Armed Forces Bill

Earl of Minto Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his engagement with me and my noble friend Lady Goldie on the measures in the Bill. I extend my thanks to the officials for their professional and insightful briefing on the Bill. I reiterate at the outset that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition fully support the Bill. We recognise the legal requirement for the renewal of the Armed Forces Act 2006 for the continuation of our Armed Forces, and so I share with the Minister the desire to see the Bill reach the statute book promptly.

Before I turn to the substance of the Bill, I put on record our deep admiration for the men and women of our Armed Forces. Whether deployed on operations overseas, protecting NATO’s eastern flank or supporting the civil authorities at home, they continue to do an exemplary job. They do so at a time when resources, manpower and equipment are all being stretched to the very limit. Recruitment and retention remain a challenge, but time and again our gallant service personnel rise to meet the task they face. Whatever disagreements I may have with the Government about resource, I hope the Minister will accept that these take nothing away from our sincere respect for all those who serve.

However, I cannot ignore the elephant in the room: this Government’s continuing unwillingness to properly fund our Armed Forces. The Government have spoken of making tough choices, but they have not—or at least not yet. Perhaps our NATO allies in Ankara will change minds. The defence investment plan is effectively unfunded. One-third of the extra money is to be allocated in the Autumn Budget, meaning it is not available now, and the rest of it is to be financed by as yet unknown efficiency savings.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I concur—and I am on the record as saying—that the defence investment plan needs the money: we need to get to 3% as quickly as possible. But does the noble Earl also agree that the coalition and Conservative Governments between 2010 and 2017 in fact cut the defence budget by 22% and made people compulsorily redundant? At least this action will increase the defence budget over the next seven years by 27%.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, we are dealing with a very different situation globally from what we were dealing with then. There was not a country in the western world that was not making savings on defence at that time.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

Crimea?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

Well, yes.

I was saying that the money is not available now and the rest of it is to be financed by as yet unknown efficiency savings. The departments that have apparently been required to reduce their capital spending have not yet identified what they will cut, and the Government have not yet told us what asset sales they will follow through with. It is all rather unconvincing and unsatisfactory.

There are of course ways to increase defence spending without more tax rises and more borrowing. The required funds could be found by a sensible and sustainable reduction in the welfare budget, scrapping the now discredited Chagos deal, appropriately reducing the size of the Civil Service or reprioritising some of the more extreme and costly net-zero projects. The depressing reality appears to be that this Government have not been willing to grasp the nettle and make the genuine hard choices to give our Armed Forces the funding they so desperately need—and are pleading for—to keep us safe.

I now turn to the Bill. This side of the House welcomes the further incorporation of the Armed Forces covenant into law. It was a Conservative Government, through the Armed Forces Act 2021 that my noble friend Lady Goldie took through your Lordships’ House, who first placed the covenant on a statutory footing, requiring specified bodies to have due regard to its principles in the fields of housing, education and healthcare. That was a significant and hard-won step, and I am glad the Government are building on it.

However, support in principle does not exempt the Government from scrutiny in practice, and I must ask the Minister a straightforward question: what assessment has been made of the impact on those bodies newly brought into scope, and what extra costs will this impose on national authorities, local authorities, education bodies and health bodies up and down the country? I have been assured that the cost implications of extending this legal duty are expected to be minimal. Although I am grateful for that reassurance, the House will forgive me for wanting it tested more rigorously as the Bill proceeds through Committee, particularly given the number of new bodies being brought within the statutory duty and the breadth of new subject matter involved. What financial consequences, if any, does the Ministry anticipate falling on the Ministry of Defence itself as a result of this expansion? Has Treasury sign-off been secured for any downstream costs that may arise?

I think—in fact, I know—that we are united across the House in our belief that those who serve our country should never have to live in substandard accommodation, regardless of their familial status. I think we can also all agree that the current state of much service housing ranges from below standard to abysmal and exposes the immediate need for significant structural expenditure and reforms to bring all forces housing up to the expected standard for the 2020s. It was my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, James Cartlidge, who initiated the buyback of the housing estate from Annington Homes, as the noble Lord has referred to. It is welcome that this Government have now completed that purchase, but I believe that there must be an acknowledgement of who started it.

Clause 3 and Schedule l give legislative effect to the second pillar of the Government’s defence housing strategy, published last November, by establishing a new body corporate: the defence housing service. I understand why the Government wish to create a dedicated body with the supply, availability and quality of defence housing at its heart, and a “forces first” approach to its work is one that these Benches can readily and fully endorse. But the creation of a new statutory body inevitably raises questions about what happens to the old arrangements. What precisely is happening to the Defence Infrastructure Organisation? What functions will be transferred to the new defence housing service? Will there be an overlap in responsibility during a transition period? If so, for how long and at what cost to the taxpayer? Clear accountability will be critical to the success of both organisations in the future.

Can the Minister also set out clearly how this new body differs in practice from the alternative that my party has proposed, which is the establishment of an armed forces housing association? This would be a private, independent but, crucially, not-for-profit organisation that would reinvest all revenues back into maintaining properties and building new homes. It would have an oversight board allowing for representation of those living in service family accommodation. It would allow service men and women to benefit from different property ownership models—for example, part-ownership—allowing those of all ranks to realise their dream of owning their own home. It would allow us to reduce the reliance of the MoD on private sector renting, which costs it £80 million a year. Before I leave this point, there is a widely circulated rumour that, to fund the DIP, investment in service housing is to be deferred. This matters. Can the Minister clarify the position?

I turn to a matter that does not appear in the Bill, but that this side believes to be fundamental to the war-fighting capabilities of our Armed Forces. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has expanded the application of the European Convention on Human Rights so that it now applies extraterritorially, as this House will recall from the judgment in Al-Skeini v United Kingdom. There is absolutely no question that British troops must abide by the Geneva conventions and the law of armed conflict; that is not, and never has been, in dispute. We are not arguing for complete prospective immunity from legal accountability. However, we need to ensure that our troops feel confident in taking necessary action and must be clear on the limitations of that action in law. They must be on a level playing field with the enemy they face. To be in doubt, or at a disadvantage, could, in extremis, be fatal at the critical moment.

While the preference of my party is to leave the European Convention on Human Rights entirely, that is not within the bounds of the Bill, so we will be bringing an amendment in Committee to place a duty on the Secretary of State to derogate from the convention during armed conflict—a switch from “may” to “must”. I hope that the Minister will engage constructively with that amendment in the spirit in which it is offered: not as an attack on the rule of law, far from it, but as a recognition that our troops must be able to fight for and defend this country without the fear of endless retrospective litigation on decisions taken in the heat of combat.

I turn now to the provisions on the Reserve Forces, which these Benches broadly welcome. Clause 32 removes the requirement for a service person to formally leave the Regular Forces and re-enlist in the Volunteer Reserve, or vice versa, in order to move between the two. We are pleased about the greater flexibility that this clause allows for movement between the regulars and the reserves, and we hope that it will remove a genuine source of friction for service personnel who wish to serve in different ways at different points during their career.

The strategic defence review, published last year, sets out the aim of increasing the Active Reserve by 20% when funding allows. That is a laudable aim; nobody on this side of the House would quarrel with the ambition to build a larger, more resilient reserve capability at a time of growing geopolitical uncertainty. But an aim is not a plan, and I must press the Minister on the timeline. By when does the Ministry of Defence expect to achieve that 20% increase? What recruitment targets have been set year on year to get there? Crucially, given the funding caveat built into the review’s own language, how do the Government intend to fund it, given everything I have already said about the state of the defence investment plan?

I suggest one way of doing this to the Minister: incentivise more people to join the reserves by introducing a tax-free reserve service, whereby the first 30 days of reserve service in any one year would be completely free of income tax. Such a measure would cost the Exchequer relatively little, it would send a clear signal that this country values the commitment reservists make alongside their civilian careers, and it might do more to improve recruitment. I hope that the Minister will take that suggestion back to his department, even if he cannot commit to it from the Dispatch Box today.

I have covered a good deal of ground this afternoon, and there is more in the Bill that we will wish to probe in Committee, not least the reforms to the service justice system. We support the principle of aligning the powers available to service police and service courts with those already available in the civilian criminal justice system, but there are questions to be asked about how these provisions will operate in practice, and my noble friend Lady Goldie will address those in more detail in closing.

I simply say this in conclusion. This is a Bill these Benches support, because the renewal of the Armed Forces Act is a constitutional necessity, and because much of what sits alongside that renewal—the covenant, the housing reforms, the modernisation of the service justice system and the flexibility of our reserves—represents sensible and positive progress. But support for the Bill is not the same as satisfaction with the Government’s record on defence. Our Armed Forces deserve a Government willing to match warm words with hard funding decisions. Until this happens, this House will continue to ask the difficult questions the Government would rather not answer, and I look forward to the Minister’s response and to the scrutiny that lies ahead in Committee.

Armed Forces Bill

Earl of Minto Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[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?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for their questions about this simple change. Of course, as with everything as we go through this Bill, I will look into all the various points that have been made.

My understanding with respect to email is that the amendment provides legal certainty by establishing that notices are deemed to have been delivered, mirroring—which is the wording—the existing approach used for the postal service. Many of the questions which the noble Earl has quite rightly asked about email and what happens in these circumstances are exactly the same sort of questions that can be asked about the postal service. There are established procedures and practices in place to deal with that. It is an important point. It mirrors the existing approach used for the postal service; it simply gives an alternative and modern way of doing it.

I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that it is the sort of legal certainty that we are looking for, again mirroring the postal service, which would not be available with some of the other methods and channels of communication that might be used.

To go back to what the noble Earl, Lord Minto, said, we need to communicate through a reliable and auditable channel so that we can follow it through and make sure that it has been delivered to whom it is intended for. Again, with respect to letters sent through the postal service, are we certain that this is the address for the person who we think lives there? Are we certain that they have got it? There is a trail by which we can follow that through. That is exactly the same process as will be followed with email. It provides us with the opportunity to modernise the current process and improve the speed and effectiveness of delivery. It provides us with a measured and proportionate approach. It introduces a well-established form of electronic communication while retaining the existing postal option where necessary—I make that point to the noble Earl.

As technology and communication methods continue to evolve, future Armed Forces Bills will provide opportunities to consider whether further changes are appropriate. For now, as far as the Government are concerned, email strikes the right balance between modernisation, legal clarity and ensuring that reservists can be reached quickly in support of defence readiness, mobilisation and national resilience. I again thank noble Lords for their contributions.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

Can I just confirm that we are talking about something in addition to, rather than instead of?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is whichever is the most appropriate to use.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 38 should stand part of the Bill.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose the question that Clause 38 and Schedule 6 stand part of the Bill. These provisions would abolish the 13 reserve forces and cadets associations and the Council of Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations and replace them with a single, new, national, non-departmental public body.

I recognise that the Sullivan review identified genuine weaknesses in the governance of the RFCAs, but the vast majority of those recommendations have already been rectified by the previous Government. What is proposed here is not a solution. Rather, I would suggest, it is more likely than not to exacerbate the remaining problems.

Furthermore, I am aware that this proposition has been in the works in the Ministry of Defence for quite some time. My noble friend Lady Goldie was made aware of these plans surfacing in 2020, during her tenure in the department, and she was always sceptical of the idea. She was particularly concerned about the voluntary ethos of the associations being usurped by the bureaucracy of a quango. Interestingly, the proposal did not feature in the Armed Forces Bill 2021, so there was nothing to object to at that time.

--- Later in debate ---

With that, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I will reflect on those points and on how—although I think consensus might be difficult—we may address through the draft regulations some of the different points made in this debate, but also in the further groups we will discuss going forward.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister—who, as we all know, has huge respect across this House—for his reply, with his customary passion and belief in the position he takes, and to all noble Lords from all sides of the Committee, even the non-affiliated ones, who have so strongly contributed, with great consideration. There are clearly very strongly held views, contained within a lot of understanding, whether from noble and gallant Lords or people with relationships with the forces, the cadets and the reservists, either directly or through family ties. It just goes to show how important this is and how it is absolutely right and proper that we have a clear understanding of exactly what is being proposed here.

I fear I remain unpersuaded—I am sure the Minister will not be surprised. He told us, in effect, that the new body will be designed to preserve the spirit of the membership and the voluntary ethos. I do not deny that, but it is a question of how that will be carried out. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Government’s intention; what I doubt is that this spirit can survive the destruction of the structure that has, for over a century, created the conditions in which that spirit has been developed and flourished. There is no doubt that it has flourished, as anybody who has been to a county show or has seen recruiters out and about will know. The Minister has not told us how that ethos is to be guaranteed, rather than merely hoped for; nor, with respect, have the Government yet told this Committee what specific operational improvements to the cadet and Reserve Forces this reorganisation will deliver.

The Government seem to be more concerned with consistency and ensuring a clearer statutory footing. This is all bureaucratic language emanating from Whitehall and does not really reflect the wishes of those who are involved in these organisations. I remain of the view—I think that the tone in the Committee will probably support this view in the main—that I set out at the beginning of the group. This change serves the convenience of the centre rather more than it serves the volunteers, the cadets or the communities that the RFCAs have bound to our Armed Forces since before the first county associations were formed. I do not think that it is sufficient reason to abolish 13 historic, voluntary, county-based bodies and the links to the lieutenancy that they carry.

That is why I, along with my noble friend Lord De Mauley, oppose this reform. It is a solution in search of a problem. It is an attempt to fix something that is not broken and it destroys the very features of the voluntary spirit, the county identity and the link to the lieutenancy and the Crown that make the Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations the valuable and universally respected organisations that they are. However, we are in Committee and I have made my point. I will reflect carefully on what the Minister has said, but I give notice that, absent a considerably fuller response from the Government on the questions that I have put, I intend to return to the matter on Report and, if necessary, to test the opinion of the House. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw my opposition to the Question that Clause 38 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 agreed.

--- 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.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I should have declared an interest at the beginning: my son-in-law is currently mobilised as an active reservist. I apologise; I should have made that statement before.

The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and I have had a number of conversations, both inside and outside the Chamber. I thank him for bringing forward the amendments. I will write to him on the three questions he asked. For clarity, I will copy that to everyone who is currently in the Chamber and place a copy in the Library. I hope that is satisfactory for the noble Lord.

The noble Lord will know that the Armed Forces are not exempt from jury service. If a reservist is mobilised, they can apply for a deferral in the normal way.

We can all agree that the Reserve Forces are critical to defence, and every day reservists balance civilian careers, family commitments and military service, giving their time to train and remain ready to serve when called on. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I will of course consider all her various points; I always do that. I cannot answer them now to the satisfaction that everybody would wish, but I will consider them.

The noble Earl, Lord Minto, made an important point: all the way through, there is a balancing act between trying to recognise the important demands that employers of all sizes have on their businesses and, at the same time, doing all we can to promote the reserves and reservists. We have to ensure that we meet both those demands and find a way that balances all that. I agree with the noble Earl. That is not in opposition to what the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has set out in his Amendments 40 and 41; rather, we have to ask what the correct balance is.

Defence relies on the commitment of our reservists. Their skills, experience and willingness to step forward in the service of the nation make them an indispensable part of our Armed Forces. We are deeply grateful for their dedication and for the support of their employers. The noble Lord, Lord Swire, recognised that in his comments. Of course we need to try to encourage more people to become reservists—and we will do that. I am not sure about the Swiss example; I am not an expert on Switzerland but it gets near to requiring people to do certain things. As the noble Lord will know, this Government and previous Governments have always taken the view that our reservists go through a voluntary route. We seek to encourage people to participate and to act in the service of their nation voluntarily. That is the right approach for us to continue with.

--- 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.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I again thank everyone who has participated in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, asked if we can have a conversation before Report; of course we can. We understand the intention behind the amendments: to further build on the protections offered to our reservists in current primary legislation. However, the Government do not believe that the new clauses are proportionate; they risk creating unintended consequences for employers, reservists and the wider labour market.

As mentioned earlier, reservists already benefit from a range of statutory protections. They allow reservists to claim compensation where their military pay is lower than civilian earnings, subject to a cap, and provide support for reasonable additional costs arising from mobilisation, such as childcare or other domestic expenses. This recognises the significant commitment that reservists make in serving our Armed Forces. The Armed Forces covenant further ensures that service personnel are not disadvantaged by virtue of their military service. The Government’s approach is to foster a positive partnership between defence and employers, rather than to create new categories of employment litigation.

Membership of the Reserve Forces is a voluntary commitment that may involve specific and foreseeable periods of absence from employment due to training or mobilisations. The amendments could introduce broad new causes of action in employment tribunals. As the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out, the provisions are drafted in particularly wide terms, extending not only to actual reservists but also to persons who propose to become a reservist or who may become liable for future service. That would inevitably create significant evidential difficulties for employers. In particular, recruitment decisions often involve a range of legitimate factors, and it may be challenging to later demonstrate conclusively that reserve service played no part in a decision.

These amendments may therefore have the unintended consequence of discouraging employers from discussing reserve commitments openly with applicants and employees. The Government’s objective is to encourage transparent and constructive dialogue between employers and reservists. A statutory requirement may undermine that objective and weaken the collaborative relationship that currently exists between defence and employers through, as I say, the Armed Forces covenant and the defence relationship management programme. We remain committed to supporting reservists and promoting reserve services among employers. However, the amendments would create a disproportionate and potentially burdensome new legal requirement and introduce unnecessary uncertainty into recruitment and employment without compelling evidence of necessity.

I turn to Amendment 44. The Government recognise that reservists who run their own businesses, work as contractors or practise in partnership can face particular challenges in balancing civilian livelihoods with military service—again, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, made. Their commitment is highly valued, and defence will continue to support them through a combination of legislation, financial assistance, employer engagement and practical guidance.

Although the Government fully support the objective of ensuring that reservists are not treated unfairly because of their service, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary or proportionate. It would extend protections into a wide range of commercial contracts and partnership arrangements. Decisions about contracting, allocation of work or business partnerships are often based on legitimate commercial factors. The amendment could make such routine decisions vulnerable to legal challenge where current or potential reserve service is alleged to have played a role. That would represent a significant and far-reaching change to the law in this area, and the Government are not persuaded that the case for such a change has been made in the context of this Bill.

Existing protections and support mechanisms are already in place through various pieces of legislation. Financial assistance may also be available under Part VIII of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 when a reservist is mobilised or undertakes relevant reserve force activities. Support is available to reservists and employers, including self-employed employers and business partnerships. This can include provision for loss of earnings, replacement costs and additional business costs arising from mobilisation.

The Government’s approach is therefore to maintain a balanced framework; I think that starts to answer the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, made about trying to have a balanced framework and a balanced approach to some the competing demands. There is statutory protection where it is required, financial assistance where service creates identifiable costs, and strong engagement with employers and business through Defence Relationship Management. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, about ensuring that everyone is aware of the skill reservists bring back to industry; that is an important point. There is also the Armed Forces covenant and the employer recognition scheme.

That partnership-based approach has built substantial and growing employer support for reservists without placing legal burdens on businesses. In 2016, under 1,000 businesses and organisations were signed up to the Armed Forces covenant. Today, we have over 15,200 organisations signed up. That is a significant thing that all of us across the Committee can be proud of, although there is still much more to be done.

The review requirement in the amendment is unnecessary. Defence already keeps reservist and employer support under regular consideration, including financial assistance arrangements for mobilisation and wider measures to improve reserve utilisation, readiness and employer support.

Again, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that the Government will continue to consider whether existing schemes remain appropriate, but we do not believe that a statutory review tied to overseas comparisons is the right mechanism. International models can help, but arrangements in Australia and Canada operate within different reserve structures, employment markets, legal frameworks and funding systems. For those reasons, although we understand the intent, and I am perfectly happy, as always, to have a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary. With that, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Earl of Minto Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for the amendments whose presentation to us he led on.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, as I have said on a number of occasions both to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and to the Committee as a whole, that I will continue to have conversations between now and Report about what we may or may not do with some of the amendments before us. That commitment has already been made. On the points that he made about spending, I am perfectly willing to answer another Private Notice Question or whatever if he is successful at another time, but perhaps not this evening.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their view that the non-executive members of the new RFCA board should be unpaid. That view assumes that unpaid service better demonstrates commitment. I do not accept that. Commitment is not determined by whether a member is remunerated. There is no evidence, in my view, that remuneration reduces dedication to the Reserve Forces or cadet organisations. I take the point that has been made about their voluntary ethos, but, in terms of the board’s membership—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling these amendments. This group gives us an opportunity to discuss a complex but very important area of the law. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I wish him a very speedy recovery. He is a nice guy.

The Visiting Forces Act 1952 establishes the legal framework that governs the relationship between the United Kingdom and those states that send members of their armed forces to our territory. The issue sits at the very intersection of national sovereignty, the rights of victims and this country’s long-standing alliance relationships. It is right that this House probes how this balance is struck.

I turn first to Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It would require publication, in unredacted form, of any part of a visiting force’s agreement touching on jurisdiction, together with the reasoning behind it. I merely observe that a statutory duty to publish in unredacted form is a very blunt instrument to apply to what are, in many cases, live diplomatic and security arrangements with partner nations. It may be useful if the Minister could explain what mechanisms already exist for Parliament to scrutinise these matters without compelling wholesale publication.

Regardless of the amendment’s fate, I hope the Minister will take away from this debate that, whatever one’s view on publication, in any case where a jurisdictional dispute arises between the United Kingdom and a sending state it must be beyond doubt exactly how that dispute is to be resolved, who takes the decision and on what criteria. Ambiguity at that point serves no one.

On Amendment 55, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is right to press the Government on how such cases are handled. Where I part company with her is on the question of necessity, because the outcome she seeks already exists in law. The Visiting Forces Act 1952 does not hand jurisdiction wholesale to sending states. Section 3 of the Act states that the sending state’s military authorities have the primary right of jurisdiction only where the offence arises out of official duty, is against another member of the visiting force or corresponding civilian component, or is against property belonging to the force, its members or dependants. In any case where a member of a visiting force commits a criminal offence against a dependent British citizen, the jurisdiction lies with British authorities. Thus, such an offence would be investigated by the territorial police force for the area and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the case would be heard in a British court. This is the case for all offences, however serious, including sexual offences. This position is unambiguously clarified in the Crown Prosecution Service’s published guidance.

Furthermore, where the NATO status of forces agreement is also engaged the position is, if anything, even stronger. The CPS guidance notes that, taken together with the 1951 NATO agreement, this produces dual jurisdiction in any case where the victim is a dependant who is either a UK national or habitually resident here. A dependant, rather than a fellow service member, is precisely the category of victim that I believe the noble Baroness’s amendment is designed to protect.

Where cases have an international dimension going wider than the visiting forces framework—as, for example, in dealings with the United States—the mechanism for resolving concurrent jurisdiction is also already in place. The guidance governing such cases between our two countries commits prosecutors to weighing each case on its individual merits, guided throughout by a commitment to fairness and objectivity.

I will not detain the Committee further on the remaining amendment in this group concerning the list of countries in Section 1(1)(a) of the 1952 Act, save to say that I believe that the United States is counted as a visiting force. The Visiting Forces (Designation) Order 1954 exercises the power in Section 1(2) of the 1952 Act to designate Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Norway and the United States of America as visiting forces. The US is also covered under the NATO SOFA. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm whether this interpretation is correct.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Bennett, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for their important contributions on an incredibly important area of law, in relation to which a number of matters have been raised, recently and not so recently, that cause us all concern. For legal reasons, I will read verbatim the information I have before me; this is such an important area, and I do not want to be misquoted as that would not help the various people we wish to see being helped. Noble Lords will notice that when I get towards the end of my remarks, I will make one or two important comments that I hope will offer some, if not total, reassurance to your Lordships and to those who read our proceedings about how we are trying to move forward.

The legal framework governing the allocation of jurisdiction between the UK and a visiting force is set out in UK domestic law through Section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952, with further reference to Section 12. This framework applies both to states that are party to the NATO status of forces agreement and to non-NATO states that have bilateral arrangements with the UK and are designated under Section 1 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952. In all such cases, visiting forces remain subject to the provisions of the Act. Any other agreements or arrangements are modelled on the provisions of the NATO status of forces agreement and reflect the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act 1952. The Visiting Forces Act is already publicly available and the principles within it are applied by UK prosecuting authorities on a case-by-case basis when questions of jurisdiction occur. I hope that provides some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her views on the Bill and acknowledge her concerns, and those of others, about the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and why the United States is not explicitly referenced as being subject to the legislation. I reassure her and others that the United States is already included as subject to the Visiting Forces Act by virtue of Section (1)(1)(b). This specifically explains that, along with the countries individually named in Section 1(1)(a), a country will be subject to the Act’s provisions if it is designated by Order in Council. The United States, along with Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Norway, were included in the Visiting Forces (Designation) Order 1954, Statutory Instrument 634/1954, and so fall under the Visiting Forces Act 1952.

On Amendment 55, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Brinton, for their views on the Bill and acknowledge their interest in the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and the proposal to restrict and regulate how requests for transferring jurisdiction are determined in cases involving qualifying sexual offences. I begin by reassuring them that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that alleged sexual offences perpetrated by visiting forces are treated with the utmost seriousness and that jurisdiction for such cases is decided in accordance with the extant legislation.

I am aware of recent cases highlighted in the media, most notably the case concerning US airman Jacob Wulfson, which raised concerns regarding the extent to which the right decisions regarding jurisdiction for prosecution had been made. Section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 already sets out the limited circumstances in which jurisdictions should be transferred from the UK to a visiting force. The decisions on whether or not to do so are made independently by the relevant police force or the Crown Prosecution Service in response to any request from a visiting force. The Government are committed to identifying and applying the lessons arising from the issues raised in these cases. This includes the application and operation of jurisdictional arrangements under the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and how these are implemented across the criminal justice system.

In particular, I welcome the action taken by the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, who has written to all chief constables in England and Wales to remind forces of their responsibilities under the Visiting Forces Act 1952. I understand that the National Police Chiefs’ Council is also considering whether further formal guidance for police forces is required to reinforce the principles of the existing legislation.

As I said, I am deeply concerned by the reports of how jurisdiction was handled in the Wulfson case. Victims of such serious offences need to be supported, and their cases treated with the seriousness, dignity and compassion that they deserve. This includes ensuring that jurisdiction for alleged offences is only ceded to a visiting force where absolutely appropriate under UK law and the Crown Prosecution Service’s guidance. I have directed my officials to work with the Home Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and any other government departments as required to ensure that the Ministry of Defence is assisting in that outcome. I hope that provides some assurance to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Bennett, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. I have no doubt that these discussions will continue, but we understand the seriousness of the topics that have been raised and the need for us to consider how we can deal with this.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, given the hour, let me deal with this head on. I shall start with Amendment 56, tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. The Government, the Opposition and all of us, it seems to me, are committed to scrapping visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four years or more and their dependants, building on the existing fee waiver in place. Home Office and Ministry of Defence Ministers are working closely together to deliver this commitment in a way that is fair, comprehensive and achievable. I understand that the noble and gallant Lord will have heard that language before. He asked me to have an urgent conversation with the Home Office to see what progress has been made, and I will certainly do that. That is the important commitment to make. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, asked for that as well, so let me follow that up, and I will certainly talk to the Home Office. Those there, too, will have heard the well-constructed speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asking when this will happen—and it is about time it did. I hope that, with that reassurance, he can see the importance of putting amendments at Committee stage.

I turn to the powerful speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, on her Amendment 57 and the various points that she so eloquently made about childcare, family life, parental leave and all those various topics. She will know that there is a government review going on around parental leave, pay and many other issues. The review is considering costs, benefits and potential reforms across the system as a whole and principally covers civilian parental leave and pay entitlements. The MoD will consider the outcome of that review and its applicability to the Armed Forces. It would be premature to prescribe a specific six-week model for the Armed Forces, for example, before the wider review concludes. But the review is expected to conclude in early 2027, which may be of interest to the noble Baroness, so that might start to give us some reassurance about where we are going to with regard to the various points she has raised.

These are extremely important points that need to be heard. But as well as being heard, they need to be acted upon. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that her continued tabling of these amendments and continued challenges to the system to ask what more is going to be done to ensure that people get the entitlements that are needed are important. She will know that when it comes to paternity leave for all eligible personnel within the Armed Forces, there are the concerns about its impact on operational effectiveness. But surely, as we move forward, there ought to be a way of matching the desire for better family arrangements with maintaining the operational effectiveness and particular needs of the Armed Forces. We have to find a way of better balancing all those demands that she quite rightly made through her amendment, and I will certainly do that within the department as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised an important point through her Amendment 67, that is continually made, about the need for subsidised travel for veterans. A number of years ago, there were very few concessions, but gradually, concession after concession was made, quite rightly, with respect to children, family tickets and all those sorts of things. We need to see what more we can do with respect to our Armed Forces and whether there are additional concessions that can be made which will be of benefit to them, to reflect the service they have given. For example, in London there is a veterans Oyster photocard, which entitles people to free travel on a range of transport services, including buses. That demonstrates to us that progress can be made, whether on transport, various family entitlements or the point made by the noble and gallant Lord on the fee waiver for leave to remain. Even to my own Government, I sometimes say, “Can we get a move on?”

--- 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.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and I particularly thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I have had a number of conversations with him about this outside the Chamber. I have asked my officials to look at his Amendment 59, with respect to the impersonation of a member of the service police, and at Amendment 60, which would add service police to the list of emergency workers regarding assault. I will take those forward but to be clear, I cannot promise what the outcome will be. I personally think there is a problem with these two issues, and I look forward to continuing the discussion with him to see whether we can come forward with something at Report to plug what appear to be two gaps in the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I shall briefly speak to Amendment 62. My noble friend raised the point about it being important for veterans to be able to have their details in their hands. The NHS guidance for veterans specifically notes that it takes several months for the full records to follow the veterans, and if veterans have complex health issues but no information, the GPs that they see are in deep trouble.

On amputees, importantly, unlike many amputees in the civilian world, most amputees in the military world also have a significant number of other injuries. There is already an issue about amputees in the civilian world having to have repeat PIP tests, but it seems sensible to look at this area.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

Briefly, my Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has raised some important issues in these amendments. Between 1999 and 2025 there were only seven years in which more people joined the regular forces than left them, and the strategic defence review was blunt enough to call the result a workforce crisis.

I might add one further point on retention. Retention in the Armed Forces will not be improved by prosecuting veterans who served in Northern Ireland fighting the IRA. My noble friend Lady Goldie has already mentioned the adverse impact that the Government’s policy is having. Retention will also surely be improved by delivering the investment in the forces housing that the Government have promised. These are two actions that the Government could take immediately to improve retention and recruitment: drop the widely despised Troubles Bill and deliver the housing investment now, rather than pushing the funding further back, as they have done in the defence investment plan.

I completely concur with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about medical records. That needs tidying up pretty quickly and would definitely help. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.