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.