Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who, as he said in his declaration of interests, is currently chair of trustees of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, which runs the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. I am currently a trustee, having attended all parts of the scheme, starting off in 2015, when the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, and I were the only Members of the Lords who participated in the scheme. People were not quite sure what to do with Members of the House of Lords on the scheme. They did not quite know how the arrangements would work. Everything was thought through for Members of the House of Commons. So I am absolutely delighted today that we have heard from so many Members of your Lordships’ House who have participated or are participating in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. That means that we have heard a range of different voices today.

The right reverend Prelate pointed out that all that seems to have happened since the last Armed Forces Bill in 2021 is that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, have swapped places. I and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, have not moved, yet some of what I am hearing from the Opposition Benches sounds quite similar to what I was hearing in 2021, and the responses that I suspect we will hear from the Minister this evening may sound quite similar as well. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, called for us to look again at the costs for those from services families applying for indefinite leave to remain.

So there are perennial questions that some of us have been debating for several years. I hope the change of Government might allow the Minister to give some slightly more positive answers, at least on some issues, even if he will have to go back and persuade his colleagues in the Home Office to support those families—I assume we are talking primarily about the Nepalese Gurkhas who are here. We owe them a duty as well.

We are here primarily to talk about the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill. Every year, we have to renew our endorsement of having Armed Forces. At times we have been doing that in the Moses Room as a statutory instrument with four Members of your Lordships’ House present—the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and I—plus some officials. For the five-year Armed Forces Bill, it is really important that we are hearing so many voices from across your Lordships’ House engaging with issues that matter so fundamentally at this time, precisely for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, pointed out. In 2026, the position we are in is fundamentally different from when we debated the Bill five years ago.

We could have all sorts of debates about whose fault it is that the Armed Forces are not sufficiently well funded, but the point is that, in 2026, we all know that we need to invest more fully in the Armed Forces. That is a national concern, and the national conversation is beginning but does not go far enough. If every one of your Lordships who has spoken in this debate, particularly if they do not come from a services background, goes out and talks to their family and friends about what they have been doing when they have been out on the Armed Forces scheme, that would begin to raise conversations beyond the echo chamber where we normally are. As we have heard from many noble Lords today, it is vital that we have a conversation that looks to how we strengthen resilience.

The particularly welcome aspect of the Bill this year, as far as I am concerned, is the expansion of the Armed Forces covenant. I have called on His Majesty’s Government on many occasions for its extension. In the past, when the Conservatives were in government, there was very much a sense of, “Yes, yes, we’re committed to the covenant. It’s really important that health, education and other people deliver the covenant”. The response on these Benches was, “No, it is vital that the whole country understands the covenant, but particularly that His Majesty’s Government take on that responsibility”.

The expansion of the scope of the covenant is clearly welcome, yet, as we heard from the noble Lords, Lord Morse and Lord Hay of Ballyore, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, we need to look carefully at some of the aspects of how the Armed Forces covenant can and will be expanded to local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Morse, is right that, if we appear to put something on the statute book that is unaffordable, or if we give further duties to local authorities that they cannot afford to deliver or that some councils will deliver and others will not, that will create a whole set of unintended consequences.

During my time in local government—under a very different Government in very different financial times—the Lib Dems had control of Cambridge City Council during the new Labour Government. We did not really need to worry about funding. A lot of questions were very easy, but there was still a bit of a sense that it was too easy for central government to tell local authorities what to do without giving commensurate funding. Times have changed financially for local authorities, so we need to be very careful that if we are asking local authorities to do more things, we try to work out how they will be able to deliver them. But the principle of extending the covenant is hugely welcome.

One issue that many noble Lords have talked about today is the defence housing service and the moves towards spending the £9 billion on service accommodation. It is clearly an area where we need to hold the Government to account in the most appropriate way. This is not a criticism of Governments of any complexion, but it is a reality that a decade ago, when we were debating the Armed Forces Bill in 2016, I raised questions about the standard of forces accommodation. At the time I was a newbie on the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, and it was pointed out to me by service personnel and their spouses that there were a couple of Facebook groups. At the time, one was “Victims of CarillionAmey”. Carillion went bankrupt and it became “Victims of Amey”. This afternoon I double-checked and there is still a Facebook page. It is now called “Victims of Pinnacle”.

When she was a Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, congratulated me on one occasion. She said, “We’ve been listening to you. The new arrangements now mean that the telephone will be answered much more quickly. People will get the responses they need”. Yet criticisms remained. The defence housing service and the defence housing strategy are very welcome, but it will be an area where close monitoring and accountability are hugely important.

The Armed Forces Bill and the annual renewal are very often about service justice, and that is an area I always hand over to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who knows far more about service justice questions than I do. I very much hope that in Committee he and my noble friend Lady Brinton will table amendments. As we have heard today, there are a range of very technical issues. It would be helpful to have a sense from the Minister of whether he will be open to some amendments of a technical nature that are needed for service justice.

There has been discussion about the gap in funding of the defence investment plan. This is the final point from these Benches; my colleagues on defence would expect me to say it. There is a proposal from the Liberal Democrats perhaps to support defence funding with defence bonds. Has the Minister had a chance to think about that as a way of enhancing the provisions? I conclude by saying that in principle we welcome the Bill, and we look forward to debating it in Committee.

Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

The overall impact of these amendments is to expand the application of the covenant to all public authorities, not just those falling under the direct authority of a Minister of the Crown. It would be useful if the Minister could tell the Committee why the Government opted for the language in the Bill, rather than looking to similar existing Acts with existing definitions, for their legislative purpose. As I have said, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 both apply to the wider public sector and, as such, those Acts have a broader definition of “national authority” than that in the Bill. I would also be grateful if he could clarify exactly which bodies the Ministry of Defence believes would be subject to the covenant if the Bill were kept as is. If the Government acknowledge that key public bodies will be excluded from the legal duty, I hope they will be willing to engage with me before Report and come up with an appropriate government amendment to rectify this omission. If not, I have to indicate that I may be minded to push these amendments to a division.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I gave way to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, precisely because she had her name first on a set of amendments in this group. I am delighted that I did so because in the previous Parliament, when she sat on the Government Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, now the Minister, sat on the Opposition Benches and I still sat in this corner, I kept encouraging the Government to expand the Armed Forces covenant—not only in the way the previous Government sought to do, but to bring it within the purview of the Government and make it a duty on them. At Second Reading, I welcomed the provisions of the Bill. I am delighted that the previously diffident former Minister, now sitting on the Opposition Benches and speaking for His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, sees how important it is to expand the Armed Forces covenant.

The amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, are valuable. Quite whether we need the level of detail in them, or how we go about them, needs to be thought about. I am sure the Minister will have all sorts of reasons why these specific amendments might not be the best way of doing it. I hope that, in his response, he can explain whether the noble Baroness is right that currently, HMRC, or the proposed defence housing service, do not come under the requirement to be under a duty to the Armed Forces covenant. If they are not under that duty, I would be happy to work with the noble Baroness to bring forward amendments on Report. Clearly, we want to make sure that the duty is on the Government and public authorities more generally. I therefore very much welcome the thrust of this suite of amendments.

I also cosigned the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, very much for the reasons she articulated. The role of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is crucial in our defence. RFA “Lyme Bay” is—or has been—in the Middle East, responding to a crisis. It serves our security and defence very significantly. As the noble Baroness pointed out, those on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are not civil servants in a traditional sense. They may be civilians, but the service they are giving is the sort that would seem to make coming under the purview of the Armed Forces covenant appropriate. If His Majesty’s Government disagree with that idea, could the Minister explain why and suggest ways in which it can be ensured that civilians serving on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are not suffering any detriment, which is exactly what the Armed Forces covenant is intended to countermount?

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I welcome this opportunity to discuss the scope of the Armed Forces covenant. I thank the noble Baronesses for the speeches they have made. I found what they said convincing, although I look forward to the response from my noble friend the Minister and expect I will find his reply even more convincing.

I want to take the opportunity to raise a practical example of where I hope the provisions in Clause 2, with or without the amendment, might make a difference. I suspect it will come as no surprise to the Committee that it relates to the role of the covenant in relation to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. I should mention here that, in the past, I have been a paid consultant to the Forces Pension Society, and I thank the society for providing me with a briefing on the matters I am going to raise. I should add that it was when working with the society that I became aware of the practical significance that members of the Armed Forces place on the covenant. It is significant not just as some general principle but as applying to practical situations.

By way of background, the Armed Forces Pension Scheme provides a world-class pension, and it is an important bond in the relationship between those who govern and those who serve—otherwise known as the Armed Forces covenant. It is designed to incentivise service, maximise the human element of defence’s operational effectiveness, facilitate servicepeople’s transition to civilian employment and provide for a dignified retirement. That is why I have been concerned by the recent reports of veterans being told that they must repay substantial sums of pension that they have received because those pensions were calculated incorrectly at some point in the past. The issue has received considerable coverage on the BBC, and in the Times, the Telegraph, the Express and the it Paper.

Please bear with me in explaining the problem, because the scheme’s administrative arrangements are a little complicated. Defence Business Services is responsible for the scheme through Veterans UK. It has contracted in turn Sopra Steria to deliver the pensions. Sopra Steria has in turn sub-subcontracted Equiniti as its paymaster, and the system is overseen by the Armed Forces Pension Board, supporting the Secretary of State for Defence as the scheme manager. There are clear doubts about how Defence Business Services, Veterans UK, Sopra Steria and Equiniti should be held to account. There are other problems, but I want to highlight the disappointing pattern of overpayments in areas such as pension sharing on divorce, early departure payments, guaranteed minimum pensions and national insurance modifications. Between 1,000 and 2,000 members have received such overpayments, which indicates a lack of rigour in calculation, inadequate training, a lack of oversight and paucity of quality assurance.

I will give the Committee two examples. I will not name the individuals involved, but the circumstances illustrate the problem. One is a 72 year-old veteran who served in the Army for 31 years, reaching the rank of warrant officer class 1, but who faces having to repay a pension overpayment of £37,500. This arose from four separate errors in the calculation of his pension. The second example is a 70 year-old former RAF flight lieutenant who was overpaid by £32,000. He queried the increase when he first received it but was told it was correct. Years later, he has now been told that there was indeed an error, and it is he, not the administrator, who is liable for repayment. It is worth noting that there are many cases with higher overpayments, but these cases illustrate the complex nature of the problems members face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

I support my noble friend and declare an interest in that my daughter is a serving member of the reserves. Amendment 7 would have helped her enormously in the autumn when she received her call-up papers to join the Welsh Guards in Kenya. She had a wisdom tooth issue and had been on the waiting list for some time. Because her reservist service was not known to her dentist or, frankly, anyone else, she was very nearly medically undeployable and people had to bend rules. That had an effect not only for her and the Welsh Guards but for her employer, who had to sign up to give her the time off to go and do three months with the Welsh Guards. That was a real-time example of why these amendments really matter.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

So what I am saying is that the Bill itself lays out the requirement for a significant extension of both the specified persons and specified areas to have due regard to the covenant, and of course that would then apply to pensions in terms of having due regard to the covenant for people who are administering them—in answer to my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on the previous amendments.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Could the Minister clarify something? The definition of “health body” refers to NHS England and integrated care boards. Does that include dental services, just to put that on the record?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I will make a few brief comments on the amendments in this group. I am quite attracted to and interested in them, because the noble Lord indicated that they all amount to accountability; to me, they are more about consistency. Throughout the United Kingdom, there are various ways of implementing the Armed Forces covenant. I declare an interest as a former member of the Northern Ireland security forces and the armed services. This is about consistency, because the UK Government, the devolved institutions and the local administrations have different mechanisms and ways of developing and producing results. Only a few months ago, there was a difficulty in Belfast City Council whereby Sinn Féin attempted to block the signing of the Armed Forces covenant.

We want to ensure—and I see it in these amendments —that we have a process of reporting back to Parliament and the people that this is working effectively and consistently. I want to see that level of consistency throughout the various administrations and governments. For example, in Northern Ireland we have a different way of developing health services from England. That is only one example; there are many more, such as education and local government. All I want is to see that consistency. I hope that a reporting mechanism such as that proposed by the noble Lord would be one way of achieving that. It would be a positive implementation of the Armed Forces covenant. It would almost be a covenant with not only the Armed Forces but between the Armed Forces, the Government and the people.

[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 ---

[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 ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

17: Clause 3, page 8, line 24, at end insert—
“(aa) single living accommodation,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add single living accommodation to the definition of defence housing to ensure that defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation as well as service family accommodation.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, my two amendments, which have been signed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, seek to fill a gap that arose in the Renters’ Rights Act in 2025. There was much discussion, and an amendment, to ensure that service family accommodation would be raised to the equivalent of decent homes. The same was not done for single living accommodation, and that may well reflect the fact that there is not exactly an equivalent of single living accommodation in civilian life. Nevertheless, it is vital that individuals living in single living accommodation should have decent homes and decent accommodation.

It might be tempting to assume that those living in single living accommodation will be new recruits, young service personnel. But, as my honourable friend Ian Roome, a member of the Defence Select Committee and a member of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in the other place, pointed out, many service personnel spend much of their working life in the forces in single accommodation. It is not simply a question of living there until you get married and have a family; it may be that you live there because your partner and family are living in family accommodation somewhere else. This is something that does not just affect individuals; it may still affect service families.

--- Later in debate ---

I think all of us are united in the belief that for too long our military has had to live in accommodation that is substandard and does not reflect the Armed Forces’ professionalism and the pride we have in them. All of us, together, want to see that improved as quickly as possible. As I said, we believe that the Government’s approach, in the way I have laid out, gives us that opportunity for us all to come together, move forward and deliver the improvements to military housing that we would all like to see, to give our military personnel the accommodation that they deserve.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the difference in the single living accommodation and service family accommodation. In my opening remarks, I acknowledged that, clearly, there are not direct comparators, because the approach to single living is somewhat different. I would be grateful if the Minister would be willing to have a meeting to discuss this and explore a little more about single living accommodation and, in particular, the extent of the independent review and what that is covering. Pending that, I may—

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I have committed to that. I said at the outset that I will meet and discuss with noble Lords—indeed, including the noble Baroness—the issues that have arisen. This is Committee. It is about clarifying the Government’s thoughts, with the Government thinking that, perhaps, this is not quite as clear as it needs to be, and listening to the ideas that other Members are having. So of course we can discuss how we take forward the single living accommodation.

The point I am making, and have made, is that what we have before us is dealing with family living accommodation. Single living accommodation is being dealt with, but there is another vehicle being used to deliver that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I thank the Minister. What I was about to say—and will continue saying—is that, in light of the debate, I will withdraw the amendment, but I may bring it back on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I regret that I did not sign the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. They have my full support. We have worked together for many years on the issue of stalking, together with the noble Lord who sits in the Chair. I believe that many of the areas in which we worked on stalking in civilian life are pertinent to this Bill because they translate into what is happening in the Armed Forces. Amendment 21 is particularly important. I look forward to hearing the response from my noble friend the Minister, but if the noble Baroness does not think that the response is adequate and wishes to take this forward again on Report, I will certainly be there to support her.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been listening very carefully to the noble Baroness; it is obviously a matter of great importance. I have a question to which she might be able to give an answer when she winds up on this debate. Amendment 24 includes the phrase:

“or is alleged to amount to”.

Am I right in thinking that, under this amendment, it would be entirely for the alleged victim to make the allegation that it involves domestic abuse, and that would be enough to trigger the provisions outlined in the amendment?

Secondly, I would like to ask whether this amendment is being tabled in the light of any specific examples that the noble Baroness knows of, which might assist the Committee in understanding and supporting the amendment.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 27, I will speak also to Amendments 28 to 34 in my name; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for her support. I declare an interest, both for this series of amendments and for my contributions in Committee earlier today, as the father of a soldier. The amendments I am proposing are all interlinked and aim to give service police the same authority to authorise and/or request pre-charge custody as is given to commanding officers in all offences. I am grateful to the Minister for his work on the Bill and for the generosity of his time in speaking to me over the weekend about the amendments in my name.

The Bill initiates the change to give service police power to authorise custody in some circumstances. This is a very welcome change and a step in the right direction in making service police investigations truly independent of the chain of command. However, in my view, it does not go far enough by failing to give service police power to authorise custody in all circumstances. The current wording of the Bill allows service police to authorise custody only for specific offences while allowing the commanding officer to authorise custody in all circumstances.

The Bill creates the definition of “serious offence” in Clause 16(3), which sets out the offences that service police can authorise custody for. However, this definition does not include key offences such as battery, harassment and stalking, as has already been mentioned, even in the case of domestic abuse. It does not include theft, even in high-value cases, nor the vast majority of military conduct offences. The definition of “serious offence” is different from “serious service offence”, which is defined in the Armed Forces (Powers of Stop and Search, Search, Seizure and Retention) Order 2009. This definition is used by service police to authorise searches upon arrest. It gives a far simpler definition of offences to include those offences and specific military conduct offences that are indictable. These differences will create additional complexity and bureaucracy for service police acting in very dynamic arrest situations and increase the risk of authorisations for custody and/or searches being made incorrectly when the definitions are so similar.

The provision to allow service police to authorise custody for serious offences is a partial step to give service police greater parity with their civilian counterparts. It is noted that the authority will likely be delegated only to OF-2s—Royal Navy lieutenants, Army captains or RAF flight lieutenants—within the service police. The civilian rank to authorise custody is a sergeant for all offences, a rank and responsibility level significantly lower than that of an OF-2. The provision also gives the service police authority to authorise custody and reduces the following risks about availability, sufficient understanding and impartiality, which are frequently experienced. I will briefly go through each of those.

First, on availability, it is a regular occurrence that commanding officers or their delegated representatives are not contactable by telephone at night and at weekends. This means that service police have to physically attend commanding officers’ houses to gain custody authorisation. When some service police shifts have only three personnel covering a huge regional area—there are five regions covering the entirety of the UK—this can delay other vital investigative actions, such as victim engagement and contact, recovery of forensic evidence and/or the conducting of searches.

Having sufficient understanding is the second point. At the moment there is an issue of some commanding officers and their delegated officers not having sufficient training in their powers. This has led to authorisations of custody being delayed as they seek further advice and, on rare occasions, custody not being authorised without significant pressure from RMP senior officers explaining the obstruction that will be caused to an investigation by not authorising custody. The intent of the Bill to allow service police OF-2s and higher to authorise custody will mean that custody will be authorised by personnel specifically trained to deal with these circumstances.

Finally, there is impartiality. An additional issue is the conflict of interest posed by allowing commanding officers or their delegated representatives to have sole decision-making on authorising custody. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, spoke eloquently and movingly about this area on the previous group. While most officers within the Armed Forces can appropriately be entirely impartial, there have been occasions when clear conflicts of interest have arisen. There is a significant reputational risk to the Armed Forces in this current arrangement, I suggest. Giving additional powers of authority to service police will negate the risks of conflicts of interest by ensuring that an independent service police officer can authorise custody in all circumstances.

I assure the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that the proposed amendments standing in my name do not remove the ability of a commanding officer to authorise custody. None of these amendments removes their jurisdiction to conduct a summary hearing. None of these amendments changes the current situation of the case eventually being referred to the CO to consider a charge. I beg to move.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for introducing her amendment and clarifying why she believes it is necessary. What I would be grateful to hear from the Minister is an explanation or clarification about whether a breach of a suspended sentence order would not then trigger the sentence. It is one thing having a presumption of a suspended sentence order in the first instance, but if there are then cases of people breaching those orders, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is right that that seems to be decriminalisation. Surely that is not the intention of the legislation as it stands. If it is, can the Minister tell us whether he feels that is undermining service justice?

[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.

Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, briefly, this is a very sensible amendment and I support it. In the world in which we now live, and with the way in which we communicate with one another, are there people in our Armed Forces already thinking ahead to different, more urgent ways of being in contact; for example, via WhatsApp? Email may not be the only way we can use modern technology to achieve the ends set out in Amendment 38.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that these government amendments are limited and make perfect sense. Sending notices by email makes sense. I would be concerned about formal communications being sent necessarily by forms of social media, but, equally, it would be sensible for His Majesty’s Government to keep open the opportunities of using whatever modes of communication are relevant at the time.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I do not have too much to say on this group of two government amendments, so I will keep it brief.

I understand entirely why the Government wish to allow call-out notices to be sent by email. The Minister has given us an excellent explanation of their rationale, and we on these Benches concur. There are, however, two points which I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify. The drafting of the amendment says:

“A notice under this section may also be served”.


This could be taken to mean “instead of” or “as well as”. My point is that it must mean “as well as”. I would not be comfortable with call-out notices being sent out only by email. What if the email ends up in a junk or spam folder, the recipient misses the email, or perhaps they do not even check their email—there are probably some here who do not do that? If the call-out notice is sent only by email, there exists a relatively high possibility that it might be missed. This could of course have some quite serious ramifications. I hope the Minister can confirm that call-out notices will continue to be sent by post as well as by email. If that is the case, I have no issue.

The second point relates to the first. New subsection (6A) specifies which email will be used to send a call-out notice, that being

“the last known email address used by that person as a means of communicating with them, or … an email address by means of which there are reasonable grounds to believe that an email sent to that address will come to the attention of the person”.

What precisely does “used” mean in this context? Does it mean an address which the individual has provided to the MoD? Does it mean an address to which the MoD has previously sent communications? Does the department need evidence that the person has received or responded to communications at that address, and who makes a judgment that an email address is the last known one? Further, what are those reasonable grounds? Does this imply trying to send the email to a friend or relative, and if so, how will the third party be chosen? If this policy is to have the desired effect, information collection and recordkeeping must be paramount.

I understand that the Reserve Forces (Provision of Information by Persons Liable to be Recalled) Regulations 1997 expressly state that there is a legal obligation for those who are subject to recall to keep the MoD up to date with their residential or postal address. This seems essential. Those regulations do not currently require those liable to recall to keep the MoD updated about any changes to their email address. Obviously, that is because the legislation does not yet enable email addresses to be used for callout. Can the Minister confirm that, with this change to the process, the Government will update the 1997 regulations and any other relevant policies?

--- Later in debate ---

If I may say so, as a bridge—looking to the Minister and other Members of the House—one potentially sensible way to move forward is that there are things that can be done in secondary legislation. Perhaps the Minister can respond to this. I understand that there has been some consultation with RFCAs which may put some of these fears to one side and address them. Rather than this binary approach, we should be trying to find how your Lordships’ House can come together in a pragmatic, sensible way to address the issues of governance. I for one feel—I am sorry that this is not a unified view in your Lordships’ House—that an NDPB is perhaps one way forward. Maybe not in a purist sense, but we would be able to accommodate the specific needs of the regional nature of the RFCAs within that NDPB, while using secondary legislation to reassure your Lordships that some of these issues can be addressed.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I thought I was going to rise from these Benches and be able to say, “I agree with all the noble and noble and gallant Lords who have spoken so far in this debate”, because there appeared to be uniformity across the Committee. We are used to that on defence matters. Last week, on the first day in Committee, there were discussions outside the Chamber, where some of the doorkeepers were saying, “We might have to get taxis this evening”, and I said, “Are you sure we’re not going to finish by 10 pm?” They looked at me and said, “Really? Do you think so?” But, of course, with something like military precision, we finished all our groups by 9.55 pm, and people kept saying afterwards, “Of course, it was military precision. What else did you expect?”

However, it was not military precision that meant that we dealt with business expeditiously on day one in Committee. It was that, by and large, the proposals and amendments that we were debating were areas where we were probing. Broadly, we were supportive of what His Majesty’s Government were proposing. As so often on defence matters, His Majesty’s Official Opposition, the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Cross Benches were supportive of what the Government were trying to do, but this evening we have stand part debates, on Clause 38 and Schedule 6, where the House is virtually united in suggesting that the Government really need to think again.

If I were speaking from the Back Benches, I would simply ask the Government: why? Why is Clause 38 needed? But as I am speaking from the Front Bench, I feel it appropriate to outline that, on these Benches, we very much share the concerns raised, particularly about losing the local connection. I have heard mutterings from behind me saying, “I agree with Lord de Mauley”, and concerns have certainly been raised across the Chamber. In particular, early on in the debate, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, rightly pointed out the importance of the reserves but also the local connection. There is the fact that the PAC had acknowledged that reserves and cadets are increasingly important for the defence of our realm, and that the SDR also highlighted this.

The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, was really the only dissenting voice, and even he said he wanted to be a bridge. I think he was speaking as a non-affiliated Peer, but apparently from the Conservative Benches, so I am not quite sure. He is the only noble Lord so far who has suggested that Clause 38 may be the right way forward. But he reminded the House that the SDR talked about wanting to increase the number of reserves by 20%—when resources allow, in brackets.

Surely we should not wait until resources allow; we should work with the structures that we have, through the reserve forces and cadets associations, and think of ways to ensure that we strengthen and enhance local connection and local resilience. As a country, we have not yet engaged in the national conversation that the SDR said we needed. How better to do that than to work with local people and local Reserve Forces, and particularly the cadets? The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, rightly pointed out that we have not said much about the cadets. Surely that is an area where we need to think about strengthening—again, strengthening the local connection—and ensuring that we have a pipeline to recruitment, as well as resilience and a sense that we are beginning the national conversation.

I will conclude with a statement from Portsmouth City Council—not my local area; unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, I have not talked about my area, partly because, as a Liverpudlian, I feel that the north-west is getting quite a lot of coverage thanks to the new Prime Minister. Portsmouth City Council, in line with its geographical position and the extent of its naval commitments, has a very strong commitment to the Armed Forces covenant and the South East Reserves Forces’ and Cadets’ Association, and it made an official contribution to the call for evidence in Committee in the other place. In particular, the council reminded us—as some noble Lords have done today—that this is not just about the individual RFCAs but about working with local employers. If we accept Clause 38, there is a real danger that we lose not just the history, which is important, but significant aspects of current practice that work well and that could and should be enhanced.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege and pleasure to make the case for Clause 38 in your Lordships’ Committee.

I want to clarify something for the noble Earl, Lord Minto: the service of notice for callout will be by both post and email. I meant that by my previous remark, but I realise I did not make it clear, for which I apologise to the noble Earl and the Committee—I thought I had said it, but clearly I did not; I found out through a variety of means that I had not done so.

I will start by saying something else. Lots of people have made a lot of important points. As everybody in this Committee knows, I will consider them and how we take them forward. I cannot walk on water on these things and persuade everybody that I can do everything, but I hope your Lordships know that I will try to do as much as I can to take account of the various important points that have been made. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that it is not a legal requirement; it is the recommendation of various reports that the Government seek to implement.

As your Lordships know, I like to make some informal remarks before I make formal remarks. Before I make the formal remarks, let me say for the sake of clarity that nobody in this Committee doubts the importance of the reserves, the cadets and the organisation, and the work of the lord-lieutenants and charities involved. Many of your Lordships do far more than even I do as a Minister to support those local organisations —the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, is one of the best examples. Nobody seeks to undermine that or do anything that would somehow not ensure that it could carry on.

I was with the noble Lord, Lord Elliott—he was in his place a moment ago—in Enniskillen just on Saturday. The RAF show there that I went to support, with the reserves, the lord-lieutenants and the cadets, was phenomenal. It was absolutely phenomenal to see the work going on there. Nobody seeks to undermine or hinder that. This Saturday coming, I am going to Grantham for the reserves passout that is taking place there, because of its significance and importance. It does not matter whether it is the reserves; it does not matter whether it is the cadets. Ministerially, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, no doubt; the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Craig, through their long and distinguished careers, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, through his, and many others—all of us have committed ourselves to pursue that purpose which is crucial to our nation. Whether it is Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the regions of England, it is crucial and fundamental to us that we do that. Each of the three reports which I will mention emphasise that. However, alongside that—the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, is right, and I will reference it, that the PAC did say either/or—each of those reports said the current framework needs to be revised and looked at.

My view of this is that the national body creates strategic oversight for a structure that would allow the regional councils to be stronger and more purposeful in what they are doing, with the financial oversight and clarity that a strategic body would give them. That is how devolution works. You do not just let the mayors of the country do exactly what they want. A national strategic framework policy is set which allows those local bodies and local government to function—and to function effectively. That is what this seeks to do.

Again, before I make the formal remarks, let me reference what is on the face of the Bill. Yes, it is the establishment of the new body, the new RFCA, but also—I have to put my glasses on; it slows the rhetoric—on page 136, and then on to page 137, the Bill puts into primary legislation regional councils and how those are set up. It states—I will just say this for the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser:

“The RFCA must establish a committee for each area of the United Kingdom as may be specified in regulations”.


That would include Scotland, Wales and all those things. That is laid out there. It then goes on to the various regulations that can be made. We will deal with the various amendments about membership, about whether people are paid or unpaid, and other matters, but all those things will be dealt with in regulations. I realise that the debate then becomes about whether it should be primary or secondary legislation, but it is on the face of the Bill that they will be dealt with by regulations. I will make my formal remarks. Those regulations are in draft form at the moment. I will share those draft regulations with Members of the Committee before Report. Noble Lords can look at them and decide whether they answer some of the points that they would make, so that we will not have a situation, which sometimes happens with Governments, where draft regulations are just presented and you either vote for them or not, without any ability for people to properly scrutinise them and agree them or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, bring together a range of important issues. Clearly, we need to think about the impact on employers of reserves going on their training.

At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham—who, sadly, cannot participate in Committee because she is now a Government Whip—spoke compellingly about the importance of reservists’ contribution in local government. She had seen the benefits of working with reservists and how that could contribute back into the workplace.

To pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, there are ways in which we ought to be able to find synergies where the Armed Forces should look much more carefully at what skills the reserves are bringing to them, not simply having ticked off 10 days of repeat training. Perhaps there should be a day of repeat training and then working with the skills. Equally, there is a need to explain to employers the value of the training, because small and medium-sized enterprises might not be aware of the benefits that can accrue from employing reservists.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, said, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, will be raised in the next group. These amendments would appear to be desirable, certainly from the perspective of those in the reserves—I hope, for both recruitment and retention —but also potentially beneficial to employers, for exactly the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, gave; that is, it is not simply a question of saying, “Please give us your time”, but one of giving clarity about the expectations. We almost need a template of what is required so that a small employer would be able to work out very quickly what was needed and individual reserves would not have to reinvent the wheel every time.

From these Benches, we support the amendments and hope that His Majesty’s Government might at least be able to listen. If they cannot accept the amendments as drafted, perhaps they might find a way of bringing amendments in lieu that would deal with some of these questions.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 40, 41 and 45, tabled in the name of my noble friends Lord Harlech, Lord De Mauley and Lady Penn. My noble friend Lord Harlech has long been a doughty and most effective champion of our Reserve Forces. These Benches share his conviction that the reserves are indispensable to our national defence and deserve every reasonable support we can muster.

However, I am afraid that I must express some reservations about the amendments in this group and in the next. This is a genuine and very difficult balancing act. On the one side sits our duty to reservists and to employers, who already, at times, go beyond the call in supporting them. On the other sits our duty to the small and medium-sized businesses that make up the overwhelming majority of Britain’s employers and that are, right now, facing a cumulative weight of obligation that these amendments risk compounding rather than ameliorating.

Some 5.5 million businesses operate in this country, over 99% of which are small or medium-sized enterprises. Firms of the kind caught by the 50-employee threshold —or the 10-employee threshold in Amendment 41—are frequently the very smallest operations; they might be a family firm, a local manufacturer or a handful of tradesmen incorporated together. For a business of 10 employees, losing one member of staff for 10 working days a year for training could produce real strain on its workforce, potentially pushing back deadlines and damaging its ability to compete for contracts against larger rivals that can afford such absences more easily. It could also—this is quite dangerous—influence the willingness of employees and fellow workers to be generous with their attitude towards service. That is very important.

This cannot be considered in isolation from the wider climate in which small businesses currently operate. Businesses have had to suffer two years of this Government that have made their lives considerably harder, with the increases in employer national insurance contributions and the national living wage under the Employment Rights Act. That is the context in which we judge these amendments. We are not saying that reservists do not deserve support—indeed, quite the opposite—but we believe that the existing defence employer recognition scheme, built on voluntary best practice among gold and silver employers, achieves much of what these clauses seek without imposing statutory duties that might deter smaller firms from hiring reservists at all, the very outcome we all wish to avoid. I hope my noble friend will reflect on these concerns in the spirit in which they are offered, and I look forward to continuing this conversation as the Bill progresses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, on this occasion I am going to split my remarks into separate comments, on Amendments 42 and 43. The principle has been very clearly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. As the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, pointed out, that he has found a precedent in trade union legislation is very helpful. That people should somehow face detriment or constructive dismissal, but not direct dismissal, because of serving as a reservist is clearly something we, as a society, a Parliament and a Government, should try to avoid. If anything, we need to be finding ways to make it easier for people to be reservists, and easier for companies to understand the benefits of their being reservists.

I have some questions about the practicality of Amendment 44. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said, “Well, our friends and colleagues in Canada and Australia do something similar.” But if the self-employed reservist is a plumber and somebody says, “I really need your services. I have an urgent problem: there is a flood”, and the reservist is deployed or doing training, they cannot say, “Well, I’ll come back in a few months’ time and deal with your overflowing drains.” I am slightly puzzled by what the proposed new clause on refusal of employment on the grounds of membership of the service means in stating that

“it is unlawful to subject a member of the reserve forces to a detriment”.

I am just not quite sure how that would work in practice.

Although I can see that it is desirable to find ways to make it easier for self-employed people to serve in the reserves, equally, there needs to be a way of ensuring that they can be replaced in their work function, or that they can find a replacement themselves. It is not the same as somebody working for an employer, as the employer would be expected to find a temporary stop-gap. That is what we would be looking for.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I am again most grateful to my noble friends Lord Harlech, Lady Penn and Lord De Mauley for these amendments. As with my response to the last group, I completely share my noble friends’ desire to support the reserves wherever possible. I am absolutely not gloomy about the reserves at all; rather the opposite. I know that reserve training adds depth to any participant and, indeed, to any organisation that they might be part of. Unfortunately, I have concerns about these amendments. Between them, they would create new tribunal-enforceable duties on refusal of employment, extend protection against detriment short of dismissal, and place fresh obligations on businesses dealing with the self-employed and with partnerships. Taken together, that is a substantial new compliance burden to place on employers, many of them small businesses, at a time when they are already absorbing a great deal of regulatory change, as I have already established. I think it right to pause before adding further to that already pretty hefty burden.

Amendment 42 raises a further difficulty. It would make it unlawful to refuse employment to somebody who merely proposes to become a reservist. In practice, how is an employer to know that at the point of hiring? Unless a candidate volunteers information, there is no reliable way for an employer to be aware of an intention that exists only in someone’s plans, which makes the obligation very hard to comply with and harder still to enforce fairly. It is fundamentally my view that the commercial requirements of businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, must be our primary consideration. I hope my noble friends will reflect on these practical concerns, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I do not propose to repeat what we said in an earlier debate in Committee, but I thank my noble friend Lord De Mauley for these amendments. I want to focus on Amendment 48 and the importance of volunteering.

The Sullivan report identified that a key strength of the RFCAs was their extensive volunteer membership. In every other part of our communities, we are doing everything we can to support volunteers and volunteering, and in times of tight financial straits especially, we seek to appreciate the knowledge of volunteers. I am afraid my heart sinks when I think of replacing the volunteers who represent the voice of our local regions, nations and communities. They bring experience and institutional memory, and they do it because they want to—and we are going to replace that with board appointments made on ministerial advice.

I am sure many colleagues in this House have experience of public appointments. I currently sit on two public bodies as a board member, to which I am appointed by one Scottish Minister and one Westminster Minister. We are subject to the whims of that department. In one case, DCMS has apparently decided that public appointments should serve for only one term. I leave it to you as to how that supports institutional memory and succession planning in our public bodies. At Creative Scotland, on whose board I sit, we are currently four or five board members short, and the public appointment process is so slow that we are not able to get to the front of the queue to fill those vacancies. So the idea that the wonderful volunteers we currently have supporting our reserve forces and cadets associations are going to be replaced by some sort of NDPB board appointments fills me with horror: we will end up with the usual suspects, rather than experienced and committed volunteers who are allowed to speak impartially, freely and frankly.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support these amendments, to which I have added my name. As the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have pointed out, if we cannot remove Clause 38 and Schedule 6 then amending Clause 38 might at least ameliorate some of the issues. This would very much enable us to retain the local connections and, in particular, as the noble and gallant Lord pointed out, the importance of a wide footprint.

We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, about the situation in Northern Ireland, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, about the situation in Scotland. Surely we should look for ways of ensuring that the voices of the nations and regions are all heard and not have a single centralised body that does not represent anybody. These amendments very much serve to ensure that the voices that we currently hear in the regional RFCAs can continue to play a role. In particular, Amendment 49 outlines key people who should be involved.

Will the Minister explain to the Committee whether he feels that Clause 38, as currently envisaged, and the idea of an NDPB really deal with the questions of representation? If not, and if he does not feel able to support the amendments as drafted, might he consider bringing back government amendments on these issues?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I have already argued at some length that I do not believe that the Government’s proposed alterations to the characters of the reserve forces and cadets associations is sound policy. Much like my noble friend Lord De Mauley and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, my preference, therefore, would be for those provisions to be removed from the Bill entirely. However, if that is not to happen then the second-best outcome would be for the various amendments suggested by my noble friend to be adopted, as a minimum.

Amendments 46 and 47, which my noble friend Lady Goldie has signed, would require the chairs of the currently constituted regional councils to sit as members of the new RFCA body. Amendment 49 would ensure that the wider membership of the RFCAs is not overlooked in the creation of the new body by requiring the regional councils to appoint members who are representatives of all the various organisations that work through the RFCAs.

Currently, the 13 chairs are entitled to a seat on the national board and those chairs are in turn elected by their membership. This structure ensures that the members of each RFCA are represented at the national level. However, as drafted, the Bill will remove that representation. This does not seem sound. The salutary story told by my noble friend Lord Howe of decline where local accountability is removed was poignantly salient, particularly since the Bill also provides for the establishment of regional councils. So the Government believe that there should be regional committees to help oversee and run the new body, but they do not believe that those regional councils should have any representation at the national level. This is surely a contradictory and indefensible position.

The Bill also fails to recognise the vital contribution of the voluntary membership of the RFCAs. As my noble friend Lord De Mauley pointed out, the Sullivan report itself highlighted the vitality of the voluntary membership to the organisation as a whole. However, this does not feature in the Government’s proposals. It is not as if the Government are blind to this: the strategic defence review proposed increasing the size of the reserves and the cadets and the creation of a new homeland defence force. That is not to forget the proposed move to a whole-of-society approach to defence readiness. At a time when the Government are claiming that they recognise the value of expanding the reserves and the cadets, it seems extraordinary that the RFCAs’ membership, which could do so much to assist the Government in their stated aims, should be abolished without replacement.

My noble friend has my full support in these amendments. If the Government are determined to press ahead with these negotiations then I hope that the Minister will seriously consider at least accepting these amendments before Report.

Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I am pleased to add my name to this suite of amendments that cover a broad area. On Amendment 48, I am sure that any of us who have served as Ministers or council leaders will have appointed loads of people to different bodies over the years. One thing I have noticed in recent times is that a cohort has emerged of people who apply for a lot of different bodies, whether or not they have qualifications for or experience in any of them.

I understand that people are not necessarily expected to do things for nothing, or to be paying out money, and I would be more than content for people to get perfectly fair and reasonable expenses, whether that is for travel or whatever is required. I have no issue with that, but once you move from that level to somebody who, perhaps, almost has a career in sitting on public bodies, that changes the entire ethos and atmosphere around the establishment of these boards.

Therefore, I have not been convinced by what is in the Bill as drafted. Unless there is a complete absence of people applying, or unless there is an obvious shortage of people who are willing to sit on these boards, I cannot understand why we would want to engage in expense to do this. Noble and gallant Lords have far more experience than I have, but if you have an organisation that is working and staffed, what incentive are you giving those who do the grunt work on the ground if board members are being paid? I just think it upsets the balance.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned national resilience and, of course, the Reserve Forces—whether it is a weather catastrophe or something else—will inevitably be part of that. We all know that the Minister could sell snow to the Eskimos if he was put to it, but we have a situation where in the press, even yesterday, there were reports of our training budgets for soldiers apparently being reduced for public expenditure reasons.

We can imagine how, if you were sitting in the Kremlin, you would be looking at that. It sounds so preposterous. The Minister’s right honourable colleague in the other place, the Environment Secretary, is urging us all to stock up on baked beans and candles and to be prepared for an emergency, and in the same breath we are apparently reducing basic training. You are preparing the country for an emergency, urging people to stock up on basics—what is the connection between these two things? I cannot make it out; it seems completely counterintuitive. The Minister knows that I tried to get a PNQ yesterday on that subject but the Falklands won out, quite properly. Still, it is a serious question.

The rhetoric coming from the Government, and from successive Prime Ministers, is that the defence of the nation is the number one priority of government. I do not necessarily want to bring this into it but I gently remind the Minister, if we are trying to save £30 million on training, that we are not trying to save any of the billions that we are spending on the asylum industry, which is just making a mockery of our country. We have to get serious here about what our priorities as a nation really are. This is sending out the wrong message.

With regard to the lords-lieutenant, I remember back home seeing our lord-lieutenant with a cadet, and the cadet was as proud as punch. This was a wonderful opportunity for a young person to take that role. You could see the enthusiasm; that young person was committed to serving as a cadet and it gave that person a wonderful opportunity of a career path moving forward. We would potentially take that away—for what? I do not know.

I ask the Minister seriously to consider that. I hope that, between now and Report, he will talk about these things with the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and colleagues. I am sure that his door will be open. It would be most helpful to the House if that were to happen. I doubt that there is a huge amount of difference between all of us. We all want to see the same thing. I accept that you cannot go for ever without looking at change and so on; it is part of life.

On the issue of the report, we all know how local government works. If you are doing an in-house report, people will say to you in the corridor, “Maybe you should be a wee bit careful about that”, or, “Go a bit easier”. We want an accurate, independent report without any strings attached and without any ability to be pressurised financially or in any other way. I would have thought that that is fairly basic. We are not asking for anything that is not sensible or reasonable. This suite of amendments goes a long way to correcting some of the flaws. The drafting may need to be changed—fair enough—but I hope that, in the discussions between now and Report, some of these anomalies can be resolved.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments to which I have attached my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, pointed out, this is a reasonable set of amendments. Again, they speak to issues around the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations; in many ways, they could have been part of a previous group because they are trying to deal with issues associated with Clause 38.

We have already heard articulately this evening that, at the moment, we have reserves, cadet forces and councils that are not paid. Why have His Majesty’s Government thought it necessary or appropriate to bring forward the suggestion of non-executive directors being paid and even, potentially, having pensionable incomes? Is there a reason for it that is eluding the Chamber? At the moment, why that would be necessary or desirable does not seem clear.

On the role of the lords-lieutenant, as other noble Lords have pointed out, it seems wholly inappropriate that that should be consigned to secondary legislation. If it is the case that the Palace and the Association of Lord-Lieutenants have not been consulted, what does the Minister propose to do to rectify that? Pending any consultation, would it not be appropriate to consider removing those parts of the Bill?

On Amendment 52, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, just pointed out, if we want an independent report, we need clarity that it is going to be produced by people independent of the MoD so that they cannot be subject to any sort of informal pressure to produce a report containing what the MoD or Ministers want to hear. This is a suite of reasonable amendments. Can the Minister give us some suggestion of areas in which the Government might be willing to move?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, much has been said by noble Lords, noble and gallant Lords, me and my noble friend Lord De Mauley about the importance of the continuation of the voluntary nature of the RFCAs. This is not because I wish to sound like a stuck record; it is out of a genuine desire to preserve all that has made the reserves and cadets so successful.

Of those factors, the voluntary ethos is paramount, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, expressed so clearly. These are organisations that, despite being established by statute, do not operate as traditional government bodies. They are more akin to civil society organisations; that is their brilliance. The voluntary nature of the membership brings together such a wide array of people, from ex-regulars who do not want to give up on their military life to those who want to give back to society and those who simply want to help young people step up and get on in life. They are not forced into this. It is not their career. They do it because they want to. This is how we attract the best and most dedicated people.

The new structure envisaged by the Government, however, would create a professional board of independent people with, potentially, no relevant experience, as several noble Lords have mentioned, or links to either the cadets or the reserves. This is why I support my noble friend’s Amendments 48 and 51 to prevent non-executive board members being paid and to enshrine a national voluntary body in statute. Only then can we ensure that those who are involved with the RFCAs remain genuinely committed to, and passionate about, the cadets and reserves whom they put themselves forward to serve.

I have spoken already about my desire to conserve the traditional link to the Crown through the involvement of the lieutenancy in the associations. The severance of that link would be a deeply regrettable consequence of this policy and one that was entirely unnecessary. It is for that reason that I strongly support Amendment 50, which would, in essence, preserve an element of the status quo by ensuring that the lords-lieutenant were appointed as presidents of the regional councils. This would not cost the Ministry of Defence a penny or interfere with its bureaucratic restructuring, but it would help to preserve those traditions that have kept our nation going for so long and which might just make our lives a little more enjoyable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and to thank her for supporting my Amendment 55. I am going to concentrate on that amendment, because this is a carefully worked attempt to deal with an issue that the noble Baroness has already clearly outlined—criminal behaviour by US service people in the UK that is not being appropriately dealt with. There are more than 12,000 US military personnel stationed in the United Kingdom, operating from at least 15 bases and facilities. These are people living, working and socialising in communities across the UK. They will and do commit offences.

My amendment is focused particularly on sexual offences, but of course the noble Baroness referred to the disgraceful, awful death of Harry Dunn, and the fact that his family had to campaign against the entire US Government to try to achieve some kind of justice. However, that is not the focus of my amendment. I also note that, given the current state of the US today, these bases are coming under increasing public attention. However, that is not the subject of this amendment either.

I spoke on Second Reading and said that I was going to table this amendment. In doing so, I have to thank the Guardian journalists—and, indeed, editors—who have put a great deal of resources into uncovering this situation. I should perhaps declare my former position as editor of the Guardian Weekly, but I am not influenced by that. I also want to thank the Centre for Military Justice for its advice and assistance in developing the amendment that I put before your Lordships’ Committee today. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, chose not to name any of the people concerned, but—given that she bravely chose to waive her own anonymity and speak to the Guardian—I am going to put forward the name of Sarah Steele, because she wanted to speak publicly about what she went through.

Ms Steele went through an ordeal that was a result of the failure of UK processes. This was an incident, an attack, that took place on UK soil away from a US military base and while the service member was off duty. Yet the US military police quickly took over the investigation and the whole proceeding subsequently took place through the US military justice system, as the noble Baroness said. Indeed, it was held at RAF Lakenheath, the largest US military base in the UK. Ms Steele described this as “confronting … frustrating and distressing”. The procedures she found were “archaic and bizarre”. Think about what she experienced: the procedure was held before a military courtroom, and at points during her testimony fighter jets were taking off just a few hundred metres from where she was speaking. She described the experience as feeling as if she was in an alternative world.

In Ms Steele’s case the US court martial ultimately convicted the defendant of strangling an intimate partner but acquitted him of the sexual assault charge. He received a sentence of six months in a corrections facility, and the conviction was subject to automatic appeal. You might have views about that—I certainly do—but that is not directly what this amendment is about.

As the noble Baroness said, this is one case on which we have a great deal of detail. I will not go through the others she has already outlined. But I will just mention one of the cases in which the victim recounted that the court martial process took two years, she was forced to drop out of a midwifery degree as a result, and she had to give evidence in the same room as the man she had accused, without the protections that victims would normally have in a UK court.

What is the current legal position here? How have we got to this point? My understanding is that the NATO Status of Forces Agreement provides a framework for determining which country has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. Where the offence is punishable under the laws of both countries, the sending state has the primary right in certain specified circumstances. These include where the offence is solely against the security or property of the sending state, where it is solely against another member of the force or their civilian component or dependant, or where it arises out of an act done in performance of official duty.

However, where an alleged sexual offence is committed against a civilian who has no connection with the visiting force, and the alleged offence does not arise out of an act done in the performance of official duty, the receiving state, i.e. the UK, has the primary right and jurisdiction. So, the question is not about that; the question is who decides that the UK does not use that jurisdiction, which is where this amendment comes in.

In the UK, we have no process for how the decision should be made, what criteria should apply or what role the victim should have; nor, according to the Centre for Military Justice, is there an equivalent statutory framework governing the transfer of jurisdiction to a foreign military justice system. I want to highlight that we have recognised within our own justice arrangements that decisions about serious sexual offences require appropriate safeguards. Where there is a question of whether a serious offence should be dealt with by a civilian or service justice within the UK, there is now a protocol between the DPP and the Director of Service Prosecutions. It provides for senior level consideration of jurisdiction in rape and sexual assault cases, ordinarily treats offences against civilians as matters for the civilian courts, and provides for the victim’s views to be sought. But there is no equivalent safeguard where a foreign military person is involved.

This amendment fixes that situation. It adds a new Section 3A to the Visiting Forces Act 1952, which would create a clear presumption that where a member of the visiting forces is accused of a qualifying sexual offence against someone with no connection to that force, the case should be investigated by UK police and heard in a UK court. It provides for exceptions—though I find it hard to imagine where there would be exceptions, but that is the way the law works. It also provides what specific matters the prosecutor should consider:

“The gravity of the alleged offence … the connection of the alleged victim and of the offence with the United Kingdom … the capacity of the sending country’s arrangements”—


that is particularly important, given what we have heard about all of this—

“including its treatment of victims … any matters relied on in support of a request for a waiver, and … any representations … made … by the alleged victim”.

Furthermore,

“the decision and the reasons for it”

would have to be recorded

“in writing and, so far as reasonably practicable”,

notified to the victim. It would make a huge difference to all the cases we have been talking about tonight, and it would mean that a person who has already taken the difficult step of reporting an alleged sexual offence would not have to adjust to a justice system they never expected to encounter.

Here, I will put a direct question to the Minister. In the current arrangements, there is an exception to question of duty offences. I hope the Minister agrees with me that a qualifying sexual offence would never be capable of being characterised as arising out of and in the course of official military duty. This and the previous Government have had a very good record of addressing issues of sexual violence in conflict, and it is important that that is made clear, perhaps in writing if not now.

I have another question for the Minister. As a starting point, surely the argument has been made, but do the Government accept that there is currently a gap in the process for deciding whether the United Kingdom should relinquish its primary jurisdiction in serious sexual offence cases involving visiting forces?

This amendment is ultimately about confidence in our justice system and the public’s trust in having visiting military forces on our soil. In closing, I stress that this is not an issue I will allow to slip lightly. We owe it to all the victims we have already heard from—and others we do not know about, but who almost certainly exist—that this be dealt with in the Bill. This is clearly the Bill to deal with this situation now that it has come to light. We will discuss the details and the ways in which we might combine the amendments in this group, or look at how they fit in detail, but something has to be done about this utterly unacceptable current situation.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I do not think I need to wind up from these Benches. My noble friend Lady Brinton has said everything that needs to be said.

--- Later in debate ---

I submit that Clause 48 raises many issues on which there has been insufficient consultation. The implications for the diving community are significant. I believe that it should be withdrawn pending further consultation with the communities concerned.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly in support of the amendment in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and that in the name of my noble friend Lady Penn. The shared aim of these amendments is to improve morale among our Armed Forces and, as we have heard, to improve recruitment, but also, crucially, to improve retention, which has really suffered over a long period.

It is important to recognise that service personnel understand that operational need will come first. When they sign up, when they swear that oath, they accept that there will be times when they will be away on a deployment. They will miss birthdays, christenings, weddings—it comes with the territory. They might not always like it, but they accept it. What this gets at is not having that parental time in the crucial early stages of a new life when you are not at home, when you are on base. That is the difference, and we should be doing something to bring ourselves in line—I remember saying this earlier today—with our Five Eyes counterparts. I think there is a trend here, across the different groups and amendments, whereby we are way behind what the rest of our allies are doing in these categories. With that, I will sit down.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has held His Majesty’s Governments, of whichever complexion, to account over the years, particularly, as he mentioned earlier, over the rights of the Hong Kong military. He rightly reminds us that all the main parties gave commitments to waive fees for the families of service veterans who served with our Armed Forces. Will the Minister commit to look into this? My suspicion is that when he was on the Opposition Benches, he would have been speaking quite loudly in favour of reducing the fees; it is clearly something we should be doing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, eloquently explained the importance of extending paternity leave and the reasons for that. I will not go any further. There is no need to rehearse that at this time of night, other than to express the views of these Benches in support of the proposals and to ask His Majesty’s Government to think carefully about the importance of extending paternity leave, especially for reasons of retention.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 56, tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and supported by my noble friend Lord Harlech. I am pleased to be able to say that we on these Benches support this amendment. We have already waived the fees for indefinite leave to remain for Commonwealth citizens who have served in our Armed Forces, in recognition of the sacrifice for our nation that that service represents. It is difficult to see any principled basis for stopping short of extending that same waiver to their spouses and children. These are, after all, the families who have supported that service, often at real personal cost to themselves. As has already been said, extending fee waivers of this kind to service families was a manifesto commitment at the last election made by my party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. Given that shared commitment, I hope the Minister will explain today why it has not yet been implemented, and when the Government intend to act.

I now turn to Amendment 57, in the name of my noble friend Baroness Penn among others. I hope she will understand why, unfortunately, I am not able to support this. The current scheme already provides two weeks of paid paternity leave with the ability to agree further paid leave on a unit-by-unit basis where circumstances allow. We believe that flexibility matters. Operational necessity varies enormously from unit to unit and deployment to deployment. Decisions about what additional leave is achievable are, in our view, best worked out between the individual serviceman and his commanding officer. It is that commanding officer who understands the operational picture on the ground best.

I am aware of the obvious drawback to this policy of flexibility—that it will create unequal and disparate outcomes. Some units may be more generous than others. However, I think that that is an unfortunate fact of life, and is eminently preferable to a centrally set period, fixed in statute at six weeks regardless of circumstance and operational necessity. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to both amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate, to which I have appended my name. As the right reverend Prelate rightly pointed out, there are disparities in the provisions for service police versus civilian police, which seems wholly wrong. For the reason of expediting business this evening, I do not propose to speak any longer other than to say that we on these Benches wholly support these amendments.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, have signed both of the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich because I believe that they have identified two important gaps in the law.

Section 90 of the Police Act 1996 creates the offence of impersonating

“a member of a police force or special constable”.

The Act is concerned with civilian police forces in England and Wales established under it and related legislation. The definition of “special constable” is limited to one appointed for a police area. Members of the service police forces are not members of the territorial police force and are not special constables; they are members of the service police under the Armed Forces Act 2006. As a result, the person pretending to be a service police officer would not obviously fall under the wording

“members of a police force or special constable”

in Section 90. I believe that this is clearly an omission and needs to be rectified.

On Amendment 60, I believe that I am correct in saying that the definition in Section 3 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 could include service police officers. Subsection 1(b) states that

“a person (other than a constable) who has the powers of a constable or is otherwise employed for police purposes or is engaged to provide services for police purposes”

is included within that definition. Service police officers are clearly engaged to provide services for police purposes; it might be useful for the Minister to confirm whether that is the Government’s position.

However, more importantly, that Act applies only to England and Wales, not to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Scotland has a corresponding law: the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005, which creates specific offences of assaulting, obstructing or hindering emergency workers and those assisting them. The protected categories include constables, fire and ambulance personnel, and, in certain circumstances, prison officers, coastguard personnel, RNLI crews, social workers executing child protection orders and mental health officers. Like the English and Welsh equivalent, the Scottish Act does not expressly mention service police officers. However, service police can sometimes be treated as constables when exercising powers conferred by service law or civilian legislation. Whether the 2005 Act applies to a particular service police officer will depend on the precise capacity in which they were acting at the time, thus the position regarding service police is not clear.

Northern Ireland does not have a direct equivalent of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 that creates a single overarching offence of assaulting emergency workers. Instead, it has a mixture of general assault offences and occupation-specific offences. A member of the Royal Military Police, Royal Navy Police or Royal Air Force Police would not automatically fall under any general “emergency worker” definition in Northern Ireland because there is no equivalent statutory definition. The problem here is that the service police work across the United Kingdom, so the differential treatment under the law of the different jurisdictions causes confusion and uncertainty.

This, coupled with the fact that service police officers are not expressly covered by the relevant treaties of legislation, means that service police are not treated as equivalent to civilian police. I think that this requires some thought from the Government; I welcome an opinion on these matters from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

61: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the processes for recruitment and retention across His Majesty’s forces.(2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider—(a) the efficiency and consistency of recruitment processes across the Royal Navy, the regular army, the Royal Air Force and the reserve forces,(b) the effectiveness of steps being taken to improve diversity and inclusion within His Majesty’s forces,(c) the impact of the quality of defence housing (including single living accommodation) on the retention of service personnel, and(d) the impact of the medical discharge process on retention and transition to civilian life.(3) A report of the review must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Government to commission an independent review into recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces and lay the report of the review before Parliament.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to the first three amendments in my name, which are in group 12: Amendments 61, 62 and 63. I am not going to do them justice at this time of night, because the first amendment is calling for an independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention and in order to do that justice, I need to rehearse the difficulties we have seen in Armed Forces recruitment. Capita was mentioned earlier in proceedings today. Issues of retention have also been raised.

Given the lateness of the hour and the hope that noble Lords, Hansard, doorkeepers and officials in the box will get home at some point in the wee small hours, I will simply express the view that it is important for His Majesty’s Government to have an independent review of recruitment and retention. Each time there is an SDR, we hear that we need to look at the size of our Armed Forces and the size of the reserves, yet there is very little clarity on the recruitment process and retention. We have heard proposals this evening from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about increasing paternity leave entitlement precisely as a way of enhancing retention. The country needs clarity on recruitment and retention. As Parliament, we need to be able to scrutinise the current provisions and perhaps give suggestions to His Majesty’s Government about ways in which we could be improving the system. I am raising that issue, but I am not going to go into any further detail this evening.

I hope that Amendment 62 will be seen as uncontroversial, even by someone sitting where the Minister is—even though it is an amendment. It suggests a duty to provide medical records on discharge, simply to ensure that anyone leaving the services is able to go straight away to register with their GP. In particular, if they have issues—perhaps they had a medical discharge or, even if not, they might be at risk of undiagnosed PTSD—then having those medical records will be crucial for them, and it seems only right that their record should be provided as soon as practicable.

Amendment 63 ought to be self-evident, although I realise that the Minister may feel that it is not purely an MoD matter but is perhaps more for the DWP. It would insert a clause introducing a personal independence payment assessment exemption for amputees. The logic is that it seems odd to keep requiring PIP assessments and reassessments when, if someone has had a limb amputated, that is not going to change between assessments. It may be that robotics or other medical innovations change someone’s capacity to work; but given that we are talking about someone who may have had a limb amputated as a result of their service, relieving them of PIP reassessments would appear to be a more appropriate way of acknowledging the reasons why they have lost the limb, while ensuring that we do not put them through unnecessary repeat medical assessments. I beg to move.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

I support Amendment 61 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, requiring an independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention. At this late hour, I will just say that, at a time when there are nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training, we cannot even recruit 10,000 a year, and our Armed Forces are well below the relatively tiny strength at which they are funded to be. This suggests that something is seriously wrong with the recruiting process, and the report needs to be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, let me just say this: none of us is going to do justice to the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has brought forward. She made a couple of important points, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I also need to respond in positively to some of what the noble Earl, Lord Minto, said; on other points, perhaps not. The important thing is that, to do this justice, I need to write a letter which looks at some of the issues raised on retention, at the transfer of health records and at the point that was made on PIP. They are important points and for me to say just two sentences on this and two sentences on that would be inadequate. With the Committee’s permission I will write a letter, copy it to Members of the Committee and place a copy in the Library. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed, particularly the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who cosigned Amendment 61, and my noble friend Lady Brinton. We look forward to the letter from the Minister and with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 61 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

64: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Reporting on the Defence Investment Plan(1) Every six months after the day on which this Act is passed for the duration of this Parliament, and every year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan. (2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would compel the Government to publish and lay before Parliament a regular report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan every six months during this Parliament, and annually thereafter.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, this very small group, unfortunately numbered group 13, is about the defence investment plan. In particular, it felt appropriate to bring forward amendments that had been laid in the other place by my honourable friends; I think it was James MacCleary who tabled them. Essentially, they suggest that Parliament has an interest in ensuring that we hold His Majesty’s Government accountable on the defence investment plan.

In particular, I noted that, in his earlier response to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, the Minister said that continued challenges are important. I suggest that Amendment 64 is by way of a continued challenge: that it would be beneficial to His Majesty’s Armed Forces and to the country to have a report on the defence investment plan. Clearly, this is not something where one needs the Minister to respond in any detail today, because we are calling for it to be six months after this Act has been passed. The key thing is that the defence investment plan took a long time. It is still unclear whether the funding will be forthcoming, so accountability and scrutiny seem appropriate.

The final amendment, Amendment 65, calls for a

“Report on the impact of Defence Investment Plan delays”.


The suggestion here, or the request, is that we have a report within six months of the Act being passed. Again, this is very much about accountability. The defence investment plan was hugely important; it was also significantly delayed. Even for the primes the delays have been significant, but for the smaller defence companies, particularly dual-use companies, there are significant questions about the impact of the delays. Therefore, we have specified clearly what we would want to see in a report.

I do not think I need to go into any more detail, other than to ask the Minister whether the Government might indeed provide the reports—in particular, the annual reports requested in Amendment 64, because earlier on the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out on another part of the Bill that there is no greater accountability than an annual report to Parliament. Please may we have one? I beg to move.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, is once again highlighting an issue that we have spent a significant amount of time debating in your Lordships’ House. The glaring hole in the funding of the DIP has to be addressed. The funding issues have not yet been resolved. Can the Minister please confirm that his former boss, now the Chancellor, will find the necessary funds in the upcoming Budget to fill that budgetary hole? Further, we have also recently heard that the Government will not set out the plan to hit 3% of GDP on defence spending until the spending review next year, so another six months of preparation will be lost—another six months of stasis. It is not acceptable. I hope that the Government rethink.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will finish with an upbeat message: I have never felt that I have lacked scrutiny on the defence investment plan or on accountability with respect to defence spending. I have answered numerous questions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. I have not felt at all that there has been a lack of scrutiny. That is as it should be, so I am perfectly happy to stand here. The amendments are completely unnecessary in terms of holding me and the Government to account. The noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and most Members of this House find it extraordinarily easy to bring me to this Dispatch Box to tell me how bad the Government are, and to get me to say how hard I am working to ensure that we deliver the defence that this country needs. These amendments are completely unnecessary; there is absolutely no need for them. At this late hour, that is my answer to the noble Baroness’s amendments.

I have a couple of serious points. On the annual report, in the DIP we have committed to an annual update to Parliament before the Summer Recess each year on progress against the DIP and any changes to financial investments. The first report, which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about, will be audited by the National Audit Office and published by July 2027. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Minto—I have a fresh burst of energy now—that, unlike when we were talking about the establishment of the national reserve forces and cadets associations, where the noble Earl did not take too much notice of what the National Audit Office said because it did not fit his argument, if the National Audit Office comes forward and says that the Government’s defence investment plan is not going according to plan and that what the Government are doing is an outrage, I bet that the noble Earl will quote that report at length. That is the nature of politics; I understand that. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the first annual report will be published by July 2027.

Finally, the Chancellor will lay out in the Autumn Budget how the remaining £4.7 billion announced in the DIP will be found. Noble Lords will also have heard the Chancellor say that further plans will be set out in the 2027 spending review. I will finish with this: I do not know why it is a surprise to everyone in this Committee that that was said, because, if they check Hansard, they will see that I have stood at this Dispatch Box and said exactly the same thing in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on a number of different occasions. With that, I hope the noble Baroness sees fit to withdraw her amendment. If not, she should bring it back on Report so that we can have another debate on defence spending.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his support in challenging His Majesty’s Government and to the Minister for his ever-ready presence to respond at the Dispatch Box. We may well come back to the impact of DIP delays, particularly in terms of supply chains, because there are some very significant issues there, but whether they are appropriate for an amendment to this particular Bill is another question. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 64 withdrawn.