Ukraine

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, this new and sensible procedure of not reading out the Statement because we have all read it leaves me with the problem of how to open one’s speech. I will compromise by thanking the Minister for coming to answer our questions.

I do not really have anything new to say. To emphasise that, I am going to read out the first paragraph of the shadow Secretary of State’s reply to the Statement in the other place, because my position will not deviate from it. He said:

“I welcome its contents and make clear Labour’s full backing for the steps the Government have been taking on international diplomatic efforts to de-escalate threats, on defensive support for the Ukraine military, on necessary institutional reforms within the country, and on tough economic and financial sanctions in response to any fresh Russian invasion into Ukraine.”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/22; col. 63.]


So I do not believe that we differ in any significant way from the Government. However, I have some questions.

I understand that 13,000 Ukrainian citizens have been killed in the conflict so far, and many must have been killed on what I will loosely call the Russian side. The first objective must surely therefore be to stop the killing. Moving into the area of objectives, could the Minister set out what our policy is, first, on direct military engagement and, secondly, on recognising any of the Russian concerns? I hope she will reaffirm that we are overwhelmingly committed to a diplomatic solution; those diplomatic solutions do not look very optimistic but I hope she can flesh out some strands of optimism.

In 1994—I may get these things slightly wrong—the Budapest agreement was signed and Britain is the guarantor of that agreement. As I understand it, although I cannot claim to have read it, it was a comprehensive agreement that settled the future of Ukraine. It settled its boundaries and did a brilliant job of denuclearising the country, and we would all have hoped that that was how it would settle down. The agreement sought to answer all the questions. Now I have to ask the Minister whether it has any relevance today at all.

In 2014 the Normandy format was created—in Normandy, I believe, because it had its essence at the Normandy celebrations. It is a format of four countries: France, Germany, the US and Russia. On 6 January this year, it met. As far as one can tell, there was little progress, but, hopefully, we have some way of getting to the essence of what those conversations were. My simple question is: was there any progress?

A second institution is the NATO-Russia Council, which has been meeting somewhat infrequently. However, it met on 12 January. Reports from the Secretary-General of NATO seemed a bit downbeat, but does the Minister have any more positive interpretation of what happened? Are there any areas for optimism?

Like any Opposition, even when we agree with the Government, we inevitably end up saying, “You should try harder”, and I shall say that they should try harder. Should there be more diplomatic effort? I am not saying that the Government do not grasp this, but the news, for want of a better barometer, does not seem to grasp just how serious the situation is. There have been a number of efforts by UK diplomats and politicians to meet the Ukrainian Government, but should there be more? Should the Foreign Secretary visit Ukraine? Should there be something as innovatory as the Defence Secretary going to Moscow?

My experience of negotiation is somewhat depressing. One of the things that is depressing about negotiation is the success of negotiation by attrition. What I mean is, if you spend enough time talking in concert with your allies and you talk and listen to the other side of a debate, you get closer by sheer volume. Therefore, I encourage the Government to see where more face-to-face contact can take place and where there can be more conversations between different people, or different nuances. I seek an assurance that we are using our best skills to try to understand the Russian position. There must be people in Russia who recognise just how serious and dangerous this is. We have to try to find some common ground and we have to ask ourselves—I know a lot of people are concerned about it—whether we retain sufficient diplomatic capability in the Russian area. Do we have adequate Russia skills?

Our military support was clearly welcomed by Ukraine, but I do not know what it consisted of. Perhaps the noble Baroness could flesh that out. How many UK personnel were involved? How many are still in Ukraine and are they at risk? There is an interesting phrase in the Statement that I hope the noble Baroness can flesh out. It says that we are supplying Ukraine with anti-armour defensive weapons systems. I guess if you are in a tank with a missile coming towards you, it is a bit difficult to interpret why this is only a defensive system. How does one signal to the enemy that what we are providing to Ukraine is a weapon that is really only usable in a defensive situation? How many personnel are involved in the training to use this weapon? Are any left in Ukraine?

Ukraine recently suffered a major cyberattack. It is not mentioned in the Statement, but I understand that a new cyber co-operation agreement has been concluded between NATO and Ukraine. What role will Ukraine play in this? Is it already active?

Finally, on the reference yesterday to the Indo-Pacific tilt, can the Minister confirm that resources must be centred on Europe and NATO? AUKUS is a great concept, but it must not draw resources from where the threat is greatest.

As I said at the beginning, we have no fundamental criticism of the Government. We face a very grave situation. History teaches us that wars are much easier to get into than to get out of. If war breaks out in eastern Ukraine, many people will die. All efforts must centre on securing peace.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I take no issue with the terms of the Statement, nor with the remarks of the noble Lord who has just spoken, but I think it is helpful if we try to put into context the political objectives of Mr Putin. Put baldly, they are these: to break Ukraine and to intimidate NATO. Mr Putin sees a client Ukraine as essential to Russia’s interests and believes—I believe, falsely—that western capitals will back down in the face of his aggression. The overarching purpose is to create a sphere of Russian interest in eastern Europe—an objective for which, I may say, he was given some encouragement by the sometimes lukewarm support given to NATO by President Trump.

It is clear, in my judgment, that any accession to Mr Putin’s demands would break both Ukraine and NATO itself. The truth is that NATO poses no threat to Russia. If we consider the enhanced forward presence with which the United Kingdom is most closely associated, the deployment of the battle group to Estonia, it consists of some 900 men. That will hardly challenge the substance of the Russian state.

We should not forget, though, that the people of Ukraine have been under considerable stress and strain. They have been under cyberattack in a particularly personal way, and we know now that there is the threat of false flag diversions. However, I am clear in my mind that we are right to support the Government of Ukraine politically and to provide them with defensive weapons. I am clear in my mind that we are right to make it clear that the United Kingdom will be part of severe economic measures against Russia if military action is commenced. The people of Ukraine continue to show their courage and resilience in the face of provocation and imminent threat, but, increasingly, they show that they wish a future in the Euro-Atlantic community, which is their sovereign right, and one that we should be willing to defend.

I have but two questions for the Minister. What discussions have the United Kingdom Government had with other members of NATO and the European Union to ensure unity of purpose in both those organisations? In particular, why was it that RAF aircraft, two C17s, taking defensive weapons to Ukraine, chose not to fly over Germany? Was there a political reason behind that decision?

Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Hayter and her committee for the report and for calling this debate. The committee invites us to look not only at the agreement in front of us but at the broader area in which it fits. It is important to see the big picture.

I am new to this area of treaties, and I always like to see a piece of paper. The first piece of paper that one is likely to come across on AUKUS is Boris Johnson’s speech. I am not entirely comfortable with that as a document of record, so I went on Google, as one does, and addressed the White House website. It has an excellent document which puts the range and objectives of this package, or whatever we want to call it, in a joint leaders’ statement on AUKUS. I would be happier about the statement if it had three signatures at the bottom; nevertheless, it uses very inclusive language. I shall quote some parts of it. The statement begins:

“As leaders of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, guided by our enduring ideals and shared commitment to the international rules-based order, we resolve to deepen diplomatic, security, and defense cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region, including by working with partners, to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. As part of this effort, we are announcing the creation of an enhanced trilateral security partnership called ‘AUKUS’”.


To be clear on what it is to cover, the third paragraph states:

“As the first initiative under AUKUS, recognizing our common tradition as maritime democracies, we commit to a shared ambition to support Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. Today, we embark on a trilateral effort of 18 months to seek an optimal pathway to deliver this capability.”


Recognising that the agreement goes much wider than submarines, a later paragraph states:

“Recognizing our deep defense ties, built over decades, today we also embark on further trilateral collaboration under AUKUS to enhance our joint capabilities and interoperability. These initial efforts will focus on cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and additional undersea capabilities.”


It is clear from this carefully worded joint leaders’ statement that this is a comprehensive and ambitious initiative.

The Labour Party welcomes the increased co-operation with our allies and supports the AUKUS agreement. Australia and America are two of our closest security partners, and sharing resources and intelligence with them makes Britain safer. Britain must look after our most important relationships, or we will see our influence and security quickly decline. China’s actions in the Indo-Pacific pose risks to UK interests and threaten a stable trading environment, democracy and human rights, and it is important that we deal with those risks.

However—there is always a “however”—it is also vital that the UK maintain a commercial relationship with China and that we work with it on defining global issues of the day, such as tackling climate change. It is also important that this arrangement does not see resources redirected from Europe to the Pacific and that it strengthens our NATO alliance and other strategic partnerships. Finally, this arrangement clearly brings potential economic opportunities for Britain.

My only problem with this grand vision—and this shows my lack of international diplomacy experience—concerns what this statement is. Is it a treaty? Is it an agreement? How will things change as a result of it? Will it develop into a document which has some enforceability?

In addressing this from a UK point of view, I support the concept and focus of the noble Lord, Lord West. As this pact, this agreement—whatever we want to call it—matures, it will need a high-quality individual with a high-quality team to make sure that it goes right. There are a lot of potential problems. One thing we need is a change in the tradition of the political side of our leadership and the Civil Service. We will need people in a stable relationship with this task because the very considerable industrial and manufacturing complexities—there are also people complexities; this point was rolled out by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce—will need to be looked at all the time.

We support the pact, but there is a lot to flesh out before it is meaningful. Frankly, what we have in front of us is a modest part of that picture. As far as I understand it, it is a confidentiality agreement driven by the necessities of US law. The International Agreements Committee has brought out some of question marks, which I hope the Minister will be able to help with. I was particularly seized by paragraph 13 of its report, which states that the agreement

“shall settle any disagreements arising in the implementation or interpretation of this Agreement through mutual consultations and negotiations without recourse to any dispute settlement mechanism”.

That sounds wonderful but you end up asking where its teeth are. How will it actually deliver?

The next paragraph, paragraph 14, talks about

“four automatic extensions of six months each”,

which sounds like 31 December 2025; I do not know why it does not say that, nor what automatic extensions are. This paragraph also states:

“Any Party may terminate the Agreement by giving six months’ written notice to the other Parties.”


So it is a pretty fragile situation. When you think about why this may happen, it depends on trust. I suspect that if you asked the French about trust, they would give you a pretty dire analysis of what they see as trust.

Paragraph 16 of the report has been referred to; it is where all these conversations centre. It talks about the Explanatory Memorandum but really it is talking about the thinking behind the document. It states:

“We reiterate our recommendation made in recent reports that the Government should review its quality assurance processes to ensure that all EMs address whether amendments will be subject to scrutiny under Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010”.


I would go further: we must have mechanisms to supervise this enormous concept—this trilateral relationship —with parliamentary scrutiny.

We support the agreement in front of us, but we must be much clearer about parliamentary involvement, and I thank my noble friend Lady Liddell for bringing this out. The question is: why? There are two reasons. First, the probability is that this will involve lots of money. The Australians have a somewhat patchy reputation when it comes to building submarines and manning them. There is a reasonable possibility—possibly even a probability—that these boats will end up being built in Britain. That sounds wonderful until you look at the record of building submarines in Britain, with pauses, delays, changes in the shape of the programme et cetera.

The second thing that one has to realise is that this is going to go wrong. Things of this complexity go wrong; life is like that. If something goes wrong, it does not mean that it is lost, it means that the “going wrong” process will have to be managed. That management once again comes back to the talent that we put into the process and the extent to which Parliament is informed, to which there is a degree of transparency, to work through what will be a 10, 15 or 20-year relationship.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to the government amendments that will implement specific recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in respect of the Armed Forces covenant. Among this group are some minor and technical corrections to the Bill.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—whose painstaking work is often unsung and to whom I pay tribute and offer thanks—made two recommendations in respect of the Armed Forces covenant. These relate to the power under new Section 343AE to issue guidance to which public authorities must have regard when exercising relevant statutory functions, and to those who are classed as “service people” and are therefore beneficiaries of the covenant duty. Having considered the committee’s recommendations and recognising the impact these matters may have on the duties imposed on public bodies, we have brought these amendments to provide for greater parliamentary scrutiny in these key elements of the duty.

I will first address government Amendments 8, 9, 11, 12, and 19, which relate to the statutory guidance that we are preparing in support of the duty. These amendments will require the guidance to be laid before Parliament in draft before it can be issued and provide for the guidance to be brought into force by regulations using the affirmative resolution procedure. Given the status of the guidance and its importance in supporting the public bodies that will be subject to the duty, these amendments will provide Parliament with a greater opportunity to scrutinise this document before it is issued.

Amendments 16, 18 and 20 relate to the definition of “relevant family members” for the purpose of the covenant duty. The covenant principles relate to disadvantages arising for “service people”, with special provision being made for such people. The term “service people” is defined in Section 343B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to include “relevant family members” of service and former service personnel, but this does not include a description of precisely who is a relevant family member for the purposes of the covenant duties. As this group of people will need to be considered by those public bodies in scope of the new duty, we have accepted the committee’s recommendation to specify in regulations who is to be regarded as a relevant family member and that the affirmative resolution procedure is appropriate.

These amendments will therefore amend Section 343B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to provide for “relevant family members” to be defined in regulations that will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The definition set out in the regulations will apply to both the new “due regard” duty and the Armed Forces covenant report. However, for the purposes of the report, the definition will also include such persons connected with service members and ex-service members as the Secretary of State may decide, as is currently the case under Section 343B.

In addition to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the amendments will also require the Secretary of State to consult with the devolved Administrations and other stakeholders he considers appropriate before making the regulations.

There are further minor and technical amendments to Clause 8. Amendments 10 and 13 amend new Sections 343AE(4)(c) and 343AF(7)(c) to correct drafting omissions to ensure that the duty on the Secretary of State to consult a Northern Ireland department on regulations or guidance applies only where the Northern Ireland devolved context is affected. This mirrors the position for Wales and Scotland.

Amendment 14 to new Section 343AF, which is inserted by Amendment 19, removes a superfluous part of the definition of Northern Ireland devolved competence, also bringing it into line with the approach for Wales and Scotland. I hope your Lordships will support these amendments, which will provide Parliament a greater opportunity to scrutinise these key elements supporting the covenant duty before they become law.

Amendments 21 and 22 are minor and technical in nature and are being brought forward to improve the drafting of the Bill and ensure consistency with existing legislation. Amendment 21 will allow the regulations that replicate the effect of Section 10(5) of the Police Reform Act 2002 to also replicate the effect of Section 54(2D) of the Police Act 1996. The service police complaints commissioner and Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary have complementary statutory functions and are charged with the oversight of the service police forces. This amendment will require them to enter into arrangements with each other for the purposes of securing co-operation and providing assistance in the carrying out of their respective functions. Amendment 22 would provide for the records of the service police complaints commissioner to be “public records” for the purpose of the Public Records Act 1958. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome the increased parliamentary scrutiny for the statutory guidance on the application of the duty for due regard. This was a recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee, which we thank for its work on this. Could the Minister give us some indication of how the consultation with the devolved Administrations on drafting the guidance is going? We also welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Delegated Powers Committee’s recommendation to ensure that regulations defining “relevant family members” are subject to the affirmative procedure.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. The amendments that have been brought forward all seem sensible and, as the Minister said, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for looking in such detail at this legislation, as in so many cases, and particularly for being glad, as always, to have any changes made with affirmative assent rather than negative approval. There is little to add at this stage. We look forward to the Minister moving these amendments and then moving to other groups that might be a little more contentious.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, brought a similar amendment forward in Committee, which we discussed. He has made very clear why there is a case for expanding the role of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees. He seems to be exhorting various people to think about Private Members’ Bills but, as that is not the role of your Lordships’ House today, could the Minister say how far the Government would be willing to explore his ideas? Is there a neat way in which she might be able to bring forward a suitable amendment at Third Reading which means that, while he does not need to divide the House today, the intentions could be brought on to the face of the Bill?

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for tabling Amendment 15. I have not much more to add than my comments in Committee, so I will not hold up the debate for long. I again thank everyone involved with the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees across the country. These committees help to ensure that veterans and their families receive the help and care they need on pensions, allowances and other issues, and act as an important bridge between the veteran community and national government.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

26: After Clause 19, insert the following new Clause—
“Indefinite leave to remain payments by Commonwealth, Hong Kong and Gurkha members of armed forces
(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) In section 68(10), after “regulations” insert “must make exceptions in respect of any person with citizenship of a Commonwealth country (other than the United Kingdom) who has served at least four years in the armed forces of the United Kingdom, or any person who has served at least four years in the Royal Navy Hong Kong Squadron, the Hong Kong Military Service Corps or the Brigade of Gurkhas, such exceptions to include capping the fee for any such person applying for indefinite leave to remain at no more than the actual administrative cost of processing that application, and”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause will ensure that Commonwealth, Hong Kong and Gurkha veterans applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain following four years of service will only pay the unit cost of an application.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 26, in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker. We have retabled this amendment from Committee due to the strength of feeling on this issue across the House. Commonwealth service personnel and other non-UK personnel have contributed an enormous amount to our national defence, and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

Extortionate visa fees have left non-UK veterans facing financial ruin and feeling abandoned by the country they served with courage and distinction. I was shocked when the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said in Committee that Hong Kong veterans feel that

“they are being treated as aliens, not veterans of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.”

I remember how the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said that the welcome approach to former Afghan staff means that government policy towards

“foreign and Commonwealth soldiers who have stood shoulder to shoulder with us and fought in many campaigns … is an anomaly and it is bizarre.”

I also remember how the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said that the MoD policy change that now allows Gurkhas to apply some 18 weeks before leaving service

“does not address the issue of cost”.

The Minister stated:

“We recognise that settlement fees place a financial burden on non-UK serving personnel wishing to remain in the UK after their discharge”.


So why is action on this issue so slow? I am grateful that the Minister told the House that 6,398 responses were received in the Government’s consultation, but we are still not further forward when the Minister says only that

“the Government will publish their response in due course.”—[Official Report, 2/11/21; cols. GC 337-41.]

This answer is no longer acceptable. We need to know when and how the Government will act, and they should not hide behind the usual ministerial lines to kick the can down the road.

I remind the Minister of the large sums involved. Under current rules, Commonwealth personnel face a fee of £2,389 per person to continue to live in the UK, after having served for at least four years. This means that someone with a partner and two children could face a bill of £10,000 to stay in Britain. I will listen very closely to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

I will make two points, a broader one and a narrower one that is particularly germane to this amendment. My broader point picks up the discussion in your Lordships’ House about the wider duty of care standard, which we debated in the context of the overseas operations Bill, introduced at Second Reading of this Bill and discussed and debated in Committee. I am encouraged by the Minister’s various responses at the various stages of these two Bills. The Ministry of Defence appears to be going very much in the right direction, which is why an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to put in place a duty of care standard has not featured on Report of this Bill.

My narrower point still relates to duty of care and duty of care standards, with particular regard to former service men and women who served in Hong Kong, Gurkhas, and foreign and Commonwealth individuals. The latter make up a large proportion of the British Armed Forces today. I come back to the very narrow point I made in Committee: it is an anomaly that among those withdrawn from Afghanistan in Operation Pitting in August were former members of the Afghan national army, who have now been given right of residence in this country and are in a better position than foreign and Commonwealth soldiers, and Gurkha soldiers who have served shoulder to shoulder with us for at least four years, and in many cases for much longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

Well, as the number two member of this team, I am glad I managed to imitate my boss with such accuracy that it was unnoticed—but I will recover.

I note that all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have spoken in favour of a change of heart by the Government. It is time the Government got a grip on this. The sense that this is simply a detail in a wider issue simply does not understand the concept. These people have demonstrated a loyalty that most of us have never had to. We are honoured to have a couple of people here who have demonstrated that loyalty: to be willing, on the whim of a politician, to go out and fight for us—not for their country but for Britain. You cannot ask for more loyalty than that; it is a test that I am not sure I would have passed. But these people came along and served. The history of Commonwealth soldiers, sailors and airmen fighting for this country is a long one, and they deserve to be considered quite separately from these wider issues.

I am not going to divide the House—frankly, there is not enough of the House around to be worth dividing—but I hope the Minister will take away the enormous strength of feeling on this issue. What really came out to me from this is that it is crucial that the Government, at the most senior level, understand that this is not an immigration issue; it is about people who have been willing to demonstrate ultimate loyalty to our Government and who would make the perfect citizens of this country. I hope the slightly warm sense that we got from some of the Minister’s words will bear fruit very soon. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th November 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

51: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause—
“Armed Forces Federation
(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) After section 333, insert—“333A Armed Forces Federation(1) There shall be an Armed Forces Federation for the United Kingdom for the purpose of representing members of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom in all matters affecting their welfare, remuneration and efficiency, except for—(a) questions of promotion affecting individuals, and(b) (subject to subsection (2)) questions of discipline affecting individuals.(2) The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the armed forces at any proceedings or on an appeal from any such proceedings.(3) The Armed Forces Federation must act through local and central representative bodies.(4) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces, and references to the Armed Forces are to be construed accordingly.333B Regulations for the Armed Forces Federation (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) prescribe the constitution and proceedings of the Armed Forces Federation, or(b) authorise the Federation to make rules concerning such matters relating to their constitution and proceedings as may be specified in the regulations.(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may make provision—(a) with respect to the membership of the Federation;(b) with respect to the raising of funds by the Federation by voluntary subscription and the use and management of funds derived from such subscriptions;(c) with respect to the manner in which representations may be made by committees or bodies of the Federation to officers of the Armed Forces and the Secretary of State; and (d) for the payment by the Secretary of State of expenses incurred in connection with the Federation and for the use by the Federation of premises provided by local Armed Forces bodies for Armed Forces purposes.(3) Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate, including provisions adapting references in any enactment (including this Act) to committees or other bodies of the Federation.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(5) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would create a representative body for the Armed Forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent their members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 51, in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, is a probing amendment. We will be interested not only in the Government’s response but in the response of the noble and gallant Lords whose experience we value.

The new clause would create a representative body for the Armed Forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent its members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency. It has been clear for some time that the Armed Forces need independent advice and representation. Witnesses before the Bill Select Committee in the other place have reinforced this and we continue to hear shocking stories of abuse that takes place within units. We have also heard that continued delays discourage the use of the service complaints system, and there is a concerning perception that one’s career will be under threat if one complains.

Most members of the Armed Forces have also endured a real-terms pay cut for most of the last decade. Given the renewed emphasis that Ministers appear to be placing on the value of people as assets to our national defence, the time may be right to formalise representation and support for service personnel on issues such as welfare and pay.

[A noble Lord]

Perhaps the noble Lord could take his mask off.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

Sorry. You do not want me to start again, do you? I am in two minds about it.

This would not be the equivalent of a trade union for the Armed Forces in that it would not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the Armed Forces. The federation would work with the Ministry of Defence to put in place a form of understanding that could deal with such issues. It would also recognise the importance of the chain of command.

The proposal might seem radical or dangerous to some, but other nations, including the United States and Australia, already have similar models embedded in their existing military structures. Would the Minister not accept that if our police service enjoys access to a representation body for welfare, pay and other key issues, our Armed Forces deserve the same?

Following on from the Budget, I want to ask the Minister a specific question. The Budget set out that the MoD would experience a decrease of 1.4% in average annual real-terms growth between 2021 and 2025 in day-to-day departmental spending. Does the Minister accept that this means less money for forces recruitment, training, pay and family support? Ministers should seize this opportunity to give the Armed Forces a real voice. I beg to move.

[Lord Boyce (CB)]

My Lords, I oppose this amendment. Fundamentally, I believe that it would be seriously detrimental to the chain of command. I have some questions. Will membership be voluntary? Would there be a subscription? Would all Armed Forces members be expected to join?

I want to focus particularly on the purpose mentioned in the amendment: that the federation might represent members on welfare, remuneration and efficiency. On welfare, we have the covenant. We have myriad Armed Forces charities, and we have the internal welfare services and a number of other things. I cannot see what value this would add. On remuneration, the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body has respect among the members of the Armed Forces. How would this dovetail with the federation? On efficiency, what do we mean by efficiency? Is it fighting efficiency—in which case, what will the competence of the federation be to decide what is good or bad efficiency on the fighting side of life?

The amendment also says that:

“The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the armed forces at any proceedings”.


Would we have to have an Armed Forces federation member, rather like a Soviet commissar, on ships deployed for example in the Pacific? I think this is completely impractical.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for tabling Amendment 51, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for so eloquently speaking to it. As has been explained, this amendment seeks to create through primary legislation a representative body for the Armed Forces that is similar in many respects to the Police Federation. It proposes that details of how the federation would operate are set out in regulations. I recognise the commitment of both noble Lords to the welfare of our Armed Forces, as other contributors have rightly acknowledged.

This has been an interesting debate. It has thrown up in broad terms the particular environment and context in which we ask our Armed Forces to operate, and it has disclosed some specific issues. Let me try to address some of the points raised. Clearly, the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce and Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, have reservations. I think they were well articulated and suggest that they should be heeded.

To go to the context, the environment in which we ask our Armed Forces to operate, the Armed Forces have a unique role and can be called upon to carry out tasks that are clearly beyond anything that most other people would be asked to do in the course of their duties. What works for a civilian workforce such as the police will not necessarily work for service personnel. That is why the interests of Armed Forces personnel are already represented through a range of mechanisms, not least the chain of command. I will spend a short time outlining some of those provisions. We are currently, in fact, considering what more we can do in this space without compromising operational effectiveness.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the issue of pay in general terms and made a particularly interesting point about whether the Armed Forces understand the structures. The Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body provide independent annual recommendations on pay for the Armed Forces to the Prime Minister. The X factor addition to basic military pay, which is currently at 14.5%, recognises the special conditions of military life, including the limits on the ability of service personnel to negotiate on this issue. Processes are in place for personnel to make complaints about their pay or allowances. I would hope that, with the new ambience that now pervades the Armed Forces, people would be encouraged to articulate those concerns and ask questions of the very type the noble Baroness mentioned.

With regard to complaints more widely, the Service Complaints Ombudsman provides independent and impartial scrutiny of the handling of service complaints made by members of the UK Armed Forces regarding most aspects of their service life, and service personnel are able independently to approach the ombudsman or ombudswoman about a complaint which they do not want to raise directly with their chain of command. Support is provided to those who are making complaints or allegations and to those who are the subjects of such actions. In addition to this practical support, there is a range of internal and external welfare support for personnel to draw on if they need it as they go through these processes.

Improvements to the service complaints process are being progressed as a matter of policy, as the vast majority of these do not require primary legislation. For many other issues, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—SSAFA—the Royal Naval Association, the Royal Air Force Association, the Veterans Support Association and a host of other regimental associations and groups around the country have regular access both to the chain of command and to Ministers to represent their members’ interests.

Service personnel have their own voice on matters which concern them through the Armed Forces annual continuous attitude survey, which asks our people about all aspects of their service life. The results, which are published, are used to inform the development of policy and to measure the impact of decisions affecting personnel, including major programmes and the Armed Forces covenant.

Service personnel can also play an active role in the development of the policies which affect them. There are currently more than 50 diversity networks operating within defence at various levels. Most of these are run by volunteer members, with senior officer advocates and champions, and they can be consulted on matters which are likely to impact our people.

Noble Lords will understand that the well-being of our personnel directly contributes to the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces. It is therefore important to the chain of command and to defence to both sustain and support the well-being of service personnel and their families and, where necessary, provide welfare support to resolve issues that might otherwise undermine well-being and impact on operational effectiveness.

That is why, during basic training, all service personnel receive details on how to identify welfare issues and how to get help, with refresher training provided during subsequent initial trade training. All regular and reserve officers also receive training during their respective commissioning course which teaches how their service provides welfare support and sets out their welfare roles and responsibilities as line managers. Once again, refresher training is provided throughout and welfare specialists are also on hand to provide advice to the chain of command and provide support to their personnel.

We recognise that some personnel and families may feel uncomfortable exposing welfare issues to the chain of command and, in some cases, issues may even arise as a direct result of conflict with the chain of command. My noble friend Lord Lancaster spoke in broad terms about that and the alternative channels available to complainants.

I therefore submit that, in these circumstances, service personnel have alternative mechanisms for raising and addressing welfare issues, giving them a voice independent of the chain of command. These include unit welfare staff, padres and confidential helplines, in addition to the service families federations and service complaints process that I referred to earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, referred to Australia, but Australia disbanded its armed forces federation in 2006.

The noble Lord also raised an issue about the recent Budget, in response to which I would say that as the department prioritises providing a wider range of supportive bodies and invests in training for service personnel throughout their service career, it would be misleading to quantify this in terms of budget lines as such. The department feels strongly that the interests of service personnel need to be protected and we take a varied approach by providing many strands to offer that protection. We cannot put a price on giving people a voice.

I hope that this explains clearly the rationale for the Government’s approach to ensuring that the interests of service personnel are protected and the provisions that exist. I trust that, following these assurances, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the essential skills for survival in politics is being able to count. I recognise a 5-0 defeat when I hear one; it can also be pretty uncomfortable when the closest you get to support comes from the Government. But I ask noble Lords to pause and consider that the speech that the Minister just made was probably unthinkable 30 years ago. She at least took the generality that representation, through one mechanism or another, is necessary. We also have to take the generality that, much as we all are proud of the Armed Forces, we know that in some areas things are not as perfect as we would want.

The concept of representation will have its day. Clearly, that is not today. But on the ideas behind it, I am pleased that the Government, I think, conceptually see that it is necessary to make sure that there are appropriate mechanisms for representation. Over time—this will come up every five years—we will test the ground, because we as a party believe in representation.

There is an interesting concept about civilians in uniform. They are not civilians in uniform; clearly, they are different from civilians in that they have to put their lives on the line, and I accept that. However, I think that they are citizens in uniform and there need to be processes and a mechanism for their views to be made known. We talk about supporting individuals going to the ombudsman. That is a good thing. I think that there is a recognition that that might have to be more formalised and more powerful. We will see. I accept that we are apart on this issue. Nevertheless, we are not as apart as one might think. The idea of agency by individuals is one that will not go away, but it is certainly not an idea that should be forced on an unwilling institution.

I opened by saying that I wanted to hear what the Government had to say. I am pleased with the direction of their answer. I also said that we were interested in what noble and gallant Lords might say. I note what they said. Therefore, taking account of all those issues, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment and will not be bringing it back on Report.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

52: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause—
“Universal Credit
(1) The Government must publish annual statistics on the number of veterans who are receiving universal credit.
(2) These statistics should be included in the annual Armed Forces covenant report.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to publish statistics on the number of veterans in receipt of universal credit.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 52 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, I will speak also to Amendment 56. Her Majesty’s Opposition believe that we owe a debt of gratitude to, and have a moral obligation to help, those who have served our country transition back into civilian life. This transition can often be hard. Just the idea—let alone the process—of finding a new job can be challenging. Too many veterans are falling through the cracks of veterans’ employment support and struggling to find a job. This support has even been cut back by Ministers.

I was shocked to learn earlier this year that the Government have dropped their target for helping personnel, veterans and their families to find work after they leave the Armed Forces. Ministers are now hiring only 50 Armed Forces champions, despite committing £6 million in 2019 to fund “more than 100” Armed Forces champions in jobcentres. Announcing the increased spending in 2019, the Work and Pensions Secretary Thérèse Coffey said that 100 champions should provide

“specialist, individual support to former service personnel and their families”.

The Government also said that champions were a key part of their commitment to the Armed Forces covenant.

However, in response to a Written Question in June 2021, the DWP Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, said that a “new model” was now being pursued, with 50 Armed Forces champions being recruited. She also confirmed that the number of Armed Forces champions had fallen to a record low, with only 34 champions being appointed so far. In 2019 there were 46 Armed Forces champions in the UK, so why did Ministers decide to cut the number of Armed Forces champions in jobcentres? How much money did they save? Can the Minister tell me how many Armed Forces champions are currently working in jobcentres? Is it the target of 50, or fewer; if so, how many fewer? Amendment 56 seeks to reinstate the Government’s original commitment of 100 Armed Forces champions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, called for better evidence. If there is any consensus here, it is between him, the Minister and me that data, which we are promised will be early in the new year, will add light to our concerns.

I am in no way suggesting that, as a generality, individuals are damaged by their experience of being in the Armed Forces. In the limited experience that I have of contact with the Armed Forces, I see, as a generality, good people who have valued their training and their roles.

The problem is that there is anecdotal concern that some veterans have a difficult time and there is a general concern in society that veterans of the Armed Forces in particular should be looked after. The dilemma of the covenant is the negative concept—it is put in a negative way, although I do not mean it negatively—that nobody shall be worse off as a result of coming from the forces. There is a second tranche that says that, in view of the special service of members of the Armed Forces, we should do things at the edge to help, having regard for their previous experience.

We will carefully consider what the noble Baroness has said, although we would welcome any additional information that she finds to reassure us. However, she has put on the record areas of comfort, which we will take account of, so I am content at this point to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 52 withdrawn.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

49: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause—
“Indefinite leave to remain payments by Commonwealth and Gurkha members of armed forces
(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) In section 68(10), after “regulations” insert “must make exceptions in respect of any person with citizenship of a Commonwealth country (other than the United Kingdom) who has served at least four years in the armed forces of the United Kingdom, or in respect of any person who has served at least four years in the Brigade of Gurkhas, such exceptions to include capping the fee for any such person applying for indefinite leave to remain at no more than the actual administrative cost of processing that application, and”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause will ensure that Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain following four years of service will only pay the unit cost of an application.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 49, I will speak to Amendment 63. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for signing these amendments.

It is extremely disappointing that, as currently drafted, the Bill does nothing to address the shameful scandal of visa fees for veterans. As Stephen Morgan said:

“Commonwealth service personnel have contributed an enormous amount to our national defence and we owe them a debt of gratitude. Extortionate visa fees have left non-UK veterans facing financial ruin and feeling abandoned by the country they served with courage and distinction.”


Under current rules, Commonwealth personnel face a fee of £2,389 per person to continue to live in the UK after having served at least four years. It means that someone with a partner and two children could face a bill of £10,000 to stay in Britain. I remember that, at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, called this a “shameful scandal”, while the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said that it was a “bizarre situation”.

The Government finally announced a long-awaited public consultation on 26 May on proposals that would waive visa fees for those who had served 12 years or more. However, as the Sun reported:

“Ministry of Defence figures show only 20 of the 200 non-UK personnel who left the Regulars last year would qualify … when the majority serve between four and 11 years … The average length of service for all UK armed forces leavers has been about 10 years since 2015.”


The proposed changes also do not apply to family members of those who have served or those who have been medically discharged, meaning that they will help only a minority of those affected. Amendments 49 and 63 would mean that Commonwealth, Gurkha and Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans who have served four years would pay just the cost price of £243 for an application for indefinite leave to remain. I know that the Royal British Legion and organisations such as Citizenship 4 Soldiers have long campaigned on this.

The government consultation closed on 7 July. The Minister said at Second Reading that the Government were

“currently analysing the feedback from that consultation and we shall respond in due course.”—[Official Report, 7/9/21; col. 775.]

Is that response ready today? If not, when will it be ready? Can the Minister explain why this Government can justify making Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans, who have served our country with the same courage and distinction, wait two years longer before they are allowed to live in the country they have fought for? This is about not only fairness but our moral obligation to those who have served our country in the Armed Forces. I want to see movement from the Minister on this issue; otherwise, we will certainly return to it on Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 49 and 63, but I shall speak to Amendment 63 and concentrate on the plight of the few UK Armed Forces veterans of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps. For completeness, I also include veterans of the Royal Navy Hong Kong Squadron. They were all full members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces throughout their service. They took the same lifetime oath of loyalty as all other British service members, and paid full UK taxes. Officially recognised as veterans by Her Majesty’s Government, they are not being treated fairly and reasonably, as the covenant requires. I have already explained the background to this issue to the Minister and raised it many times in this House, so I will not repeat myself now in this Committee.

The recent swift action by the Government to evacuate and grant right of abode to thousands of Afghanis shows that the Home Office can respond fast. Is there any reason why the Government have prevaricated for the past nine years and refused to come to a decision about granting the request of the Hong Kong veterans for British citizenship and right of abode? These veterans’ covenant rights should apply in Hong Kong as they do anywhere else.

The imposed national security law in Hong Kong has put the “one country, two systems” paradigm in a precarious state. These veterans find themselves living under Beijing rule. They, along with many other Hong Kongers, are worried, but they are small in number and believe their case is now a matter of humanity, not politics. They feel they are being treated as aliens, not veterans of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

They, as much as other past members of the Armed Forces, deserve a positive decision, not the endless excuse that their case is being “actively considered”. That euphemism has been the response of Home Office Ministers and a frequently repeated response to approaches from Members of both Houses on behalf of these veterans for the past nine years and more. Over 60 individual applications from this small group of veterans, which I forwarded to the Home Office on their behalf in March 2020, over 18 months ago, have gone unanswered. It all smacks of a Sir Humphrey-style reaction, unworthy of the Home Office, unless it aspires to remain a department unfit for business in this area. It is long past time for this request to be resolved finally and clearly.

Is this not an equally pertinent example, as was the case of Gulf War syndrome, highlighted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in the earlier Committee debate, of the need to include the Secretary of State for Defence in the list of those who must have a duty of care under the covenant? These Hong Kong Armed Forces veterans’ concerns and requests are not ones that could be devolved or passed to a local authority. Including the Secretary of State in this Bill is necessary to fill this gap in the duty of care under the covenant. Will the Government acknowledge that this Hong Kong veterans’ claim is a long-standing and legitimate one that should be honoured by reaching a decision now?

--- Later in debate ---

I turn to Amendment 63, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. This amendment is on similar terms to Amendment 49, on fees for indefinite leave to remain for Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans, but it also includes the Hong Kong Military Service Corps. I take this opportunity to express the Government’s sincere thanks to those who served in the Hong Kong Military Service Corps. I also pay tribute to and thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for his elucidation to me of the position. I found that very helpful and I can reassure him, and the Committee, that we will look at this group to see whether it should be included in the work that the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence are doing on ILR fees for Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans. Again, rather like Amendment 49, at this stage this amendment would be unhelpful to the ongoing work and I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press it.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the time is late. I think six Peers have spoken on these amendments and they were entirely in favour of them, as far as I can tell. There is a thing called democracy. It does not come in during this Committee but does on Report, and I assure the noble Baroness that we will be back on the subject. I suggest she adjusts her mind not only to consultations and reports but to a dash of pragmatism, which would be best achieved by a major concession from the Government. In the meantime, I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 49 withdrawn.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I will contribute briefly. I will not say this every time, but of course I start by declaring my interests as a serving member of the Army Reserve. I support the government amendments; they seem a sensible measure, as my noble friend the Minister described them. While I understand the thrust of the intent of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on Amendment 3, I want to air a brief concern about the potentially diminished role of the lay members.

With minor offences that come before the court martial, the intent is very much that we wish to keep service personnel in the service. Indeed, MCTC in Colchester is designed very much to do that. Only if you are sentenced to more than six months do you have to leave the service, I think. For many soldiers who have been through that centre, a common theme has been that they come out better soldiers; when I say soldiers, I also mean airmen and sailors.

What really worries me is that we used to have three single service Acts, which were merged under the Armed Forces Act some time ago, but the three single services remain very distinct. Under the Levene review, we have delegated responsibility, which was originally intended solely to be a financial delegation to the three single services but in reality has become a policy delegation. Despite an effort by the MoD to regain that under unified career management that means that, for members of the Armed Forces at the same point of their career, a certain sentence may have a disproportionate impact on them depending on which service they are in. Although any judge-advocate may well know the system well and be very experienced, I am not sure that they would necessarily have the detail of the single service to apply to their judgment.

I accept that it is quite possible, however unlikely at this time, that a senior warrant officer or officer on the court martial would not have front-line experience; I am willing to bet that almost all of them have, because of recent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I am willing to bet that there are not many judge-advocates who have front-line experience.

It is important that lay members continue to play an active role. I am concerned that, in what is proposed, we are moving away from the defendant being able to look lay members in the eye, knowing that their peers will play an active role—through first-hand experience and being able to compare their own careers with those before them—and be part of the sentencing process.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, as we begin Committee on this important legislation, I stress to all sides that we must use this opportunity to improve the lives of, and protections and support for, personnel and their families through legislative change.

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 we support the principles behind the Bill and welcome the steps to create a legal duty to implement the principles of the covenant and the key elements of the Lyons review. But we all know that there are many, both in and outside the House, who believe that the Government could and should go further. Therefore, I repeat that our main priority will be to work with other parties to improve the legislation.

Our forces communities are themselves determined that the Bill should not be a missed opportunity, so the amendments tabled by Her Majesty’s Opposition and those we are supporting, we believe, are designed in good faith to reflect the cause of personnel, their families and the organisations which represent them.

The first group of amendments, which focuses on Clause 2 and Schedule 1, concerns the constitution of the court martial and implements recommendations from the Lyons review. These include fixing the size of court martial boards at three or six, and a move to qualified majority verdicts instead of the simple majority systems currently used.

The Bill’s Select Committee stated that the

“use of the simple majority verdict had been criticised by some, including … Jeff Blackett, and Liberty, who proposed that unanimous verdicts be sought in the first instance.”

The Government have subsequently tabled Amendments 1, 2 and 4, which they say enable the court martial to remain validly constituted if a three-member board loses a lay member—for instance, due to illness or the need to isolate. The Minister has said that she is making a small adjustment to future-proof the system of three-member boards to allow for the appointment of a four-member board for longer cases.

Why are these amendments suddenly needed? How often does the Minister think that a four-member board will be appointed? What consultation process has there been for this change? Is there a large enough pool of board members to support this change? When she says that four-person boards are for longer cases, what type of cases does she mean? Will it be just about time, or some other characteristics of the case?

It was also helpful to hear the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, behind Amendment 3; I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to these points. With that, and with a careful reading of Hansard, we will be considering our position on this amendment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

First, I thank your Lordships for your contributions. I will start by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who I think was principally concerned with the government amendments to which I spoke. Regarding the decision to introduce a flexibility to allow a three-member board to become a four-member board in order to keep operating, I cannot give him a list of statistics, but I can tell him that Covid brought into very sharp relief the potential fragility of the system if people sadly become infected with Covid or are required to isolate. That made it clear that we need to introduce some change to accommodate these extraordinary circumstances, which we may continue to encounter. None of us is clear when life as we once remember it may return, so I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that we regard this as a sensible introduction of a flexible measure to ensure, importantly, that justice continues to be done for victims and that they are not in the unenviable position of a case having to be dropped because the court martial is not properly constituted.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, inquires about what type of cases it is about and how often we expect a full-member board to sit. I suggest that the type of case is probably a matter for the court martial rules to determine. One would imagine that, in looking at the composition and constitution of a court martial, regard would be had to the type of offence being tried, the number of witnesses available and that an appropriate judgment would be made on that basis, but the court martial rules would be more specific about that aspect.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd—I hope he finds my pronunciation semi-acceptable; I was tutored by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on how to deal with it. I think the points made are important. I detected a fundamental difference of opinion between me as a government Minister within the MoD and the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the philosophical or essential character of what we are dealing with in the service justice system. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, eloquently touched on that.

We have to remember that life for a service community and all those within it is very different from life for those of us in a civilian community. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, gave us an interesting analogy of the forthcoming rugby match between the All Blacks and Wales. The comparison that he attempted to draw was that the referee may consult the touch judges as to what has actually happened but the referee will ultimately make the decision. In response, I would say that the referee and the touch judges are not living in a close and mutually supportive community such as the Armed Forces community, where not only are they all living in close proximity to one another but in service they are mutually dependent on each other. The rugby players, the referee and the other officials are not dependent on each other for either disciplinary or operational effectiveness. There is a temptation to make that comparison but I do not find it completely analogous to what we are discussing within the Armed Forces.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said that sentencing is complex, and I do not think anyone would dispute that. Training is needed, and in court martial appeals you have the expertise of the judges. I would respond by saying that we do have expertise; the judge advocate has expertise, and sentencing guidance is available to all on the panel. As I indicated in my preliminary remarks when addressing Amendment 3, there is a great body of expertise and information available. Where we differ is on a fundamental point, a point that noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, made well when he said that there has to be an understanding within the service community about how a punishment or a penalty is to be appropriate to what has happened. That is in the wider context of what the offence, transgression or omission actually meant to the broader community. As I pointed out in my speech, there is a world of difference between a supermarket worker turning up late and a marine engineer being late for a nuclear submarine that is just about to leave port.

The concern was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that in a civilian court you can adjourn for sentencing. The Judge Advocate General can also adjourn the court martial to consider sentencing if the panel needs time to get further information on the defendant, and pre-sentencing reports are used in the court martial system.

I have endeavoured to address the points raised. I have a note here saying that apparently the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked who we had consulted in the court martial. We consulted the Judge Advocate General, the Service Prosecuting Authority and the single services.

I submit that the government amendments proceed from a sensible and widely understood base and that Amendment 3, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is well-intended but inappropriate for incorporation within the service justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, group six comprises Amendments 16 to 37 inclusive. In total, these relate to a minor, technical amendment to Clause 9, which introduces important changes to Section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable our reserve personnel to do more and for defence to offer them more. The changes we are making to Section 24 will in future enable reservists to undertake periods of full-time and part-time service, or a combination of both under one continuous commitment.

On reflection, we feel it more appropriate to refer to our new continuous service commitment using neutral terms, such as “a Section 24 commitment”. This will avoid any suggestion that reservists are in continuous service only in certain circumstances. Reservists are serving members of the Armed Forces during their entire term of service, not just when they are on duty or in training. It is a purely technical amendment and I can confirm that, importantly, it will have no impact on how the new measures we are introducing under Clause 9 will operate. It will allow our Reserve personnel to do more and enable the Ministry of Defence to make better use of their knowledge, skills and experience, but avoid any possible confusion as to nomenclature and meaning. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I accept the Minister’s assurance that this is a wholly technical amendment. If my assistants find that not to be true, I shall return to it ferociously on Report. But assuming that is the case, I am content with the amendment. I make the point that the next group goes into a fundamental area, and I would greatly object to any attempt to move into that group tonight.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I am grateful to be able to contribute briefly on this group, which is an area of particular interest to me. I declare my interest as chairman of the Reserve Forces Review 2030, which is the 10-year review of the Reserve—the outcome of which is, I should like to think, partly responsible for some of the Bill’s provisions on the Reserve.

The headmark of that review was the integration of the Regular and Reserve Forces. Within that, we attempted to create a spectrum of service—right of arc, full-time regular service; left of arc, a civilian—and within that spectrum of services, enabling the principle of bringing civilian skillsets through Reserves into delivering against defence demand signals. We encountered two principal barriers to that spectrum of service. The first, frankly, was money. Unlike the Regular Forces, the Reserve Forces are always considered to be a marginal cost and therefore, as soon as there are pressures on costings, it is the Reserves’ budget that will be reduced.

The other, to which this technical amendment goes directly, was terms and conditions of service. Of course, we already have full-time Reserve service, but we do not have the ability for reservists to have not a contract, per se, but an assured Reserve capability. That could be on a part-time but enduring basis—for example, not being contracted to work five days a week and becoming a temporary regular, but to be able to do it as part of a portfolio career. That would enable you to come in and, perhaps, work one day a week but over an enduring period. It would make the Reserve much more effective in delivering almost as augmentees, working on a daily basis, and moving away from its traditional role as a contingent capability that trained at weekends and was always used as that traditional Reserve.

That is why this government amendment is so welcome, to my mind. It helps to deliver that traditional Reserve capability for a Reserve which will be very much suited for the 2030s.

Afghanistan: British Equipment and Training

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I share my noble friend’s concern about the ideology, as I think everyone else will in this Chamber. Along with our allies and friends, significantly, the United States, we act to try to uphold values, protect freedoms and assist those who find themselves oppressed and isolated. We act to try to minimise threats to this country and our partners. That was one of the reasons we engaged in the NATO alliance in Afghanistan.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have overseen a series of chaotic failures and miscalculations in Afghanistan which have damaged our international reputation and weakened our security—including the confirmation that military equipment has been left behind. Does the Minister believe that the UK and US military equipment left in Afghanistan poses a direct threat to the UK? If the answer is yes, why was there not a better plan to ensure that did not happen?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I do not share the noble Lord’s analysis, and I do not share his conclusion based on his analysis. As I said earlier, a very small amount of equipment was left behind. Some of that was gifted to partner nations and therefore is under their control. Anything else that was left—and it was a very small amount—was of no military use whatsoever.

Sheffield Forgemasters

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As I think is universally understood, this was really a stand-alone case and a matter for essential intervention to preserve critical national infrastructure. The financial undertakings to which the MoD has committed itself include the share capital purchase, as the noble Baroness has indicated. It also includes taking on and refinancing the current indebtedness, which is approximately £19 million, and the capital investment that we have just been discussing. I say to the noble Baroness, as I observed earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Walney, that this is a company with an exciting commercial future. This is an ongoing enterprise and defence’s role is to ensure, as my noble friend inquired about in the previous question, that this company has a secure future—a sufficiently secure future that we can return it to the private sector.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, this week, the Secretary of State said that SFIL is

“the only available manufacturer with the skills and capability to produce certain large-scale high-integrity castings and forgings from specialist steels in an integrated facility to the highest standards required for specific defence programmes.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/21; col. 2WS.]

Does that mean that SFIL will have a monopoly of supply for such components, allowing it to invest, with confidence, in the future?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

It means that the company has an ascertained level of demand from the MoD but, as I said earlier, it also has a very healthy suite of non-MoD, commercial customers. Part of the challenge that the MoD is embracing with the current management of the company is to ensure that that side is grown as well, but the money that the MoD is providing will be directly and singularly applied to the needs of the company to address the MoD customer requirement.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, demonstrating not only the wealth of service experience in our House but how all Peers want to work together to get the best for our service communities. Personnel, veterans and their families are a source of great pride for our country and their professionalism is respected across the world. I know many will join me in thanking them for their past and ongoing service, especially those who have been involved in the evacuation in Afghanistan in recent weeks.

As my noble friend Lord Coaker outlined at the start of the debate, we will seek to improve this legislation. We support the Bill’s main principle and welcome steps for the creation of a legal duty of due regard to the principles of the covenant and the implementation of elements of the Lyons review. I have been struck by the cross-party support for the issues my noble friend outlined at the start of the debate: widening the scope of the legislation to ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage are addressed; ensuring a two-tier Armed Forces covenant is not created; including central government on the list of public bodies which must take on the new responsibilities; and giving civilian courts jurisdiction in matters of murder, rape and serious sexual offences committed in the UK.

As we have heard, these priorities reflect the main calls and concerns from service charities. The Royal Air Forces Association said the Bill misses an opportunity to enact the Lyons recommendations, the Naval Families Federation called for widening of the Bill’s scope to include all aspects of the Armed Forces covenant, and the Royal British Legion stated that the list of public bodies subject to the due regard duty should be widened to include national government. We are listening and responding to service charities, so why are the Government not?

The Government have not maximised this legislative opportunity to fix other important issues which continue to blight personnel and veterans. These focus on investigations, visas for Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans, an Armed Forces representative body, and examining dismissals and resignations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

First, we have heard throughout the debate that issues surrounding repeated and shoddy investigations remain. Noble Lords tried to settle this in the overseas operations Bill; there was a clear consensus in this House that the Bill, now an Act, did not do what was promised to protect British personnel serving overseas from vexatious legal claims and shoddy investigations. There was cross-party support for a duty of care to support troops facing investigation, as well as for conditions to be set on investigations to ensure timely, not time-limited, investigations. I remind the Minister of her words during ping-pong, when she gently encouraged the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, not to press his duty of care amendment, saying that if he was to

“bring back this amendment in the Armed Forces Bill … this House will no doubt debate the issue further. I look forward to continuing these constructive discussions”.—[Official Report, 28/4/21; col. 2347.]

So here we are. I hope the noble Lord will be inclined to bring back this amendment, which we strongly support.

Next, the Government should have made provision in the Bill to stop Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans being subject to eye-watering fees to remain in the country they have served. Under the current rules, Commonwealth personnel face a fee of £2,389 per person to continue to live in the UK after having served for at least four years. It means that someone with a partner and two children could face a bill of almost £10,000 to stay in Britain. We believe that this is dishonourable, unfair and certainly no way to repay their bravery and sacrifice.

In May, the Government announced a consultation that would waive visa fees for those who had served for 12 years or more, but this would apply to just 20 of the 200 non-UK personnel who left the regulars in 2020. Commonwealth service personnel have contributed an enormous amount to our national defence and we owe them a debt of gratitude. However, the extortionate visa fees have left many non-UK veterans facing financial ruin and being abandoned. Therefore, in line with calls from the Royal British Legion, we will bring forward an amendment that would mean that Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans who have served for years would pay just the cost price for an indefinite leave to remain application.

It has been clear for some time that the Armed Forces need independent advice and representation. Witnesses during the Committee stage in the other place reinforced this, since Armed Forces personnel have endured a real-terms pay cut for most of the last decade and concerns about the service complaints system remain. We will therefore explore whether the time is right to formalise representation and support for service personnel on issues such as welfare and pay. To be clear, this would not be an equivalent to a trade union for the Armed Forces, and it would not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the Armed Forces. The body would work with the Ministry of Defence to put in place a form of understanding that could deal with such issues and would be similar to models in the United States and Australia.

We are also saddened to see that the Bill does not include a clause requiring 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 sexuality. Homosexuality was banned in the British Armed Forces until 2000, when the ban was lifted by the then Labour Government. During the ban, many were dishonourably discharged or forced from the service, losing access to pensions and benefits. Some were also stripped of medals that they had earned for their service. Along with the practical impacts of this discrimination, such as the loss of pension, it also caused significant challenges for mental health and well-being. We deeply regret the treatment of LGBT+ veterans under the ban. As organisations such as Fighting With Pride, Stonewall and the Centre for Military Justice have said, we must do more to identify those affected and consider what further compensation might be appropriate. We will therefore seek to amend the Bill to force Ministers to consider the restoration of ranks, pensions and other forms of compensation to honour appropriately those who have served our country.

That is, in a sense, a summary of the position we will take on these Benches, but I ask the Minister to take away three ideas. First, our Front Bench found little reason to disagree with most of today’s speakers; there is consensus across the House on a wide variety of issues. Secondly, at least five speakers were concerned about the failure to embrace all the Lyons recommendations, particularly those relating to murder, manslaughter and rape. Thirdly, no less than 10 Members spoke about their concerns about the covenant. It if comes to Divisions, the Government will lose. I hope that they will start straightaway to think about how they might meet this House’s concerns so that we can work through concessions, not government defeats.

There is much to be commended in this Bill but there is also much to be put right. This type of legislation comes along once in a military session. Let us seize this opportunity. Let us work across parties, including with the Government, and improve the lives of our service personnel, veterans and their families.

Cadet Forces: Funding

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, for tabling this debate. I was not privileged to be a member of a cadet force at school, but when I went to university I joined the university air squadron and it shaped my life. The experience, at a young age, of excitement and the military environment shapes one in a special way, and my whole life has related to that.

On the last day before recess, it is a pleasure to take part in a debate on such a positive subject matter. We on the Labour Benches strongly support the opportunities that the cadet force offers our young people to socialise and learn skills, including leadership, resilience and team- work. For reasons that are only too clear, it has been a particularly difficult, disruptive and isolating past 18 months for our young people. Have government departments provided any support to the cadets to ensure that activities can go ahead in a Covid-safe way for the cadets and volunteers involved, and that organisers are supported in responding to changes in guidance and restrictions?

Covid-19 has clearly been difficult for cadets in limiting their access to face-to-face activities. Can the Minister give the Committee an overall assessment of the impact of Covid-19 and what plans the MoD has to ensure a rapid recovery?

I once again put on record our thanks to the volunteers who give up their precious time to make cadets possible. I am sure the Minister agrees that it is rare to read a report that says that government money is being so wisely spent. The report from the University of Northampton on the social impact of investment in cadet forces is extremely welcome. Our key concern should be ensuring that as many young people as possible access these opportunities. As other noble Lords mentioned, the report cites that

“The impact is particularly strong for those cadets that suffer economic and other disadvantages.”


I ask the Minister about the funding announced in April for the expansion of cadet programmes in state schools: what specific strategic planning will go into ensuring new places are made available to children from disadvantaged backgrounds?

The report also focuses on the life-changing potential of the vocational qualifications that can be accessed through the Cadet Vocational Qualification Organisation. The University of Northampton suggests that for the 2018-19 cohort, these qualifications added value in the region of £27 million for girls and £82 million for boys. This is welcome, but one cannot help but notice the discrepancy in impact due to the smaller number of girls who accessed these opportunities. What is being done to increase the participation of girls in the cadets? I look forward to the Minister’s reply on these points and those raised by other noble Lords.