Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to wind up this debate for His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, that I am very pleased to be sitting here and I do not envy the Minister sitting over there. Everything has its moment.

As my noble friend Lord Minto said, we on these Benches support the Bill. This House has renewed this legislation every five years since the 2006 Act, in an unbroken constitutional tradition stretching back to the Bill of Rights of 1688—a discipline this House takes seriously. We certainly shall not be a roadblock to its progress.

This has been a rich debate; as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, there have been many contributions which have been genuinely interesting to listen to. However, one issue has recurred with such frequency it is almost like a musical reprise: funding. I shall leave the Minister to respond to that in whatever way he can, but the current position is overwhelmingly regarded as unsustainable.

Turning to other matters addressed by my noble friend which resonated with others, I want to reflect briefly on some contributions from around the House. The importance of housing was universally agreed throughout the Chamber. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich reminded us, houses, flats, terraced accommodations, bases and dockyards also have to be homes. I am grateful to him; we should never forget that.

On housing and the creation of this new defence housing service, there is a risk of duplication of function—I remember the extraordinary size of the defence infrastructure organisation when I was in the MoD—as I gather this will remain as a directorate within the MoD. If we have two organisations both claiming responsibility for defence estate, duplication is not a hypothetical risk, and that is precisely the kind of institutional confusion this House should be pressing the Government to eliminate before Royal Assent and not after.

I note that Section 343F gives the defence housing service the power to

“form, participate in forming, or invest in, a company, partnership, joint venture or other similar form of organisation”.

I simply want to ask the Minister: why do the Government see this as necessary? What kinds of commercial vehicles does the ministry envisage the defence housing service establishing? And what safeguards will apply to ensure that a body created to serve service families and house them does not drift into activities that begin to serve as accountancy balance sheet operations?

There must also be a clear boundary between the defence housing service and the residual functions of the Ministry of Defence, and clarity of purpose about where responsibility and accountability lie, not least because Schedule 1 provides that the service will not enjoy Crown status in respect of much of its property, save in specified circumstances, which itself raises questions about its legal exposure that I hope the Minister can address.

My noble friend Lord Minto offered up the policy on these Benches of an Armed Forces housing association. That is an alternative model for service accommodation reform to that which the Government propose. Whereas the Government have opted for a body that remains tied closely to the Secretary of State, subject to Treasury borrowing consent and a government direction, our model would deliver a genuinely independent, tenant-accountable organisation. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on why the Government judged a Crown-adjacent body preferable to that independent, not-for-profit model, and what protection service families will have to ensure that the defence housing service does not simply repeat the mistakes of the past. At the risk of making the Minister feel a little uncomfortable, my noble friend asked about the rumoured deferral of investment in defence housing to help fund the DIP, and I hope that question can be answered.

Since I, as a Minister, took the then overseas operations Bill through this House, politicians from all parties, with the possible exception of the Liberal Democrats, have started to question the impact of the ECHR on UK sovereign law and sovereign decision-making across a whole spectrum of activity, and there is a debate to be had. Specifically in relation to defence, the court decision of Al-Jedda v the United Kingdom, decided in 2011 by the Strasbourg court, clarified the reach of that law into a live arena of conflict. The court ruled that the detention of terrorist suspects in Basra by British troops violated Article 5 of the convention, and that the British state had therefore acted unlawfully. This has serious ramifications for future operational decision-making and for the ability of British troops to hold prisoners of war in any future conflict.

The extent to which such law may now to be incompatible with the overriding need to make instant life and death decisions in a conflict environment requires, in my opinion, serious reflection. I look forward to continuing this argument in Committee, where our amendments will receive fuller scrutiny, and I hope the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is feeling encouraged by my contribution.

A number of very interesting contributions were made on the service justice system. I certainly welcome the sensible alignment of various provisions with the arrangements in the civilian criminal justice system. I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for raising a number of valid concerns, because there is a conundrum here. Under the Bill, service police will not be able to authorise pre-charge custody for offences under Schedule 1 to the Armed Forces Act 2006—offences such as battery—even where there is a clear domestic context, because the legislation is drafted so that only “serious offences” fall within scope, a category which does not capture Schedule 1 offences and does not separately articulate the context of domestic abuse.

A further issue arises under Clause 16, whereby a provost marshal may act as the appropriate authority when a person has been charged with a serious offence, meaning there will no longer be any involvement from the commanding officer in terms of pre-charge attention for such an offence. This seems to be fairly significant interference with the chain of command if we consider the environment where many of these offences might be occurring, which could be a base remote from other places with a military police presence but not an extensive one—I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the Government’s reasoning here. There is also a concern that commanding officers are not obliged to refer offences, such as common assault, voyeurism, and actual bodily harm in a domestic abuse context, to the service police. Consideration should be had to amending Schedule 2 to the Armed Forces Act 2006 to ensure that commanding officers are required to refer such offences for investigation.

These Benches welcome the incorporation of the Armed Forces covenant into law. It finishes off what I was privileged to start in this Chamber in a previous iteration of the Armed Forces Bill. I say to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that I realise the pace may have been too slow, but I pay tribute to his tenacious pursuit of this issue and to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for his continued and vigorous support of the covenant. The previous Government’s reticence was through caution, because we need to understand the consequences of such statutory incorporation. Further questions will follow, and it seems from the Bill’s attempt to define national authorities, local authorities, education authorities and health bodies that this is far-reaching. But what about arm’s-length bodies—corporate bodies which deliver many of the functions detailed in Clause 2? Can the Minister explain their omission from the Bill?

I think we all welcome the provisions in the Bill on reserves to improve flexibility and create fluidity. That is important because there are skills, expertise and niche specialisms in civilian roles which our Armed Forces need to be able to call on at short notice. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, gave some interesting examples to show how that could work in practice. But as for the laudable objective to increase numbers in the active reserve by 20%, my noble friend Lord Minto indicated a proposal from these Benches of a tax-free first 30 days of reserve service, and that seems to me a no-brainer. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton’s reference to the successful recruitment experience in Canada following a national conversation has not been lost on the Minister. I pay tribute to my noble friend for the vital work which he is doing and ask the Minister to take some of these ideas back to the department.

This has been a useful and constructive debate, and I have highlighted the issues of particular significance to these Benches. I hope that the questions that my noble friend Lord Minto and I have posed can be addressed by the Minister; I have also tried to indicate where we expect to return to issues in Committee. I conclude by saying that, notwithstanding these Benches’ serious reservations about the broader funding issues, there is a lot of good in the Bill, which I am sure the scrutiny of your Lordships can make even better. My colleagues and I shall endeavour to make a positive contribution to that process.

Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, this first group of amendments addresses the scope of the Armed Forces covenant. I will speak to Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 in my name, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for her support. They all relate to page 2 of the Bill and all, after the word “forces” on lines 13, 16, 19 and 21, seek to insert the words “and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary”. The modest amendments in this group correct an anomaly in the Bill as a whole and give clarity and certainty to the RFA, which is widely acknowledged by us all as a vital part of the Royal Navy and the UK’s national security and defence.

In winding up at Second Reading, the Minister addressed the position of the RFA in acknowledging that the Government have given the Armed Forces Commissioner responsibility for RFA personnel in Clause 31. Given this, it seems nonsensical that the RFA is covered in this way in one part of the Bill but not in another. Are the Government really saying that RFA personnel are recognised as part of the broader Armed Forces community when it suits, yet fall outside of the statutory legal duties applied to that community for members of the Regular and Reserve Forces? Can the Minister explain why the RFA is included in the commissioner’s powers but is excluded from the rest of the Armed Forces covenant?

The Minister is aware that I have been focused on the status of the RFA for some time. It is my belief that it is a vital, but always overlooked, part of our defence. The main issue stems from the unique position of the RFA as a civilian-manned naval auxiliary fleet owned by the Ministry of Defence. Rather than accounting for the risks and sacrifice they take as seafarers supporting military operations, the Government seem to view RFA personnel as just another type of civil servant. This is to fundamentally misunderstand their role and function.

Let us not forget that members of the RFA work to the same standards and are trained alongside other military personnel, and, if they are deployed on military operational service, they come under the same rules and regulation as the Royal Navy. At this time of constrained resources, they are frequently tasked with roles that would formerly be given to warships. They are not civil servants.

I noted that, during the Recess, Veterans Minister Calvin Bailey visited RFA “Tidespring” and “Mounts Bay”, where improving the welfare and morale of the crew, and supporting their families, was high on his agenda. The Minister was quoted as saying that the RFA had slipped from public consciousness, despite quietly underpinning operations, as he described it, like a “big … Swiss Army knife”.

Like other branches of the Armed Forces, the RFA has experienced considerable recruitment and retention challenges. Recently, in order to fulfil its remit, the RFA was having to move personnel between vessels, stretching the workforce dangerously thin and leading to questions about whether ships could be crewed effectively and safely. Commodore Sam Shattock, head of service, has sought to address this. He has had to reduce the operating fleet for now, but he has also reviewed the training and career framework to streamline progression and ensure that personnel are developed and deployed more efficiently. I am pleased to note that recruitment is increasing and that applications have reached their highest level in five years.

I am heartened also to hear that the new Armed Forces Commissioner has already met Commodore Shattock and is fully aware of the unique position of the RFA. On assuming office, she stated:

“Ultimately, my purpose as Commissioner is simple: to ensure the lived experience of those who serve is understood, valued and continuously improved”.


This Bill includes those who serve as part of the RFA in her remit, and the Minister has previously acknowledged that members of the RFA are part of the Armed Forces community, so again I ask: why are they not included in the provisions of the Armed Forces covenant in Clause 2?

My amendments would result in a very small extension of the covenant by numbers. If you take a total Armed Forces population of around 140,000, plus veterans and families, we are talking about only an additional 1,700 serving RFA members, plus veterans and families. It is an increase of less than 1.5%.

The RFA population would welcome recognition as beneficiaries under the Armed Forces covenant: a covenant founded not on status but on military service, such as that provided in areas of conflict and crisis by members of the RFA. My amendments would give these men and women the clarity and recognition they deserve.

Defence Minister Luke Pollard recently told the Portsmouth News:

“We’ve got the opportunity to reset the relationship with the seafarers within the RFA, and it means we can start the process of valuing the RFA more. I feel they have been undervalued in the past”.


The Government can start the process of valuing the RFA more right here, by accepting my amendments. If the Minister does not wish to accept them then, given our shared appreciation for the men and women of the RFA, I look forward to his response and his explanation of why not. I beg to move.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, as I set out at Second Reading, I am supportive of the Government expanding the scope of the Armed Forces covenant, building on the work the previous Government undertook in the Armed Forces Act 2021. I say to the Minister that although, as the Minister, I was somewhat diffident about this expansion, now that this Government have seen fit to provide it, I am 100% in there and want it to work as well as possible.

My amendments in this group are intended to strengthen that legal duty. As drafted, the Bill extends the covenant legal duty to four persons. New Section 343AZA(4) specifies that those persons are

“a national authority; a local authority; an education body; a health body”.

New Section 343AZB(2) sets out the definition of “national authority” as being

“a Minister of the Crown, within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975; the Welsh Ministers; the Scottish Ministers; the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland acting jointly, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. As he said, they should not bring a financial cost but might bring material benefits for the individual reservists and for defence. There are all sorts of questions that could and should be considered. If somebody is a serving member of the Regular Armed Forces, they will be dealt with. If you are a reservist, however, and you cannot get your dental appointment, or if you are deployed, you do not have your six-monthly check-up with your NHS dentist and you get deregistered, where does that leave you next time around?

There are all sorts of questions that could be dealt with in a relatively straightforward way, as long as medical and dental practices understood that somebody was a reservist. The idea is that you would be happy to say, “This is my status”, but could there not be regular questions? There are all sorts of things that medical practices will ask, or when you go to the dentist. Do you take medication? Do you have any health issues? Has anything changed? You could also be asked whether you are a member of the Armed Forces, or a reservist? It should not be too difficult.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I too am pleased to support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Harlech, both of which, I believe, attempt to strengthen the Armed Forces covenant, much as my amendments in the previous group were intended to do.

Amendment 6 addresses what could become a gap in the application of the covenant. It is all very well and good placing this new legal duty on select public bodies, but that duty means little if those bodies cannot identify who among their community belongs to the Armed Forces. This amendment attempts to correct that by requiring the relevant bodies to ask, sensitively and consistently, whether an individual falls within that community and to distinguish reserve service from veteran status, since the two carry quite different implications for practical support. I understand that this is something a number of hospital trusts have started to do when patients attend their A&E departments. Identifying early on whether a patient is a serving member of the Armed Forces or a veteran allows clinicians to develop tailored care.

Amendment 7 addresses the operational readiness of our Reserve Forces, which I know is of particular importance to many of my noble friends, as eloquently attested by my noble friend Lord Harlech. This Bill extends liability for callout and recall, which we will discuss later, but that rests on an assumption—a very important assumption—that reservists are medically fit to serve when summoned.

There is nothing in the current drafting that asks health bodies to have any regard whatever to that reality. My noble friend’s amendment remedies this. The provision has effect only where patients are already of equivalent clinical priority, at which point a reservist’s mobilisation requirements may be properly weighed.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech for raising these two important issues about the potential operation of the covenant once a legal duty is established. I very much hope that the Minister will give these amendments the due consideration that they merit.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. I recognise the service that he gives as an active member of the reservists—captain, I think, so congratulations to him. I am not sure whether that is a promotion that has just happened or whether I just missed it, but congratulations on that. I too declare an interest as my son-in-law is also an active reservist, so I am well aware of many of the issues quite forcefully put at times. That may recur at various points throughout the Bill, so I ask people to take note of that.

I was just looking for the relevant point in the extension of the covenant in Clause 2. Before I make my formal remarks, I will go to the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and my noble friend Lord Davies. Clause 2(2) inserts a duty to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant and lists, in a way that we are all supporting, the specified persons and the specified matters, so there is a huge extension to cover many of the points that noble Lords are making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My assumption would be that it includes all NHS services. The serious point that I am making is that page 2, on the extension to the national bodies and covering matters, starts to try to deal with some of the various points that the noble Lord has quite rightly made, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for his views.

Amendment 6 would require bodies subject to the covenant duty to ask and record whether an individual belongs to an Armed Forces community. I recognise the intent behind the amendment and that the recording of someone’s Armed Forces status does not always happen as it could or should. We are continuing to encourage improvements in that area, because it is important that we do that as far as possible. We do not believe, however, that it is appropriate to place statutory requirements on these bodies to ask them to record an individual’s Armed Forces status. It may not always be necessary for the delivery of services or the removal of disadvantage, so it risks imposing an additional administrative burden, for limited benefit.

In many cases, bodies subject to the duty, such as Government Ministers, make decisions about the Armed Forces community in general rather than about specific individuals. It would therefore be impractical and unnecessary to require these bodies to establish whether every individual who is or may be using their public services is a member of the Armed Forces community, which is what the amendment would require. It is important to say to the noble Lord that the covenant duty’s updated statutory guidance already highlights the importance of bodies identifying who is in the Armed Forces community, giving them the flexibility to determine the best way forward, rather than imposing a rigid statutory requirement. I hope that answers to an extent some of the questions asked the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. We have statutory guidance that we have updated to try to improve the situation as well.

On Amendment 7, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that our Reserve Forces are medically ready when called upon. Fitness to serve is already a fundamental consideration for the services when reservists are being considered for mobilisation. Active reservists, as the noble Lord will know better than most, are subject to pre-mobilisation health checks delivered through defence primary healthcare arrangements, and individuals will not be mobilised unless they meet the relevant service medical standards.

I share the objective of maintaining reserve readiness, but the amendment is not the appropriate means of achieving that objective. It would place a new statutory duty on health bodies across the UK to take account of reservist mobilisation status in the exercise of public health and social care functions. The proposed new clause would require health bodies to take defence readiness into account when allocating access to examination or treatment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am confused as to the Government’s position on my noble friend’s amendments. Is it that there is an obligation on the reservist to self-declare and it is up to the reservist to sort that out? Or do they contend that there is an obligation under Clause 2 on the bodies mentioned to make some kind of inquiry to work out who is in the community that they serve? It is important that that confusion be clarified.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not think we are saying it is the reservist’s responsibility to ensure that people are aware, but we are encouraging bodies—and I have encouraged them—to determine the status of the individuals who come before them. As I say, rather than having a statutory requirement, we often see it as good practice and we are encouraging, through guidance and other ways, a means of trying to improve the situation.

As I say—I think this is part of what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was getting at—this risks blurring the clear and long-established principle that NHS care is determined by clinical priority, not necessarily by employment status or potential availability for service. It opens up all sorts of other possibilities as well. That is why, to answer the noble Baroness’s point, we understand the need to have due regard and to try to understand the particular circumstances of the individuals who may come before them from a reservist perspective.

The Government have been clear about our priority of supporting our health services in reducing waiting lists and improving access to care, but we should be cautious about creating new statutory factors for health bodies to weigh in their decision-making. Through the Bill, the Government have already taken steps to deal with the issue of disadvantage for the reserves compared to the general population. We are imposing a duty on specified national authorities, local authorities, health bodies and education bodies to have due regard to the principles of the Armed Forces covenant, which is the point I was making at the beginning. That is how we seek to address some of the disadvantages that the noble Lord has raised, as I say, on page 2 of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for bringing forward this series of amendments. They are important for accountability and the role of Parliament, and they will have implications for local government. I am not declaring an interest because it was a long time ago, but I was a city councillor in Cambridge for 12 years. The first seven years were under a Labour Government, and the last five years were under a Coalition Government. One of the things that was very clear in local government was that central government would have many bright ideas: things that they would suggest could be done by local authorities—for example, free bus passes. That had asymmetric implications for local authorities. It was very difficult for local authorities to kick back. There was no opportunity for them to say, “We cannot do this”. It was not a matter of a government of one particular colour or another; it was central government versus local authorities.

We now have a new Prime Minister, and seemingly a new enthusiasm from the Government to think again about devolution and the relationship between central government and local government. Until we have clarity on that, it is important for us to be aware of the implications of extending the Armed Forces covenant to local authorities. Here, I might sound as though I am caught on the road to Damascus: I had seen the light, and thought that the Armed Forces covenant should be extended to central government—which I still believe—but am I now saying that we do not need to extend it to local government?

Of course, local authorities need to be there, but we need to be clear what the requirements are, and the funding arrangements, if we are imposing new duties on local authorities. Clarity from the Government about some of the implications—looking at Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morse—is very important. I also ask the Minister to give us clarity on how this legislation stands in relation to the devolved nations; the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, raised the question of consistency. It is one thing to look at local authorities within England, but it is another to look at Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Obviously, defence is a retained power—it is a national, United Kingdom-wide policy—but in terms of devolution, how does this fit with what the Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern Ireland Executive have the power to do? What is the opportunity for ensuring that we have the consistency that the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, is rightly saying that we need? This should not be a question of where you are from in the United Kingdom; that should not impact how well you are able to access the roles and responsibilities of the Armed Forces covenant.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for these amendments, and I must confess that I find myself in some sympathy with the spirit of most of them. Amendments 12 and 13 seek an independent review of how the new covenant legal duty operates in practice three years after commencement, with a copy laid before both Houses, and an annual report to Parliament prepared by the Secretary of State. That is simply good legislative housekeeping, as we are expanding the covenant duty quite considerably, and Parliament would be failing in its own responsibilities if it simply passed this provision and walked away, hoping for the best. So, in principle, I am in agreement with the noble Lord.

However, I have an inherent aversion to the creation of yet another independent authority to oversee the operation of government policy, as set out in Amendment 12, and I am not convinced that this provides the taxpayer with good value for money. If a review or reporting requirement is to be introduced, it is best to find another avenue. It is more sensible, for example, to give the review or reporting duty to the new Armed Forces Commissioner, whose office is set up for precisely this sort of work, and this overview of welfare issues. I hope that is something the Government might be prepared to consider.

The third amendment in this group would require an impact assessment from local authorities before commencement. Although that appears to be a suggestion of basic prudence, I note that the impact assessment produced by the department specifically for the extension of the covenant legal duty includes considerable analysis of the new burdens on local authorities. It is not often that I give a supporting hand to the Government—I do not promise to make a habit of doing so—but, where they have fulfilled their duty efficiently, I am prepared to acknowledge that and give due praise. So, in this amendment, I am not convinced that it is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

16: Clause 3, page 7, line 26, at end insert—
“(e) improving the satisfaction of service personnel and their families with the accommodation provided.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would create a new function for the Defence Housing Service of improving satisfaction for service personnel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 16 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Minto; I will also speak to the other amendments in the group. Notwithstanding that in the next group I shall be critical about the creation of the defence housing service, my three amendments in this group are intended to try to strengthen the new body created by Clause 3. I have my reservations about that new body, and I shall clarify that in subsequent debate, but I have enough experience of these things to know that I am very unlikely to stop a determined Government establishing this new body. If it is to exist, I would like it to be the best it can possibly be, and that is the approach I take with these amendments.

Amendment 16 is intended to create a new function for the DHS. As drafted, Clause 3 sets out a number of objectives for the defence housing service and its functions, including

“improving the supply and quality of defence housing … managing land or other property used (or formerly used) for defence purposes … securing the regeneration or development of such land or other property, and … supporting in other ways—(i) the creation, regeneration or development of service communities, and (ii) the continued wellbeing of those communities”.

I am sure there are no noble Lords who would object to those objectives; I certainly do not. But given the history of the service family accommodation estate and the severe challenges for morale, recruitment and retention caused by the state of the housing offered, I think it is necessary to introduce a fifth objective, which is what this amendment tries to achieve. That new objective would quite simply be

“improving the satisfaction of service … families with the accommodation provided”.

I have no doubt that those who dreamed up the imaginative idea of establishing a new independent government body to operate and oversee the family housing estate had that very aim front and centre of their thoughts. But if that was their central objective, and they believe it should be the central objective of the defence housing service, why is it not one of the explicit functions laid out in new Section 343E(1)? It is perfectly reasonable and eminently sensible to make this small change to the Bill to ensure that the satisfaction of those who will be using the housing provided by the DHS is improved by the creation of this new body. It would be fairly straightforward to measure by using the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Surveys. If it does not improve, that would be a sure indicator that this new body has failed in its task. Conversely, if it does improve, it would be a clear indicator that the DHS has succeeded and my scepticism has been unduly harsh.

Amendment 19 would require the chief executive of the DHS to report directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces. This amendment was tabled by my right honourable friend Mark Francois in the other place in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the lines of accountability for the defence housing service. From reading Hansard from the other place, I am not quite convinced that we have nailed down this issue. My right honourable friend raised the point that the DHS will report to the National Armaments Director and asked the Minister in the other place why that decision was taken. Unfortunately, answer came there none. I would be grateful if the Minister could now give me a straightforward answer to the question of why the line of accountability is to the National Armaments Director.

The more fundamental point is that accountability really matters. We know how shoddy the provision of service family housing has been and how our service personnel have suffered as a result. None of us wants that to be allowed to continue, but I am acutely concerned that this new organisation may end up becoming infected with what I might describe as bureaucratic capture, a disease that has afflicted so many independent public bodies over the years. If this occurs, we may very well see the DHS prioritise its own interests over those of the service families it is intended to help. Consequently, clear lines of accountability to Ministers, who are in turn accountable to Parliament, are paramount; my amendment attempts to embed that in the Bill.

Amendment 20 has a similar intended effect. It would require the defence housing service to have an oversight board comprising four members of each of the three service branches, to be chosen in a manner decided by the Defence Council, although it is my intention to have them elected by their peers. To be eligible for the oversight board, an individual would have to live, or have recently lived, in service family accommodation to ensure they have the requisite experience of the system. This would ensure that the concerns and views of those who actually live in the housing provided by the DHS are represented directly at the top. I suggest that, in this way, we can further guard against the tendency for the DHS to be captured by its own interests as a bureaucracy and ensure it never forgets those who really matter.

I sincerely hope the Government take this suggestion on board. I simply cannot believe that any noble Lord would be opposed to giving our service men and women a greater voice in the provision of their housing. I hope the Minister, in keeping with the new Prime Minister’s appetite for collaboration and constructive relationships between government and opposition, can find it in himself to agree to these amendments—if not in drafting, at least in spirit.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, for years we have talked about standards of service accommodation. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, when she was a Minister, stood up many times and answered questions, as did so many of her predecessors as Ministers of State for Defence. Much of that was about service family accommodation, but not only that—some of it was about single living accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We agree with that. Our intention all the way is to ensure that the family’s voice is heard and acted on. The defence housing strategy from 2025, on which much of this is based, was developed—I have examples of this—after having consulted with and listened to forces family representatives. They have informed the very structure that this new DHS body has been set up to achieve.

I absolutely accept the point that the right reverend Prelate has put to us. We would argue that the defence housing strategy was developed with the support of services families and that the legislation before your Lordships has been developed on the basis of that strategy, which has at its very heart the needs and views of forces families. That is essential. It is important to put on the record that we want to see that continue and we believe that these structures will help to do that.

As I said, strong governance and family representation are already built into the DHS structure. Two of these forums are new to the DHS, while two are well established and will continue to operate under the DHS governance framework. These forums are the accommodation delivery forum and the families insight forum, and the newly established defence housing service customer committee and the regional customer experience committees. To go to the point that has just been made, embedding the family voice is fundamental to the DHS. Representatives from the Armed Forces Families Federation, which engages with service families daily and brings invaluable insight into their lived experience, are embedded across each of the four forums to help shape improvements and hold us to our commitments.

The new DHS customer committee places service families at the heart of decision-making, championing lived experience and ensuring that the “family first” principle drives continuous improvement in customer experience and satisfaction, further strengthened by new regional customer experience committees which provide a structured forum for families to share feedback, influence policy and service delivery and shape regional priorities.

With those remarks, I hope the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendments, but I thank her again for the opportunity to put the Government’s view on the record.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and to the Minister for their contributions. I set out at the start that my purpose with these three amendments was not to obstruct the defence housing service but to improve it. I have accepted the political reality that the new body is coming into being, whether I welcome that or not.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the issue of single living accommodation, and I was just checking over the text of my amendments and looking at the section of the Bill that we are trying to amend. There was no desire to exclude single living accommodation, and indeed, if she considers that there is merit in what I am trying to achieve, I am sure that drafting can be deployed to provide for that.

Disappointingly, nothing I have heard this afternoon has shifted my view that these three amendments remain necessary. Amendment 16 simply asks that “satisfaction” be written into the defence housing service’s functions as explicitly as “supply”, “quality” and “regeneration” already are, so that success or failure can be measured against something service families would recognise.

I listened to the Minister’s response and his reference to the specific provisions contained on page 7 of the Bill, but I observe that these are actually subjective tests for the DHS to satisfy. They are not in any way reassuring, objective interventions that can be made by the service personnel being accommodated in this housing, because they have no direct control over the governance of the organisation. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich rightly encapsulated that concern, which I think is a legitimate one.

The Minister referred to excellent groups such as the Army, Naval and RAF Families Federations and other groups that make a tremendous contribution to promoting the interests of our service personnel, but they can only ever be commentators, and to me that is not good enough for the purpose of this new body.

Amendment 19 still awaits the straightforward answer that my right honourable friend Mark Francois sought in the other place. Why does the chief executive report to the National Armaments Director? I would like him to report to the Minister, to the Lords Minister—to any Minister—or to the Armed Forces Commissioner. I just do not get the connection with the National Armaments Director, and I have not received the clarity from the Minister that I sought.

Amendment 20 remains the surest guard against the sort of bureaucratic self-interest that I am afraid so often overtakes bodies of this kind, by putting those who actually live in service housing on the board that oversees it. That is direct governance, direct control and having a voice in the actual provision.

I hope the Minister will reflect further before Report, in the collaborative spirit he has himself invited, which I welcome. He has already offered a meeting, and this is an issue we could fruitfully discuss then. However, on the basis of hoping to discuss this further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 17 and 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and I am very grateful to her for spending time over the weekend explaining them in more detail. The noble Baroness is quite right in what she has just said to this House about the need to care for those who are in single accommodation, recognising that that accommodation can be used throughout a whole service career.

My two concerns around why I think single accommodation needs to be brought in scope with further consideration are about, first, well-being and, secondly, retention. Well-being is vital for the good running of His Majesty’s forces. We ask a huge amount from those members and we should be providing them with accommodation that is of a standard that is comfortable to live within, because, certainly on deployment, they are often living in accommodation that is very challenging. It is good for mental health and it is good for general all-round health and fitness to have accommodation that provides that basis for a good, well-lived life.

On retention, we know that we are not recruiting at the levels we should be, that there is loss of forces, and we would like to see people staying for longer military careers. Having accommodation of a good enough standard, places that people can call home, is vital for retention. I very willingly support the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on her Amendments 17 and 18.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled these stand-part notices for Clause 3 and Schedule 1 to probe why the Government have decided to pursue the creation of a new public body to deliver and manage service family accommodation. I indicated to the Chamber that I would pursue this under this group. These provisions would establish the defence housing service as a new free-standing non-departmental public body, taking over responsibility for the provision, maintenance and modernisation of service family accommodation. Nobody on my Benches disputes the scale of the problem that confronts the Ministry of Defence; what I do intend to question is whether the Government are pursuing the best solution.

The defence housing strategy, published last year, offers a familiar formula: it talks of a clearer statutory footing, better focus and an accounting officer with defined responsibility for the housing estate. None of this tells us why the defence housing service, as an arm’s-length body, will succeed where the Defence Infrastructure Organisation has so conspicuously failed. The DIO, too, was created as a discrete organisation with a clear remit, and it has become a byword for bureaucratic unresponsiveness, even, sadly, being nicknamed—not affectionately, I may add—“DI-no”.

The lesson of the failures of the DIO—and, as we must not forget, Annington Homes—is that defence housing needs a different operating model altogether, one genuinely run by people whose entire professional life is housing, and one that is accountable to the families it serves, rather than upward to the department in Whitehall. That is precisely why my party’s alternative is a forces housing association. That would be an organisation modelled on an ordinary housing association, not run for profit, with every pound of revenue reinvested in the housing stock. Its executive leadership would be drawn from the social housing sector rather than the Civil Service, and representatives of each of the three forces families federations would be given a formal seat on its board. That model would give service families something the Bill does not: an institution whose culture, incentives and governance are drawn from the industry that already knows how to run good-quality rental housing well, rather than a new public body. By contrast, a national NDPB brings with it precisely the accountability weaknesses we are all too aware of. I really would appreciate if the Minister could give the House a straight answer to a very simple question: what specific mechanism in the Bill will make service families’ complaints be taken seriously and improve the satisfaction with, and quality of, service family accommodation?

My second point concerns money. I put this to the Committee because a new structure is worthless without the funding to back it up. In their defence housing strategy, the Government promised a 10-year £9 billion programme to upgrade around 43,000 defence homes—roughly nine in 10 of the whole family estate. That was, and remains, a welcome goal. Ministers understandably wanted credit for it; indeed, the Minister for the Armed Forces in the other place repeated these figures with confidence when the Bill was scrutinised in Committee in the other place in the spring. But when the defence investment plan was finally published this summer—nine months late, let us not forget—we learned that refurbishment work on some of the worst properties, the very homes surveyed and found to require substantial work or complete rebuilding, has been pushed back to fund other priorities within that plan. Antony Cotton, the campaigner who had fronted the Government’s own publicity for this programme, said plainly that families would feel let down. He had told them, in his words, that their homes were “on the horizon”. Now, sadly, that horizon has swiftly receded.

My right honourable friend Mark Francois pressed the Minister for the Armed Forces repeatedly in Committee in the other place on exactly this point: the gap between the confident figure given by the Ministers in the spring and the reality that emerged a few months later once the defence investment plan was published. We have seen this pattern all too often with this Government, not least on the path to 3%. They make an announcement with headline-grabbing numbers and reassure us that everything is in hand, but, with depressing predictability, they end up pushing everything back because they cannot get a grip on the welfare budget. In a Written Answer to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Docherty of Milngavie, the Minister stated that:

“The Ministry of Defence will publish its delivery timeline for the £9.2 billion Defence Housing Strategy over the next 12 months”.


Respectfully, this is simply more delay with the money. The housing strategy was published in November last year. Why have the Government not established a delivery timeline already, and why will it take yet another 12 months just to publish the delivery timeline, yet alone begin with the investment?

That matters directly, because we are being asked to approve the creation of an entirely new statutory body to deliver a programme whose funding has already been rewritten within months of being announced, before the body designed to deliver it has even been established. If the Government cannot hold to their own funding timetable under the current arrangements, no amount of institutional reorganisation will fix that. Without funds that the Government promised, this is a chimera—a verbal soufflé. I ask the Minister this again, directly: can the Government confirm today, on the record, that the £9 billion and the 43,000 homes remain their firm commitment on the original 10-year timetable? Can the Minister explain why service families should have confidence that the new body created for the Bill will succeed in fixing the standard of their housing?

I do not oppose the reform of defence housing delivery; I oppose the assumption that the creation of yet another arm’s-length body will solve anything. I did warn of my scepticism on this proposal, but I feel a lot better having shared it with the Committee.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness—and I congratulate her on finding a different way of having a therapy session. She made some very interesting and important points, and I will deal with them as I go through the remarks that I make. I will come to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about single living accommodation a little bit further down.

I begin with Clause 3 and Schedule 1, which create the defence housing service, a new public body dedicated to improving the supply and quality of defence housing and spearheading the regeneration of defence communities. Our defence housing strategy sets out a vision for the future transformation of military homes: 90% of military homes will be upgraded—that work has already started—or renewed or rebuilt, through a record £9.2 billion investment over a decade. The defence housing service is the vehicle to drive this transformation. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked me to confirm again the Government’s commitment to a figure and the time for that. Let me say it again, in direct answer to her question: it will be a record £9.2 billion investment over a decade.

The defence housing strategy recommended establishing the DHS as a professional arm’s-length body focused on the specific needs of service personnel and their families. The direct partnership with the military to support this can be achieved only within a public body. That was the recommendation of the housing strategy. I say to noble Lords that many of the people who drew the strategy up have had years and years of experience in housing. Without reading them all out, noble Lords can see for themselves if they look at the review work and the team that put this together. The Government supported the recommendations that they made.

Given the control required by the Ministry of Defence to meet operational needs, the purpose of the housing, the close relationship with welfare outcomes, and the exercise of housing discretion, transfer outside the public sector to a housing association or other private sector structure is not appropriate in the Government’s view or, indeed, the view of the strategy. It would, in our view, set back the renewal of the estate, increase costs of delivery, hamper the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces and undermine Crown tenancy arrangements.

The purpose of defence housing is to meet the operational needs of the Armed Forces. Central to that is the ability to move service personnel wherever needed and without delay. To support that mobility, accommodation is provided as part of their terms and conditions, at a rate heavily subsidised by the Ministry of Defence through a Crown licence arrangement which manages occupation in accordance with military operational requirements. This requires the Ministry of Defence as a whole to have operational control over its housing stock and who is in occupation of particular homes. That would be hampered by a transfer of the estate to a third-party organisation that is not part of the Ministry of Defence family.

Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I simply endorse everything my noble friend Lady Brinton has said. I do not think there is anything I need to add.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has offered us a very thoughtful exposition of why further action is required to strengthen the service justice system, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, made an important contribution in support of that. I wholeheartedly concur with the rationale behind the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

Last year, I brought this issue to the attention of the House during our debates on the then Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, as I am sure noble Lords will recall. During the progress of that Bill, I was particularly keen to give the new commissioner the power to investigate whistleblowing concerns, particularly relating to sexual misconduct. Although my specific proposal did not materialise, we did get a government commitment to a whistleblowing and defence review, for which I am very grateful to both the department and the Minister personally. That really important piece of work has now been concluded—I must thank the Minister for sharing it with me prior to the finalisation of the draft report, which greatly encouraged me. I certainly look forward to its publication in due course. The Minister might be able to share with the Chamber whether we have a date for publication of that report. I say at the outset that the noble Baroness and I are on the same page in ensuring that cases such as that of Jaysley Beck never happen again.

The Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey found that 13% of women in our forces had been subject to sexual harassment in the previous 12 months alone. That is profoundly disappointing and deeply discouraging and worrying. The MoD’s own sexualised behaviours survey published only recently found that a third of servicewomen reported unwanted physical touching and one in 10 reported sexual assault. That is not the environment in which we want our servicewomen to be serving. Against that backdrop, I understand entirely why the noble Baroness has brought forward this framework, and I have considerable sympathy with what she is trying to achieve. A service stalking protection notice, mirroring the existing domestic abuse framework, has a certain logic to it, and the training and continuity amendments address real and identifiable gaps.

That said, I pose the question of whether a new tier of civil order is in itself the most effective mechanism available to us. My concern is that protection notices and protection orders, however carefully drafted, are only as good as the mechanisms available to monitor and enforce. There is a risk that we spend time creating new civil orders while the more fundamental question of whether service police have the resources, the trained investigators and the forensic support to catch these individuals, secure convictions and, where appropriate, see them imprisoned goes unanswered. Let me make clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I do not say this to dismiss the amendment; she raises a very important issue. I say it because the Minister owes the House a clear account of where the Government’s priorities lie. In conclusion, can the Minister outline what the Government are doing against that backdrop of evidence from surveys to better protect women in the Armed Forces from stalking and similar abuse? I look forward to his substantive response to very important amendments.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for bringing forward these crucial and really important amendments, and my noble friend Lady Royall for what she said in support of them.

On the point about the whistleblower review raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—I know the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and her noble friend Lady Kramer have also been involved in looking at that—we hope to publish it, and the expectation is that we will do that in the next two weeks. I hope that is of some reassurance. The idea is to have that published with a Written Ministerial Statement. As soon as I have absolute certainty about that, I will let both noble Baronesses know. In answer to what specifically the Government are doing to try to tackle some of the culture with respect to women and girls and protection in those circumstances, the whistleblower review is one part of that. The contributions that both noble Baronesses made have substantially improved what the Government were proposing, so I am grateful for that.

I will just make a couple of general remarks before coming to the specifics of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness. The Government are clear that stalking is a serious and often escalating crime that can have a devastating impact on victims and their families, and we are committed to ensuring that victims are protected, perpetrators are held to account and agencies have the powers that they need to intervene at the earliest opportunity. As has been said, stalking behaviour can cause significant physical and psychological harm and must never be dismissed as trivial or harmless. The Government’s approach is therefore focused on prevention, protection and prosecution, supported by robust safeguarding arrangements and effective multi-agency working.

Stalking protection orders provide an important tool to protect victims before harm escalates, enabling restrictions and positive requirements to be imposed where necessary to manage risk and prevent further offending. The reason I said in my letter to the noble Baroness that Amendment 21 was not necessary is not that interim stalking orders are not important. I draw the attention of the Committee to new Section 236Q, where there are interim service stalking protection orders on the face of the Bill. Without being pedantic, I know they are not interim stalking protection notices, and I suspect that may be the point that she wants to raise, but the Government recognise the need for interim measures to have the protection that is needed while a full application is still pending. I am informed by people who understand these processes better than I do that being an order rather than a notice means that there are more significant protection measures available to deal with any possible breach of an interim order. I just raise that point with the noble Baroness, and no doubt we can discuss that either further in Committee or another time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support, in particular, Amendments 24 and 25. That is not to say that we on these Benches are not giving our full support to my noble friend Lady Brinton for Amendment 26, but I think the point of Amendment 24, taking the chain of command out of anything to do with domestic abuse and ABH, is very important. I very strongly want us, if the Committee does not want to press the Minister to accept the amendment as phrased, to find a way of amending the legislation such that it can be taken into consideration, so that an allegation of domestic abuse would not go to the commanding officer. If this amendment does not work, please can the Minister come back with something that the Government feel is appropriate?

On Amendment 25, as with others, my noble friend Lady Brinton has picked up the danger of people falling between service justice and civilian justice. If we need to amend the legislation then that is something we should be doing. Clearly, we do not want individuals slipping between the two.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, in a similar vein to the previous group, I think I am pretty well on a similar page to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, particularly on Amendment 25, which seeks to ensure that the service victims’ code cannot be restricted to exclude victims of sexual offences or domestic abuse.

The amendment seems to me to close what looks like an unintentional gap. A servicewoman whose case is prosecuted in the civilian courts should not receive a lesser standard of service-provided support than one whose case proceeds through the service justice system. That seems to me a matter of basic fairness. I hope that the Minister will consider the merits of this amendment or at least explain clearly why, and in what circumstances, the Government believe that such an exclusion could ever be justified.

Amendment 24, I suggest, requires greater caution. I infer from the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that she recognises that this has to be approached with care. The amendment would remove a commanding officer’s power to hear summarily any charge of assault or actual bodily harm where the conduct amounts to domestic abuse, requiring referral instead to the service police or the Director of Service Prosecutions.

I do not dismiss the intention behind the amendment. There is a real and understandable concern that summary hearings may not be the right forum for allegations of this seriousness and that commanding officers, however well-intentioned, may not always be best placed to handle matters with the particular dynamics that domestic abuse involves. The reason why we must proceed with great care here is that the amendment touches upon the authority of the chain of command—something that is and must remain absolutely central to service discipline.

It is that authority which underpins the cohesion and ultimately the ability of our Armed Forces to fight and prevail when called upon. Any change that narrows a commanding officer’s jurisdiction, even for good reason, has consequences that ripple outwards into how units are led and how discipline is maintained. Those consequences deserve to be understood before any legislation is enacted.

I am not saying I oppose this outright. It may well be that this is precisely the direction that service personnel themselves want to see. I would not be surprised if many, particularly among victims, support exactly this change. But we do not yet know that with confidence and I am uncomfortable about pursuing so significant a shift in the chain of command’s jurisdiction on the basis of good intentions alone. What is needed is careful, structured consideration by the Ministry of Defence, drawing on the views of senior officers who carry responsibility for discipline across the force and, just as importantly, of the commanding officers at unit level who would actually exercise or lose this power. I ask the Minister to commit to precisely that engagement and to report back to this House on its findings before a change of this magnitude is made.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for bringing forward these amendments, which are of significance to us all as we seek to improve the current situation. I also thank my noble friend Lord Stansgate for his contribution, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie. I will address some of the points they made in my remarks.

On Amendment 24, as set out by the Government in the other place, we are already committed to reviewing Schedule 1 criminal conduct offences for summary hearings and Schedule 2 serious service offences in the Armed Forces Act 2006 as part of implementing this Bill following Royal Assent. However—and I hope this speaks to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—for offences related to domestic abuse such as assault or assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the necessary changes will be made by secondary legislation following the review. That would obviously involve consultation with a wide range of people. Schedule 1 offences are summary offences and therefore the commanding officer has a role. Obviously, Schedule 2 offences are more serious. We are looking at what we do with respect to that and what changes may or may not be made.

The proposed changes would be consistent with current defence policy, which is that such cases should always be referred to the relevant police authority so that they can consider investigating them. Where offences are removed from Schedule 1 and added to the more serious Schedule 2, the practical effect would be that they are investigated by the Defence Serious Crime Command and, if a charge is directed, tried at the court martial rather than at a summary hearing. As I say, that will be subject to a review. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, raised quite considerable concern that if we did move forward, we needed to move forward constructively, carefully and with wide consultation. That review will take place to do that, but it is part of the implementation of the Bill and therefore the amendment is not acceptable to us. We do not want it in the Bill because that would prejudge any review which is to take place.

On Amendment 25, protecting victims is a clear priority. There is no question that we would ever restrict the application of the code for victims in the CJS in respect of victims of sexual offences or domestic abuse. The code for victims in the CJS is aligned with Section 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which sets out the statutory rights of victims in England and Wales. The code for victims in the CJS and the code for victims in England and Wales will contain the same principles and the same 12 rights. This ensures that victims of service offences and civilian victims receive equivalent standards, protections and entitlements, which goes to the heart of what the noble Baroness was asking for.

If a serving person is engaged with the civilian justice system, they will still be entitled to the single service welfare support mechanisms, which are designed and tailored to support individual needs. A range of comprehensive support from both welfare professionals and the chain of command can be employed to support personnel, tailored to those individual circumstances, and can be provided by unit welfare officers, medical staff and pastoral support. Where needs are complex or relate to serious, enduring and/or multi-agency cases, a referral to specialist welfare support may be required. This is delivered by specialist trained staff, and each of the single services offers that option in addition to first-line welfare support. Although we are not where we should be, there has been some improvement.

I thank the noble Baroness for Amendment 26, relating to production orders, and for highlighting this important issue. This new clause is not required as any change to the procedures around production orders could be enacted through the relevant secondary legislation—if a change is needed, we can do that through secondary legislation—so long as a review of the current procedures has been completed so that we know what we are doing if we seek to make any change.

On a point that the noble Baroness was asking about, we will consider further whether our procedures around production orders, specifically with regard to giving notice to the individual to whom the information relates and the provision that representations can be made, should fully reflect the relevant procedures in the civilian courts and whether it is appropriate and necessary that they do so. I reassure the noble Baroness that, while the requirement for further review around production orders is considered, victims of crime are informed about information requests from third parties. That is an important addition.

When a victim information request is submitted to a third party, service police must, under Section 44B of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, give notice to the person whose information is being sought. However, that requirement does not apply in certain circumstances; for example, where it is not reasonably practical in the circumstances or, importantly, where doing so might risk causing serious harm to the victim or another person. Again, that is an important qualification. The code of practice relating to these requests also states that when the victim is informed, their views should be sought and they are able to make representations—again, unless specific exemptions apply.

I hope that with those explanations and reassurances, particularly with respect to one or two of the reviews, the noble Baroness may find it appropriate to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to give my verbal support to the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate, which I have co-signed. I did so precisely because I think there are areas that need to be further explored. In particular, the points that he raised so eloquently need to be considered. To what extent are commanding officers or their delegated officers going to be available at precisely the sort of time when there might be a need for considering custody? It might well be the time that commanding officers are not available. It would be much more sensible to have a single approach where we have police who have the training and who understand what the requirements are.

There is also the issue of impartiality, which came up in the previous group of amendments. Although I understand the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about taking commanding officers out of the equation, there might at times also be a case for a degree of objectivity. These amendments seem to be straightforward, logical and arguably desirable, so I now expect the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, to explain to us why they do not quite think this is the case.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to make it clear that I tabled the Clause 16 stand part notice not because I oppose the changes the Government are making but because I seek some clarifications on the intended effects and operation of the changes being made. I am particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for his engagement with my noble friend Lord Minto on this matter. He offered an insightful explanation of the effects of Clause 16 and the intention behind his amendments, which I will comment on in due course. I also recognise the pressure that has built since the Etherton review for greater independence in the handling of service justice matters, but Clause 16 makes a significant change to how pre-charge detention operates.

As I understand it, Clause 16 amends Sections 98 and 99 of the 2006 Act so that the authorisation and review of custody without charge—currently a function of the commanding officer—is transferred to a newly defined “appropriate authority”. The commanding officer will no longer be the person to whom an arrest and its grounds must be reported, nor the person who orders release once the grounds for detention fall away. In cases involving serious offences, the Bill goes further, requiring matters to be reported beyond the commanding officer altogether. I press the Minister on what this means in practice.

Custody decisions sit close to the heart of a commanding officer’s responsibility for the people under his or her command. A commanding officer who no longer authorises, or is even routinely informed of, the custody of a member of the unit loses a degree of visibility over discipline and welfare that has traditionally gone hand in hand with command. I am not arguing that visibility must always trump independence. There may be good reasons, particularly in sensitive cases, for distancing these decisions from the chain of command. But what happens in operations, for example, where a commanding officer’s swift decision-making may be necessary? What assessment has been made of the effect on unit cohesion and discipline where a commanding officer is no longer the first port of call?

Service justice depends on decisions being made promptly by somebody with the standing and the proximity to make them properly. If the appropriate authority is going to be some distance removed from the unit, either in rank or in geography, the Government need to explain how that gap will be bridged without compromising either the rights of the individual in custody or the operational chain of command’s ability to function. I hope the Minister can set out clearly what triggered these changes and why they are necessary. Very importantly, what alternatives were considered? Equally importantly, what consultation took place with commanding officers themselves before this approach was settled upon?

Having said that, I understand that there are instances where commanding officers have been too close to the matters in hand and have therefore not appropriately dealt with the accusations. The right reverend Prelate has argued that the provost marshal should have the ability to be an appropriate authority in all service offences, not only in cases where a serious offence has been committed. I have considerable sympathy with that view. If we are to make the change the Government propose—although I have some reservations, I do not oppose it outright—it is certainly sensible to extend the involvement of the provost marshal. I shall await with interest the Minister’s comments on the arguments advanced by the right reverend Prelate, and on the potentially enhanced role of the provost marshal.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for tabling his important amendments and for the debate and discussion that will take place in Committee as a consequence. I also thank him for his time over the weekend. We had a very interesting conversation about these and some further amendments he has tabled in later groups. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others who have contributed.

Rather than addressing the specific amendments, and I apologise that I may have to speak for a few minutes to put some important points on the record, I will start by speaking to Clause 16. Under the current legal framework of the Armed Forces Act, only the commanding officer of a suspect can authorise their pre-charge custody after arrest. In routine cases, that remains appropriate—which goes back to the points that the noble Baroness made about the role of commanding officers—but in serious and fast-moving investigations, the need to obtain that authorisation can create avoidable delay, risk the loss or contamination of evidence, and increase the risk of further harm to victims, witnesses or the suspect.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

35: Clause 21, page 40, line 13, at end insert—
“(iii) a retired holder of such a rank.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, we are getting into the home straight, so I will try to accelerate the pace. The effect of Amendment 35, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Minto, would be to add retired holders of a qualifying rank to those eligible to sit as members of a court martial. The problem this amendment addresses is a simple one of numbers: court martial panels must be drawn from officers of sufficient seniority and, crucially, sufficient distance from the defendant to ensure impartiality. Where the defendant is of relatively junior rank, that pool is large enough, but where the defendant is a senior officer, the pool of serving officers senior enough and unconnected enough to sit in judgment shrinks dramatically.

The Committee will recall that, when the service justice system last had to try an officer of very senior rank, the court administration unit struggled to assemble a panel at all, precisely because every available serving officer of sufficient seniority had some prior connection to the defendant, whether through shared courses, shared postings or simply the small world that senior rank inevitably creates. It was only the defendant’s departure from the service by the time of trial that allowed the difficulty to be resolved through the use of civilians, a workaround unavailable had he still been serving. This is an example that the Minister himself used to defend the Government’s changes to the court martial through the Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment) Rules 2024.

When this amendment was debated in the other place, the Minister responded at some length on a related but distinct point concerning the automatic qualification of former warrant officers who receive a commission. That is a fair point, so far as it goes, but it does not address the underlying difficulty my honourable friends identified, which was the shortage of eligible serving officers when the defendant is senior. I do not believe that concern has yet been answered, and I hope the Minister will use this opportunity to address the point.

The other matter raised in Committee in the other place by the then Minister, Al Carns, was that there was no capacity issue for the courts martial, but that was not the experience of my honourable friends, who undertook a visit to Portsmouth as part of their work on the Committee, nor the recollection of the Liberal Democrat Member of the Committee. While capacity in the service justice system might not be the most severe problem in the world at the moment, what is to say it will not become so? So why not safeguard against that possibility by allowing retired officers to also partake in the court martial? This is a fairly straightforward and perfectly well-intended proposal and I hope the Minister might be able to look on it with some favour. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate and for the thoughtful comments they have made. To deal with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the information I have is that there is no shortage of court martial board members. I can give the figures that the ministry has provided to me: in 2025, 447 service personnel were sworn in for 283 trials, and there has been no difficulty in constituting boards. The court martial already draws from a sufficiently wide pool of eligible personnel, so, as such, the amendment is not required. If she has more detail that she would like to share, obviously that would be useful, but that is the information that I have been provided with.

It is vital that board members are up-to-date and possess the necessary practical experience of the latest single service policies, procedures, standards and values. For that reason, individuals who have left service even recently may no longer be as acquainted with changes across the services since their departure. The Government acknowledge the valuable, meaningful contribution that veterans continue to make across our society. However, we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to seek to draw on their past experience and knowledge for service on a court martial board, particularly when there is no shortage of board members.

Amendment 36, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to remove military lay board members from the court martial sentencing process, so that sentence would be decided by the Judge Advocate alone. One argument often used is that this would mirror the Crown Court in England and Wales. However, I do not agree that the Crown Court model should simply be replicated in all cases within the UK service justice system. The current position is the same as that during the passage of the previous Armed Forces Bill in 2021, that the Judge Advocate and the service members of the board discuss and decide the sentence together. That is not an anomaly or a weakness; it is one of the strengths of the court martial to have service members and the Judge Advocate deciding on sentences together.

In answer to one of the specific points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that does not mean that the UK court martial has remained unchanged since the 2021 Act was implemented. In 2022, a new court martial rule was introduced that ensured that each court martial board includes at least one servicewoman. This is not sufficient, but it is a step forward. That is the only point I would make—which I am not sure my noble friends to the left of me totally agreed with—but all I am saying is that while it is not sufficient, it is a step forward.

In 2025, 28% of the service personnel who were sworn in as board members for court martial proceedings were women. Again, that is not what it should be, but it is a significant improvement. Since December 2024, court martial boards have been almost exclusively tri-service.

The judge advocate is of course the expert on sentencing. It is true that any sentence passed by the court martial must be determined by a majority vote, meaning that the judge advocate’s voice could, theoretically, be outweighed. However, the judge advocate will give the board the legal framework, identify the relevant sentencing guidelines and set the proper parameters within which the sentence must be considered. Failure to have regard to those guidelines and parameters opens the way to an appeal in the Court Martial Appeal Court.

The board members do not replace the judicial role. Their role is different and complementary. They bring current service experience to the assessment of what sentence is appropriate within the lawful framework. Service personnel are subject to rules, standards and operational expectations that go beyond ordinary civilian employment. Conduct that might appear straightforward in a civilian setting can have a markedly different impact in the military context, particularly where it affects discipline, cohesion, readiness, safety or operational effectiveness.

Board members bring up-to-date knowledge and real-time experience of single service policies, procedures, values and standards. The amendment would reduce the board’s role from one of equal participation to one of consultation only. There is a real difference between being consulted and being part of the decision. Consultation would mean that the judge advocate could hear the service perspective but reject it. The current system ensures that the service perspective is taken into account in the sentencing decision, while remaining subject to the judge advocate’s firm legal direction.

Nor is there any legal issue that this amendment needs to address. Sentencing in the court martial is already subject to stringent legal controls. The court martial must have regard to the relevant sentencing guidelines, which for criminal offences incorporate the same guidelines used in the Crown Court and the magistrates’ courts. The Judge Advocate-General also issues detailed sentencing guidance for the service courts. Aggravation and mitigation are fully addressed in open court by the prosecution and defence, and pre-sentence reports from experienced probation officers are available where required. Sentences are reasoned in open court and may be reviewed subsequently by the Court Martial Appeal Court.

It is also important to remember that, while military experience informs sentencing, it does not displace the legal principles governing it. Any mitigation advanced on behalf of an offender—whether arising from previous operational service, commendations, awards or personal circumstances—must be assessed within the sentencing framework directed by the judge advocate and in accordance with applicable sentencing guidelines. To be clear, board members are not free to substitute personal views of military merit for the lawful sentencing exercise, and any sentence that failed properly to reflect the relevant legal principles would be liable to appeal.

As court martial sentencing includes service-specific sentences such as dismissal, reduction in rank and service detention, military board members are particularly well placed to assess the practical effect of those sanctions on both the individual to be sentenced and the wider service community. Board members are lay decision-makers directed to exercise their own independent judgment: importantly, they are not representatives of the chain of command. Their current military experience assists the court; it does not compromise the court’s independence.

The Government argue that the amendment would therefore reduce the service character of the court martial without adding any significant additional safeguard. We believe that the current balance is the right one: the judge advocate provides the legal expertise and safeguards; the lay board members provide current military experience and independent judgment. Together, they produce a sentence that is lawful, reasoned and properly informed by the service context. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baronesses not to press the amendments.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendment. My concern focused on the specific issue of where a senior officer faces a court martial. The pool of eligible serving officers able to sit without any prior connection to the defendant is small. My question was not one of overall capacity, which was, I suggest, the issue that the Minister chose to address.

I do not want to make a meal of this—can the Minister go back to his officials and seek an assurance that they are not aware of any specific case of it proving difficult to man a court martial where a senior officer is charged with an offence and it is important and necessary to secure a pool of comparably qualified officers?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

In that case, I am grateful to the Minister and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 35 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

37: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Removal of presumption of suspended sentence orders(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In section 200 (suspended sentence orders), omit subsections (1)(aa) and (1)(ba).(3) Omit section 200ZB.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the presumption of a suspended sentence order from the service justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 37 is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Minto. This issue has caused deep disquiet on these Benches for many months. We have opposed the Government’s introduction of a presumption of suspended sentence orders for sentences of over 12 months on numerous occasions. We opposed this presumption when it was introduced in the Sentencing Act and we opposed it again when the Government resisted our attempts during the passage of the Crime and Policing Bill to carve out exceptions for repeat and dangerous offenders.

My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower warned this House at the time that, under this presumption, a stalker could breach a protection order or a suspended sentence order and still never see the inside of a prison cell. My noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie pressed similarly and rightly for sexual offenders and domestic abusers to be excluded from a presumption that treats a 12-month threshold as an almost automatic bar to custody. The Government and the Liberal Democrats resisted both attempts. We believe that events will prove these warnings correct and we do not resile from them now. Our objection to this presumption has never been confined to any one category of offence. It is a broader objection that Parliament should not instruct judges as a starting proposition to look away from custody before they have even considered the facts before them.

The evidence on breach itself gives us little comfort. Where a suspended sentence order is actually breached, whether by reoffending or by failing to comply with its requirements, research from the Sentencing Academy shows that only around half result in the sentence being activated in full or in part. In practice, that means an offender can breach the very order that was meant to hold a custodial sentence hanging over their heads and still avoid serving it. Given that theft offences, including shoplifting and offences of violence, make up a substantial share of those receiving suspended sentences, this presumption risks something close to the effect of decriminalisation of persistent minor theft. An offender can be convicted, be sentenced, breach the terms without sentence, and still walk away.

It is our view that the presumption generally is a folly, but it is equally a folly for the presumption to exist in the service justice system. Indeed, I would go further. The case against it is, if anything, stronger in a service context. Good order and discipline within the Armed Forces depend on offences being met with a proportionate and, where necessary, custodial response, determined by the court on the facts of the case, not nudged towards suspension by a statutory thumb on the scales. A commanding officer’s confidence in the system and the confidence of the wider service rest on knowing that serious or persistent offending will be met with a sentence that reflects it.

This amendment would simply restore to the service courts the same sentencing discretion that existed before this presumption was imported wholesale from the civilian system. Given all we have discussed today regarding sexual abuse, stalking and the general treatment of female members of the Armed Forces, I think it is a dereliction of duty to allow this presumption to stand. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It was all going so well. I do not think there is a unanimity of view on this one. I start, however, by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for moving the amendment. I think we will probably end up debating this issue again; we may all be a little bit more excitable in the way that we deal with it.

In answer to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, of course a breach of an order means someone can be recalled. That is like any court order; if it is breached, the court has the power, capability and capacity to bring people back and deal with it appropriately then.

Amendment 37 would remove the presumption of suspended sentence orders from the service justice system. In doing so, it would reverse a reform that was introduced to align the service justice system’s sentencing practices with wider government sentencing policy while preserving the unique requirements of service discipline. The presumption forms part of the Government’s response to former Lord Chancellor David Gauke’s Independent Sentencing Review 2025, which recommended reducing the use of short custodial sentences and increasing the availability of suspended sentence orders. The policy was based on evidence that short custodial sentences are often less effective at reducing reoffending than community-based interventions. It therefore sought to encourage rehabilitative disposals that better support longer-term public protection.

The reform—this is the crucial point—does not remove the ability of service courts to impose immediate custody. Courts retain the discretion to do so where there are exceptional circumstances or where immediate custody is necessary to maintain service discipline. I think that is the fundamental point: in the end, the court makes the judgment as to whether it should apply immediate custody or allow a suspended sentence. Suspended sentence orders remain an effective sanction, carrying punitive and rehabilitative requirements and the prospect that the custodial sentence will be activated, which is the point I have just made to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, if the offender fails to comply.

It is the Government’s long-standing policy that the service justice system should emulate the civilian criminal justice system unless there are compelling service-specific reasons to deviate from it. The Government are not persuaded, and neither am I personally, that such a case has been made here. Furthermore, removing the presumption in the service justice system alone could lead to different sentencing outcomes for similar offenders across the civilian and service jurisdictions. It could also complicate decisions about the appropriate jurisdiction where there is no service interest justifying divergence.

For these reasons, the Government consider that the current approach strikes the right balance between rehabilitation, judicial discretion, service discipline and consistency across the justice system. I therefore invite the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, to withdraw this amendment, although my suspicion is that we may return to this particular debate and discussion. As I say, we might do it at a more excitable time when we can all explore what is a fundamental point within our society that needs to be aired.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and indeed to the Minister for his response. We are not going to conclude with consensus between us, but we shall bear our disagreement with a smile upon each other.

The Minister argued that the alignment with the civilian system is what justifies this change, but service justice depends on proportionate case-by-case judgment and the maintenance of discipline. I have heard nothing today to persuade me that a presumption of suspended sentence orders is desirable, sensible or right. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but the Minister is correct in his prediction: I reserve the right to return to this on Report.

Amendment 37 withdrawn.

Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

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

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

Amendment 55A is an attempt to rectify that situation by restoring the principle of sovereign immunity and aligning the law on salvage with the spirit of what I think Clause 48 is trying to achieve. In setting out the case for his amendments, my noble friend has referenced a group of academics who have highlighted this issue with the application of civil salvage law in relation to Section 230(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. I would also be grateful to the Minister if he could confirm the Ministry of Defence’s interpretation of that position.

The Government may very well believe there to be no problem and the Minister may not agree with the interpretation of the law by the academics mentioned by my noble friend but, whether or not the Government agree, is not the key issue that the law can even be questioned in the first place? The fact that there exists sufficient legal ambiguity to allow academics to come to this view means that there is a risk of people attempting to salvage and recover military wrecks, believing that they are allowed to do so. I hope that the Government will agree to meet my noble friend and those others who are concerned so that the legal position can be clarified.

The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, proposes to remove the clause entirely. I remember with pleasure our extensive exchanges on the “Gloucester”, but I most respectfully do not entirely agree with that proposal. It is my interpretation that divers will remain free to visit sites on the same “Look but don’t touch” basis that already applies to protected places. I remember numerous letters as a Minister in that context. What becomes unlawful is the disturbance, damage or entry into enclosed parts of a wreck without Ministry of Defence authorisation. I believe that the intention is to prevent poor behaviour by the minority who treat these sites as a source of souvenirs, which is not the ordinary conduct of responsible divers. We have a duty to prevent the desecration of the final resting places of all our war dead. They gave their lives and service to our nation. That is the least they deserve. If these measures can prevent such desecration by unlicensed diving, I suggest that they deserve our support.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I will start with Amendment 55A from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I thank him for bringing that forward in relation to salvage claims against military and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels via the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which is the principal piece of primary legislation in the UK that governs maritime law, ship registration and safety standards. We will investigate the noble Lord’s concerns and comments about Section 230(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 before Report and come back with appropriate comments with respect to that. I hope that that is a reassurance to him about all the various comments he helpfully made for your Lordships’ House.

Moving to Clause 48 and the debate on that, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for his views on the Bill and acknowledge his concerns about Clause 48 and the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. Clause 48 of the Bill addresses the existing disparity between the protection of military aircraft and vessels under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. The 1986 Act secures the protection from unauthorised interference of the remains of military aircraft and vessels that have crashed, sunk or been stranded, and of associated human remains, making it an offence to enter or interfere with a military wreck site without an authorised licence.

The Act provides for two types of protection: protected places and controlled sites, as designated through a statutory instrument in tranches. To date, a total of 129 wrecked vessels have been designated in eight tranches, the last coming into force on 30 March 2026. However, the Act does not currently allow designation of a vessel that was sunk or stranded on or before 4 August 1914 as a protected place, or designation of a site as a controlled site if over 200 years have elapsed since the crash, sinking or stranding of the vessel or aircraft. As a result of these time limits, older military shipwrecks lack protection. For example, the “Gloucester”, which sank in 1682, carrying the future James II and with a loss of around 200 lives, which I know from our discussions and correspondence is of particular interest to the noble Lord, is currently unprotected.

Clause 48 amends Section 1 of the 1986 Act so that all military shipwrecks which are the last resting places of serving personnel are automatically designated as protected places. This ensures alignment with the protection already afforded to military aircraft. The clause also removes the restrictive time constraints that apply to both protected places and controlled sites, ensuring that the nation’s historic military shipwrecks, which are currently excluded from inclusion by virtue of the time limits specified, can be protected. By providing automatic protection to all military shipwrecks, the MoD will enable a significant improvement in the way our maritime military graves and underwater cultural heritage are protected.

Significant advances in underwater technology and technical diving are leading to more of our military wrecks being discovered. That is good news, of course, but it also requires us to do all we can to protect them. The noble Baroness alluded to the reasons why we are doing this; those advances in technology are one of them. We need to do all we can to protect them once they have been discovered and identified in order to prevent them being disturbed or damaged and to prevent interference with military remains.

The recent discovery of HMS “Tiger” off the Isle of Wight is a prime example of why the amendments are being sought—again, this goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. HMS “Tiger” was discovered 118 years after she collided with HMS “Berwick” during a training exercise and was cut clean in two. Currently, she can be designated only as a controlled site simply due to the fact that she sank in 1908, effectively restricting access to divers. Through the changes in the Bill, HMS “Tiger” will become a protected place, permitting non-intrusive activities such as diving without a licence. It is important that we protect UK military shipwrecks in UK territorial waters and international waters. I hope that there is no doubt that our intention is to do all we can to offer better protection in order to prevent the unauthorised desecration of these historically important sites, which are often the last resting places of our serving personnel.

I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that many of the provisions already contained in the current Act will remain. Clause 48 simply seeks to strengthen it. Diving in protected places will continue to be permitted—again, to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—on a “look but don’t touch” basis, while a licence will still be required to dive on a controlled site. Giving all military wrecks “protected place” status will help deter unauthorised salvage and the desecration of the wrecks of military remains of service personnel; where appropriate, it will enable the MoD to prosecute those who flout the law in this respect.

I assure the Committee that there are already provisions in the Act to permit diving on UK military shipwrecks in UK territorial and international waters. However, to assist divers in navigating their way around the changes proposed, the MoD will be updating and publishing its policies on underwater cultural heritage, should the Bill be passed. I also assure the Committee—it may have been the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who asked about this—that the MoD, in consultation with the British Sub-Aqua Club, which is the UK governing body for sub-aqua diving, has produced a set of questions and answers designed to inform its members and the diving community of the proposed changes, which were published on 2 September 2026.

With those necessary reassurances, I hope that the Committee will see the need for Clause 48 and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

58: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights(1) The Human Rights Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) For section 7A (limitation: overseas forces proceedings) substitute—“7A No proceedings for overseas operations(1) No proceedings may be brought under section 7(1)(a) in respect of any overseas operations by His Majesty’s forces.(2) “Overseas operations” means any operations outside the British Islands, including peacekeeping operations and operations for dealing with terrorism, civil unrest or serious public disorder, in the course of which members of His Majesty's forces come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance.(3) “His Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).(4) A member of the regular or reserve forces who has been deployed on an overseas operation under this Act may not be subject to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of that deployment.”(3) After section 14 (derogations), insert—“14A Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must authorise for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1) of the Convention.(2) In this section “overseas operations” has the same meaning as in section 7A.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to make provision for the members of the regular or reserve forces who have been deployed under this Act to be exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights for that period of deployment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, there may be some among your Lordships who looked at this amendment in my name and had a flash of déjà vu. That is because, of course, we have in some manner been here before, except that I was the one facing a grilling from noble Lords, rather than the Minister.

During the passage of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, this House voiced its strong opposition to what was Clause 12 of the Bill, which stated that where the Secretary of State considers an overseas operation to be significant, they must keep under consideration the appropriateness of making a derogation under Article 15(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Government can make the laws and derogate should they wish to do so. I have pointed out the inconsistency of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gouldie, which would require us to derogate from the Human Rights Act but would not achieve her objective because it still leaves us liable to the ECHR, which would allow people to pursue it in that way.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I think that the Minister understands fully what it is like to be grilled at the Dispatch Box in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their contributions. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his elucidation of the legal aspects of this. It is complex. There are interwoven components. I was following his interrogation of the Minister with a rather selfish interest as the Minister nobly endeavoured to respond. I am intrigued by what is emerging. I gleaned from the contributions that there is a subject here that merits debate. The conundrum is that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has articulated what the problem is, particularly for our troops in conflict. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said that there is a problem; there is. The Minister himself conceded that this whole issue needs a more extensive debate.

Herein lies the conundrum. We all, I think, now recognise it as a problem and acknowledge that, however we have arrived this situation, the combined effect of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act is creating a challenge for our troops in conflict, which, in 2026, is a much more foreseeable prospect than perhaps it was even five years ago. I am encouraged that there seems to be a willingness to engage in this debate. This is a serious matter; I suggest to the Minister that it is not one about which either his department or his colleagues can remain passive or inert.

I am very grateful to all who have contributed, and I appreciate the Minister’s response. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 58 withdrawn.