bodies is consistent with the principle that we are seeking to drop adopt through this legislation. This is not about moving into an area where a Government are negligent.

All I would say to the Minister is that we will have to come back to this on Report. I wonder whether she could reflect again on the discussions that have taken place in Committee to see whether there might be a way forward for us all. With that, I seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I first raised the subject of Amendments 14 and 15 in my name at Second Reading. I hope they will prove uncontroversial. Indeed, to pick up on the conversation we have had over the last few groupings, all these amendments seek to do is effectively to support the Government in what they are already doing and, equally, to try to embolden a committee to deliver the Armed Forces covenant. I shall be very brief.

Specifically, the amendment enables the Secretary of State to extend the statutory functions of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, VAPCs. They are regional statutory committees—nine in England, two in Scotland, one in Wales and one in Northern Ireland—established by a statutory instrument made under Section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989. Each committee has between 12 and 20 members, who are all volunteers. They are public appointees who act independently of their sponsoring department, the MoD, and so provide evidence and views from that independent standpoint. During my time as Minister for Veterans, I felt that as a body they played a valuable role, both as advocates on behalf of the MoD and as a source of candid advice to me as a Minister and to the wider veteran community.

However, the issue is that the enabling power limits the statutory functions that can be given to VAPCs solely to functions relating to the compensation schemes for veterans and their families, namely the war pensions and Armed Forces compensation schemes, and as such are mandated to engage with only a relatively small part of the veteran community and not the Armed Forces covenant in general.

As we seek to improve the implementation of the Armed Forces covenant, it strikes me that, through their independent approach and regional structure, the members of the VAPCs are well placed to make a useful contribution to the Government’s drive to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran. Indeed, just one aspect of this drive is the implementation of the duty introduced by Clause 8(3) of the Bill to have due regard to the principles of and relating to the Armed Forces covenant. In my view, at least, this is not only timely but long overdue.

Interestingly, we have in all honesty been talking about expanding VAPC powers for some time. As I recall, it was a proposed amendment put to me as a Minister when I was responsible for taking the last Armed Forces Bill through Parliament five years ago, but due to lack of preparation time was ultimately not included. We really have been talking about this for a very long time.

It is also an argument that has already in part been conceded by the Government, by their agreeing in principle that members of each regional VAPC be invited by terms of reference to join parallel informal regional groups to perform functions relating to all veterans. This is exactly what this amendment is trying to do, and they are proposing to do it. We even now have a position in which the Government are actively advertising the role of membership of VAPCs as extending beyond the original statutory functions. I have sent this to the Minister. I was rather surprised to discover that on the public appointments website, dating back over four years—the current appointments are equally advertised—the principal role for the chair of the south-east England VAPC, the first role it describes as being required, is to

“act as advocates for implementing the Armed Forces Covenant and associated measures at a local level”,

even though at this point it was not mandated within the statutory requirements. They have already been advertising it, so it seems logical that we should enshrine it in this legislation.

To be fair, this amendment is carefully crafted to ensure that it ties in with the Government’s intent to review the interim solution that they are proposing for the function of VAPCs after one year, after which it will enable the Secretary of State to give VAPCs functions relating to all veterans only if it should be concluded after that review that this is potentially the best way to maximise their contribution to helping support the Armed Forces community.

My plea to the Minister is simple. The Government have accepted in principle that the role of the VAPCs should be expanded by delivering this interim solution. The Government are even actively advertising it as an expanded role. All that these modest amendments would do is put in place the ability for the Secretary of State—if, and only if, he so wishes—to make that change after the review period rather than having to wait yet another five years for the next Armed Forces Bill.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am generally supportive of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. He very ably made the point why the time to act is now rather than waiting a further five years before something is done. I very much hope the Minister can respond positively to what I think is a very sensible amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I have nothing to add.

France: AUKUS

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble Baroness is correct about our relationship with NATO and the significance of NATO to Euro-Atlantic security; I entirely agree with that assessment. She is also correct that France is a very important partner and ally, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle; nobody disputes that. We continue to engage and consult at macro level. We have shared common interests, and they are best prosecuted when we work together on them. That is our agenda and our endeavour, and I am absolutely certain that it is also the French objective.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we all support the AUKUS deal, but does the Minister realise that the French are absolutely furious with us, to the extent that, only a few weeks ago, they cancelled a meeting with our Defence Secretary to look at the future of the Lancaster House agreement? We depend on France to work with us in common interests across the world, so how will the Government prevent AUKUS opening up a rift in NATO, which is central to our security in Europe and beyond, just as the alliance is working on a new strategic concept?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

This is not opening up a rift in NATO. In fact, AUKUS has reinforced a NATO leaders’ summit decision to place greater emphasis on regional partnerships; and, interestingly, AUKUS reflects the new EU strategy for the Indo-Pacific for south-east Asia. There is a shared commonality of interests when we address threat, and I think I have observed before to the noble Lord that threat does not respect boundaries. So we address threats, France addresses threats and the EU addresses threats. We do it best together, and NATO is pivotal to that. That is acknowledged by all member states.

Royal Navy: Ships and Frigates

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

We always keep a weather eye on what our friends and allies are doing. Our first responsibility in securing this nation is to ensure that we have these capabilities for production within the UK. My noble friend makes an important point, and it is one that we are alert to.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

When we talk about the future of the Navy, any proposal should be put through a test to ensure that ships are built in Britain. I was therefore surprised to see the Defence Secretary recently saying that it was only his intention that the new national flagship would be built in the UK. I was even more surprised to see that less than 30% of the steel used so far to construct Type 26 frigates had been sourced from our own country. What specific measures will the National Shipbuilding Office deploy to ensure that British naval ships are built with British steel?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble Lord will be aware that responsibility for sourcing steel for government-procured vessels rests with prime contractors; it should be in line with Cabinet Office procurement policy. It will be for the prime contractors to make their steel requirements known to the UK steel industry in order that firms may consider bidding.

Armed Forces: Gambling Disorders

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I seek to reassure the noble Baroness by telling her that new recruits to the Armed Forces receive comprehensive briefings on the importance of financial security and the values and standards expected of them, during which the issue of gambling is raised. They are signposted to a full range of support and assistance. She may also be aware that we rely on experts in the field, including the Royal British Legion’s Money Force initiative, which aims to assist all service personnel, their partners, families and dependants to be better equipped to manage their money.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Building on what my noble friend Lord Browne said, when he quoted an Armed Forces paper that said that gambling was a very serious problem for Armed Forces personnel. I think the House will want to hear from the Minister how the Government will collect evidence about the prevalence of gambling, when that evidence will be available and what they are going to do about it. Here is one suggestion. Perhaps the Minister could outline to us how the Ministry of Defence is working with DCMS on its gambling White Paper to ensure that the MoD and DCMS are working together on that serious issue.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I have already outlined a variety of activities and range of support measures we deploy to help both serving Armed Forces personnel and veterans. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, referred to evidence from a previous University of Swansea study about the higher prevalence of gambling among veterans. We are conscious of that and, on the basis of the information we have, we do everything we can to signpost support.

Ajax Armoured Cavalry Programme

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, Ajax is now a programme on an end-of-life watch. Clearly things have gone from bad to worse, with the Public Accounts Committee pursuing an inquiry, the National Audit Office accepting the need for an urgent investigation, and the Government’s own Major Projects Authority saying that delivery appears to be unachievable. Now the Government themselves in their own Statement say that it is not possible to determine a realistic timetable for the introduction of Ajax vehicles into operational service. Some £3.5 billion of money has been spent so far, for the delivery of just 14 Ajax vehicles.

My first question to the Minister is: what is actually going on? Can the Minister now guarantee that the problems of noise, instability, inability to fire if moving—among others—will be fixed, and tell us what the timescale is, or is it just trials, trials, and more trials followed by evaluation with no end? If all of this goes wrong, who picks up the bill—the taxpayer or General Dynamics? With noise and vibration issues still not resolved, despite the Government being warned in 2018, the number of personnel needing assessment has doubled to 310. Can the Minister tell us how many of the 248 Army personnel tested so far needed medical treatment, and for what? Will the Minister commit to the health and safety director’s report being published this year?

With the chair of the Defence Select Committee himself recently describing in the other place the Ajax procurement plan as a “dog’s dinner,” can the Minister tell us what alternatives to Ajax are being looked at, since Warrior is being scrapped and replaced with Boxer, which has no turret? Is it the CV-90, or an upgraded Warrior, or a Boxer with a turret? It must have a gun, as the Minister will know, to protect dismounted troops on the battlefield. What is it going to be?

The reality is stark, with jobs at risk in South Wales as the Government will know, troop numbers being cut—the decision partly based on the delivery of all Ajax vehicles—but 575 out of the 589 have yet to be delivered. And yet the £5.5 billion ceiling, which the Government tell us is an absolute maximum, is fast approaching. The £3.5 billion was spent for 14, with 575 outstanding, but not a significant amount of the budget is left.

In closing, I ask the Minister: the Government’s plan A for our armoured fighting vehicles looks like failing, so where is the plan B, and when will we get it?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister in the other place said

“I have previously described Ajax as a troubled programme.” —[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/21; col. 487.]


I could not have put that better myself.

One of the changes since Covid is that Ministers are no longer required to read out Statements from the other place, which might be a great relief to the Minister concerned, but perhaps means that noble Lords do not always hear the detail which is enshrined in the Statements we are debating.

The devil very much is in the detail here. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has pointed out, a few details need to be explored in some depth. So far, £3.5 billion has been spent, and the Minister has said that the upper limit is still £5.5 billion. Defence procurement has long been a troubled area, with projects going overtime and overbudget. The Minister in the other place has said very clearly that this project will not go overbudget; it is very clearly going to go overtime. Can the Minister tell us whether she believes that the project is actually achievable at all?

The Minister in the other place said that the problems are not “irresolvable”, but how do we know? The problems are apparently electrical and mechanical. Do we know if there is a solution to them and, if so, what that solution might be? Has General Dynamics been given any timeline for resolving these problems, or is it just being left for it to come back at some vague date in the future to tell us there are going to be yet more trials? What assessment have the Government made of the gaps in our own capabilities if the Ajax programme is not delivered in a timely fashion—indeed, if it will not be delivered at all?

Beyond that, we have already heard that 310 people are deemed to be in need of urgent assessment. Is that the total number of people who have been involved in the trials, or are there more people? Do we have any sense of the duty of care we should be thinking about when we consider who we are asking to be part of these trials, particularly given that some of the concerns about noise appear to have arisen before the trials started? If the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, were here, he would probably jump up later to explain that, actually, during trials you have teething problems. That is fine, but in this case we knew there were problems before the trials started. Can the Minister give us some indication of when the Government knew of the problems? What action are the Government planning to take to ensure that the 310, or however many people have so far been involved in trials, are not put further at risk? This procurement project seems at the moment to be a failing project, and that is clearly to the great detriment of this country.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her usual clear and helpful introduction to this legislation, which the House will appreciate. It is a privilege to speak for Her Majesty’s Opposition on this Armed Forces Bill, so I join the Minister in her comments.

The Armed Forces Bill provides Parliament with an essential opportunity every five years not only to renew the legal underpinning for the Armed Forces but to examine how we can improve the lives of, and protections and support for, personnel and their families through legislative change. I make it clear that Her Majesty’s Opposition stand firmly behind our brave service personnel and their families, and we strongly believe that the law should be on their side. That is why I say to the Minister that we support the principles behind the Bill and indeed the Bill itself, and welcome steps to create a legal duty to implement the principles of the covenant and the key elements of the Lyons review.

However, there are many both in and outside the House who believe that the Government could and should go further. Therefore, our main priority will be to work with others cross-party to improve the legislation where appropriate and to challenge the Government on certain points in order to seek further clarity. Our forces communities are themselves determined that the Bill should not be a missed opportunity, so we will bring forward amendments in good faith to reflect these calls where we believe the Bill could be strengthened.

First, we need to place the Bill in context. The UK is currently facing a rapidly changing security environment, threats are multiplying and diversifying, democracy itself is under pressure and technology is changing warfare for ever.

As the Minister acknowledged, we also debate this legislation on the back of the Afghan withdrawal. Afghanistan, whatever the rights and wrongs, has demonstrated how quickly situations can change, with serious consequences for the UK and our allies. I join the Minister and, I know, everyone across the House in noting the bravery of our personnel and their professionalism during the evacuation, which has been incredible and, once again, awe-inspiring. Alongside them were embassy staff, diplomats and many other personnel, including many of our Afghan colleagues who stayed with us until the end. We are used to this brilliance, but we must never take it for granted. We thank them for everything they have done and recognise that our troops are a great source of pride for our country, as they should be.

However, as the Minister herself acknowledged, we cannot escape what has happened, as withdrawal has raised questions about the future and what the Government’s Global Britain actually means, nor how the trauma of recent scenes will not end for our personnel and Afghans now that the main evacuation is over. As I said, we owe them a huge debt of gratitude, along with a moral obligation to continue to support serving personnel, veterans and former local staff. Combat Stress pointed out recently that, not unexpectedly, perhaps, calls to its helplines doubled in August. In the light of that, we will work with the Minister to suggest where the Bill may be strengthened and, in particular, to look to ensure how the Ministry of Defence continues to provide additional mental health support for those who have been affected by the Afghan withdrawal.

As we turn to the Bill, I am reminded that sometimes the Government’s rhetoric may not match the reality of their actions. The Prime Minister promised not to cut personnel, but the integrated review defence Command Paper is a plan for 10,000 fewer troops. The overseas operations Act promised to end repeat investigations, but focused only on prosecutions, not shoddy investigations, nor a duty of care for troops.

We need to ensure under the Armed Forces covenant that the law fits what we all want to achieve. The Bill introduces “due regard to principles” of the covenant, but what will that mean in practice. How will it be measured? What will enforcement look like? What redress is there for Armed Forces personnel who feel let down? Many of us, including me, would argue that this commitment needs to be broadened. At the moment, it focuses only on healthcare, housing and education. Of course, all of those are important, but the Government need to ask themselves: why not social care, why not employment, why not pensions or, indeed, immigration?

That oversight has been raised by not only people such as me but many service charities and organisations. The Army Families Federation said:

“This limited scope will address only a small proportion of the disadvantages that Army families face”,


while the Royal British Legion said that the scope should be widened to include all matters affecting the Armed Forces community. Help for Heroes said that, as many issues of vital concern to veterans will be excluded, the Bill risks creating a two-tier covenant.

I am sure that the Government will point to proposed new Section 343AF, which allows the Secretary of State to add later by regulation other policy areas and additional persons and bodies to which the “due regard” principle applies, but how often will that be reviewed? What will the consultation process look like?

I was also surprised to see that, while the Bill creates new responsibilities for a wide range of public bodies, from school governors to local authorities, central government is not included. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, for example, questioned that oversight during the Afghanistan debate late last month. Why are Ministers not including central government within the Bill?

The Armed Forces covenant represents a binding moral commitment between government and service, but also between the public and our Armed Forces and communities, guaranteeing them and their families the respect and fair treatment their service has earned, suffering no disadvantage. That is why the scope of the legislation must be wide enough to ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage are addressed, and we will be tabling amendments to probe the Government’s thinking.

What about the Government’s stated objective to improve the service justice system, ensuring that personnel have a clear, fair and effective route to justice wherever they are operating? That is on the back of the Lyons review, which, as the Explanatory Notes state, was carried out with the aim of ensuring the service justice system's effectiveness. We welcome efforts to implement key recommendations of the Lyons review, particularly the creation of an independent service police complaints commissioner, which will ensure greater oversight and fairness in service justice cases. But the Government should clarify—to be fair, the Minister attempted to do this in her remarks—why they have not adopted the Lyons recommendation that civilian courts should have jurisdiction in matters of murder, rape and serious sexual offences committed in the UK. The Minister will know that the MoD’s own figures show that between 2015 and 2019, the conviction rate for rape cases tried under courts martial was just 10%, while, during the same period, the conviction rate was 59% in civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year.

Indeed, in evidence in other place, the Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird QC, said:

“Rape and sexual assault are hugely under-reported, and it is all the harder to report something when you are inside a system that is hierarchical and you may be jeopardising your own career”.


The report from the Sub-Committee on Women in the Armed Forces, chaired by Sarah Atherton MP, stated:

“We do not believe that the problems highlighted by the Lyons Review in the handling of sexual offences in the Service Justice System have been fully resolved.”


Again, we will need to explore the Government’s thinking on that in Committee. Therefore, we will be seeking an amendment to the Bill to ensure that court martial jurisdiction should no longer include rape and sexual assault with penetration, except where the consent of the Attorney-General is given. Given that reports such as the Wigston review have highlighted unacceptable levels of sexism, we shall be looking to see how we can strengthen the Bill in that area.

There are many other amendments under which we will seek to pursue the Government and to clarify their thinking in later debates: visas for Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans; a review of the number of people dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexuality; the role of Reserves, which I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, will touch on, given his excellent report; and building on the creation of a representative body for the Armed Forces.

Finally, the Minister highlighted those who were dismissed in the past because of their sexuality. I think all of us in this House welcome the Government’s commitment to do something about that. It was a historic wrong which has been too long in the undoing, and I think we would all compliment the Government on doing something about that, but there are many other important issues that we need to discuss.

Her Majesty’s Opposition remain wholeheartedly committed to working across the House to doing all we can for our Armed Forces. Our service communities deserve nothing less. I know that view is shared by everyone, so let us work together to try to achieve it.

Royal Yacht

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

My Lords—[Inaudible]— the estimated bill cost for the new national flagship, it is unhelpful to refer to this as a royal yacht. In concept, purpose and function, the flagship is completely different. The estimated bill cost is less than 0.1% of the defence budget over the next four years, and that will be met from within the defence settlement. We are satisfied that that can be comfortably accommodated.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is both disappointing and shocking that the Minister has now confirmed that the capital costs of building the flagship will be met from the defence budget. Does the Minister not understand that the core of the objections from many Lords in this debate is that the money is coming from the defence budget? If the Government are determined to go ahead with this, would it not be better for the MoD’s money to be spent not on this prime ministerial vanity project but on another maritime patrol aircraft or frigate? That is the nub of the questions that the Minister is being asked: why is this a priority for the MoD?

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

As I indicated, the MoD is one government department but we operate in conjunction with others. We consider it our duty to support these other government departments in their respective obligations and missions. As I also indicated earlier, the MoD spend on shipbuilding will double to over £1.7 billion a year over the life of this Parliament, while the national flagship is less than 0.1% of that defence budget over the next four years.