Armed Forces Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Scottish legislative consent granted, Northern Ireland and Welsh legislative consent sought.

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

My Lords. I start by highlighting the interests I have declared: my son-in-law is an active reservist.

It is a great honour and pleasure to speak to the Armed Forces Bill, as I know it is for us all. We should be reminded that without the Armed Forces Bill, the current Armed Forces Act 2006—the legislation that provides a system of command, discipline and justice for His Majesty’s Armed Forces—could not continue in force beyond the end of this year.  

Since 1688 and the Bill of Rights, it is a constitutional requirement that Parliament, rather than the King or the Executive, has the authority to exert control over our Armed Forces. It is Parliament, through our common consent and the act of renewal, that ensures that there remains a legal basis for the continued existence of His Majesty’s Armed Forces. As such, the Bill is for the Armed Forces, although it goes beyond simply providing the legal framework for them to continue to exist as disciplined bodies. It is an opportunity to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve.

This substantial Bill does much for our current and former personnel, and the Armed Forces community as a whole, to provide better support, housing and protections for victims of crime, and to provide greater resilience for the nation by increasing the size and availability of the strategic reserves. It does this by delivering meaningful reform across four key pillars.

The Armed Forces covenant—the pledge between the nation and those who have served—will be strengthened by delivering on the manifesto commitment to place it fully into law. Establishing the defence housing service will allow us to properly manage, develop and improve the defence housing estate and make it fit for purpose for our Armed Forces personnel and their families. Providing the service courts and the service police with new powers to provide improved victim support and protections will bring it in line with the 10-year strategy to halve violence against women and girls. Reforms to boost the size and availability of the strategic reserve will reinforce the UK’s defence forces at a time of increasing global threats and uncertainty.

I shall say a little more about each of the four pillars. The Armed Forces covenant was introduced 15 years ago and has made a real difference to many in the Armed Forces community. At its heart is a promise between the nation and those who serve, those who have served, their families and the bereaved, recognising the unique demands and sacrifices of service life. It has already helped to reduce disadvantage for our Armed Forces community across the areas of housing, healthcare and education.

We recognise, however, that it must go further. Clause 2 therefore delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to place the Armed Forces covenant fully into law. It does this by broadening the covenant legal duty to 12 policy areas and, for the first time, the devolved Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and UK government departments, will be subject to the duty. This means that, in addition to housing, healthcare and education, the covenant will also apply to areas including social care, childcare, employment, taxation, social security, criminal justice, immigration and citizenship, pensions, transport and Armed Forces compensation.

On defence housing, the Government have a moral duty to provide safe and decent homes to service personnel and their families. They have been previously let down by homes that are not fit for purpose, and we are determined to change that. Underinvestment in defence housing over decades led to record lows in satisfaction with defence homes. The 1996 sale of tens of thousands of defence homes to Annington led to taxpayers picking up the bill for maintenance and rent to the tune of £600,000 a day.

However, just six months after being elected, the Government transferred 36,000 defence homes back into public ownership, reversing a privatisation that the Public Accounts Committee described as “disastrous”. The next task is to bring homes up to a decent standard—a standard that our service personnel and their families deserve. The Government therefore commissioned an independent review and, in November last year, we published our defence housing strategy—our plan for the wholesale renewal of defence housing, backed by a £9 billion investment over the next decade.

Clause 3 delivers on one of the recommendations of the defence housing strategy: the creation of a new stand-alone public body—the defence housing service. This will serve as a single point of accountability for defence housing, staffed by experts and with forces families represented as part of its governance. As such, it will put the needs of the forces and their families first. With a clear strategy, unprecedented investment and a dedicated organisation in the defence housing service, we will deliver on this once-in-a-generation opportunity to provide the safe and decent homes our forces and their families deserve.

Through the Bill, we will also deliver important reforms to the service justice system, especially in the area of victim support and protections. Clauses 5 to 10 provide a comprehensive package of protection measures, with Clauses 11, 12, 26 and 27 providing improved support and assistance to victims of offending. I add that, while these measures will strengthen the service justice system, we recognise that not all unacceptable behaviours reach the threshold of a criminal offence. That is why the Ministry of Defence continues to develop policies that seek to address unacceptable behaviours.

Through the Raising our Standards programme, we are tackling unacceptable behaviour and driving lasting cultural change across defence, with better training, clearer reporting systems and greater trust in leadership. The new VAWG prevention taskforce has been deployed to Catterick and to the south-west to assess lived experiences, tackle root causes of unacceptable behaviour and roll out effective interventions. Immediate initiatives are already being deployed, such as the recruitment of additional sexual assault referral nurses, who will cover the south-west, and the rollout of an independent legacy advocacy pilot that will support victims of sexual offences to understand their rights and what to expect when navigating the service justice system.

These policies, together with the separate service complaints process, now overseen by the recently appointed Armed Forces Commissioner, will also help ensure that unacceptable behaviour is challenged and addressed appropriately. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Kramer, that this improvement in culture also includes the whistleblower review. We will be meeting in due course before the publication of that review, which is now ready, subject to the noble Baronesses’ comments.

I move on to the package of measures relating to the reserves. Clause 32 will enable regular personnel at warrant officer level or equivalent, and below, to seamlessly transfer into the Volunteer Reserve, and vice versa, without having to leave one force and rejoin the other. Clauses 33 to 37 amend the Reserve Forces Act 1996 in relation to call-out and recall liability, ensuring that it is fit for purpose. This will help ensure that defence has access to more people with the right skills and experience it needs at times of need. It will harmonise liability across the services, widen the pool from which we can draw resources, and allow us greater access to both our Volunteer Reserve and Strategic Reserve pool. It is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster—who heads up the reserves—in his place. I know how hard he has been working, as many other noble Lords have been, with respect to this.

Just to digress slightly, I know that many noble Lords across the Chamber are particularly concerned about resilience and homeland defence and all those sorts of things. I look forward to the debate in Committee on that aspect, as we move forward on how we make the best use of our reserves around all of that.

Clauses 33 to 37 will make it easier to mobilise personnel earlier ahead of the outbreak of any war and increase the maximum age—from 55 to 65—at which reserves can be recalled. I welcome that increase. There are many people who would be eligible for this who are 64 and they would be brilliant doctors, brilliant accountants, brilliant cyber analysts—brilliant in many ways that would be of interest. I am aware of some of the initial reporting when that announcement was made, but if you look at it in that light, you can see the significance of the contribution that many older reservists could make to the defence and security of our country. Looking at it from that perspective, one understands the importance of and the reasons for raising that age limit. I just wanted to reiterate that important point at the start of our discussions on the Bill. These measures align with the direction provided by the strategic defence review to allow for a whole-defence approach, to re-energise the relationship with the Strategic Reserve and, as I say, increase our readiness for war or potential conflicts.

Beyond these four main pillars, the Bill contains other important measures that cover such areas as protecting the defence estate from drone activities—again, something that I know has been of particular concern to many noble Lords—providing increased protections for military shipwrecks, and extending cross-border powers for the Ministry of Defence Police.

This Armed Forces Bill makes important and positive changes for the Armed Forces, their families and the wider defence community. I look forward to the detailed scrutiny the Bill will be given in Committee, and the challenge that there will be to some aspects of it, while noting the general support there was in the other place and that there is—as I know from conversations I have had—in this place. Such challenge and scrutiny can only improve the Armed Forces Bill and make it a Bill of which our Armed Forces and defence community can be proud—which is indeed what we all want. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for winding up the debate and noble Members from across the House for their contributions. I am really pleased—as I think the Opposition Chief Whip heard me say—that everyone is in favour of the Bill. I would hate to be answering on a Bill that everyone opposed; I would be in serious trouble answering all their questions, challenges and gaps, so I start by saying that I am so pleased that everyone is in favour of the Bill. Somebody outside the Chamber used the term non-controversial, but I will not use that phrase as it was made outside the Chamber.

That said, noble Members from across the House have made some serious points about how a Bill that they support could be further improved. I accept that and the challenge for the Government to take it forward. As I said in my introductory remarks, we all want the Bill to succeed because we support its aims.

Let me deal with some points. We have had the debate about funding, and I appreciate that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will continue to make their various points about that. I will make the same points back, and that debate will continue.

However, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Minto, raised defence housing. I do not often get irritated—and I am not irritated—but I find it slightly strange that a Government who have committed £9 billion of public money over 10 years to improve housing are being taken to task on it. That is all I will say: the Government’s policy is to improve defence housing with £9 billion over 10 years.

Somebody asked whether it applies to single-person housing. With the defence housing service, we are talking about family accommodation. A separate review is going on for single-person accommodation which will report in due course and then the Government will have to respond. That is a very clear answer on that.

The noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, raised the DIO and its relationship with the defence housing service. I will read out this bit of my brief to make sure I get it completely right: “The responsibilities of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation will continue to be provided as part of the National Armaments Director Group within the MoD alongside the new defence housing service, which will assume responsibility for the provision of family housing and the development of surplus defence land in line with the objective set out in new Section 343E(1) inserted by Clause 3 of the Bill. The new defence housing service will continue to work closely with departmental teams, and this will be covered in the framework document between the department and the defence housing service in the usual way”. That seeks to clarify some of the points that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, made in his introductory remarks, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and other Members made about the relationship between the DIO and the housing service.

On the ECHR and its application continuing, I think the noble Earl, Lord Minto, made the point that an amendment would seek to change the Government’s wording from “may” to “must”, but all Governments usually argue, and this Government will argue, that they often require flexibility in how they implement various laws. That is something that we would seek to continue.

I thank noble Lords for their interesting ideas about funding for the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also raised the issue of defence bonds. The Government are looking at different ways in which we can finance defence in the future and no doubt that discussion and debate will continue.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about the national conversation. That may change. This is a “stop the press” announcement: responsibilities among the ministerial team may change and I may already have lost the national conversation—not because I have not started it yet, I hasten to add. The serious point is that that national conversation is a priority within the department; the ministerial responsibility for it may well change, but it will be taken forward. I think that is something that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will be particularly pleased about, as will we all.

The noble Lord mentioned cadets, which I will come to later, when I also respond to some of the moving remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey.

Clearly, the national conversation is extremely important, not least around how we support homeland defence. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and other noble Lords also made the point about how we ensure that we get and retain public support for the amount we spend on defence. That is crucial to the way forward.

I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for his welcome of the extension of the covenant to national bodies and his general support for that. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, raised visas. I cannot answer all the questions, but I will answer some of them. Again, the Government are committed to scrapping visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served our country for four or more years, and their dependants. The MoD has started work with the Home Office to deliver this manifesto commitment, and that commitment on visa fees remains. I know that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, raised that, as well as the issue with the ECHR, and he heard me address that.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

I hope that the intention to proceed with it will be coupled with a date when it will be done.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is always my intention—rather than to be just aspirational—to try to demand change of the system. The noble and gallant Lord will know from his experience and military service that even a senior rank or senior ministerial rank does not always mean things moving quite as quickly as one would hope. Certainly, this is not an aspiration but a desire to actually bring it about. We will work with other government departments to try to ensure that something happens on that as quickly as possible.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich raised various issues and welcomed the covenant. He heard what I had to say about single-person accommodation and the importance of a whole-society approach. A number of noble Lords mentioned service police and we will come back to some of those issues in Committee.

The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, heard me talk about some of the changes to visas. She mentioned the importance of paternity leave and raised that with me at another meeting outside the Chamber. Of course, we will look at that and see how we can take it forward. I think she mentioned an individual case as well; if she wants to write to me about that, because I do not know the case, I will look into it for her.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich made a really interesting point with respect to not just the Church of England but faith organisations as a whole. The moral dilemma there is between supporting the Armed Forces and appearing to support war versus being a peace-loving faith, which all faiths are. That is a moral dilemma, but sometimes you prevent war by preparing for it. That is the difficulty with respect to that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, made the point about housing; she will have heard what I had to say about that. She made some other points about the need for transition support, learning and training, which were really important.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made a number of very important points, which were linked to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I thought his was a brilliant legal contribution—I actually understood it, which is not always the case—in the way that he laid out some of the issues with respect to the cases that he referred to, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also pointed out. I do not want to say too much, because there are ongoing legal issues with respect to that, but there are certainly discussions taking place about how we take it forward.

Here is the legal advice I have had—and this is for the noble Baroness as well as the noble Lord. The Visiting Forces Act 1952 sets out the legal basis for how jurisdiction for criminal offences is decided between the UK civil authorities and a visiting forces service court martial. This is implemented in practice by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the UK courts as part of the criminal justice system. Following the deeply distressing recent case, officials are working across government to establish the full facts of how this process was enacted in this case.

If needs be, regarding some of the other things said by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I will make sure that we come back in Committee with answers to the questions she raised, when I have had a full legal response to the things she asked. I thought they were really important, and I will bring them forward and share them—obviously, if I bring them up in Committee, people will see that.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for the points he raised about the Strategic Reserve, and the point about data and the digitalisation of the system strikes me as one of those important things where it seems we ought to be able, sometimes, to just get on with them.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Magan, and we will continue the debate around resources. My only point of contention with him is that I really do not think we have “smashed” our special relationship with the United States. There are ups and downs, and sometimes it is difficult, but the UK-US relationship is of immense importance to our country and continues to be so.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for the points he made. He will know that we are working hard to ensure that we do all we can to work properly with respect to historic wrecks. I will take the point about divers and come back to him in Committee about how the Bill impacts on that.

I thank my noble friend Lady Carberry for her remarks and the importance she gave to the reserves, not underplaying the role of the Active Reserve, and of employers being on side. I completely agree with that, and we will continue to take that forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also made the point about paternity leave, and she will have heard what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. The noble Baroness and I will continue to have the debate about 16 and 17 year-olds, the young adults—they are not child soldiers. I see it as a really important part of the contribution that the Armed Forces can make to the development of some of our young people, but that is a debate that we will continue to have. I do not know what the maritime war graves committee is looking at, but I will come back to her on that in Committee.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser. We may not have delivered exactly what she wants with respect to the covenant but, if she looks at Clause 31, she will see that we have moved on the commissioner having responsibility for RFA personnel. She will know, given the continued remarks that she has made over a number of years around the importance of the RFA, that, although not giving her what she wants with respect to the covenant, the Government have moved on the extension of the role of the commissioner to that, which shows that contributions from all sides of the Chamber can actually make a difference to government policy.

I have said what I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. The noble Lord, Lord Morse, made the point about housing which, again, is really important.

My noble friend Lady Dacres made a good contribution. The consistency of delivery around the covenant across the country is really important, and she is quite right to make that point. I would say that one of the successes of the introduction of the covenant has been that it has changed attitudes and culture, which often does not require legislation. I think that the Armed Forces covenant has forced local authorities—and will soon do so for national government, although it has probably changed national government behaviour by its very introduction—to change the way in which people operate and the way people interact with our Armed Forces and veterans. I think it has made a difference there, and I say to my noble friend that that is how we see it taking place across the country.

With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hay, discussions continue on the Troubles Bill and Northern Ireland and the proper place for our veterans and respecting them.

The noble Lord, Lord Bailey, made a hugely moving speech about his own experience and the way in which cadets work. We all support cadets. There are significant sums of money going into cadets, and we wish to expand on that. The noble Lord made an important point about how we attract more volunteers to support that. He will know there are tens of thousands of cadets across the country. This is a point I often make: you see them at events such as Remembrance Sunday but also many others, including Armed Forces Day, which we had recently. The role of cadets in those events, nationwide, was a great tribute to their organisations and a symbol of the sort of society we want in the way in which cadets can bring people together. I thank the noble Lord again for the contribution he made, from his own personal experience, on the way that cadets can help people who may need help and also help those who are simply young people growing up. I think that that is important.

May I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on his work as a graduate of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme?

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. He will know Northern Ireland extremely well, and he will know that there are at least five councils of Northern Ireland that do not implement the covenant. What do you have when your veterans lose out? You end up with a two-tier system where, across the rest of the United Kingdom, the covenant is very much rolled out. There is an opportunity in the Bill to try to address that issue, so it is not the responsibility of a local government to implement the covenant.

This issue has been going on for some time. I could name the councils involved, but, when you have five councils out of 11, you are in a situation where you have almost half of Northern Ireland not implementing the covenant and veterans losing out, when the rest of the United Kingdom and the veterans benefit from the covenant. So I ask the Minister: is there a way, within the Bill, of addressing the issue around Northern Ireland and the covenant?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord explained some of that in his question. There is a particular situation, as he will know, with respect to Northern Ireland and the application of the covenant to all bodies there. As he will know, the duty applying to local authorities does not apply, and that becomes a problem, but we expect the covenant to apply to Northern Ireland through what the UK Government do. It is an ambiguity and it is difficult, but we will always seek to apply the covenant where we can, where it is appropriate, and where it fits the various devolution settlements with respect to that.

The covenant supports the Armed Forces community in Northern Ireland. Borough districts and city councils in Northern Ireland do not generally exercise functions in the policy areas in scope of the covenant legal duty. This does not exclude councils in Northern Ireland from pledging their support for the Armed Forces community by becoming a covenant signatory. I think that is what the noble Lord referred to. Some councils will choose to do so and others will not. That is the situation as it stands.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

The Minister must recognise that if this goes through without any recognition that Northern Ireland is again being treated differently, it really is not good enough. Surely, they are the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the covenant is so important to all those people who have served in Northern Ireland and who live there.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know from my record that the Government support the Armed Forces community in Northern Ireland completely. I went to Armed Forces Day in Northern Ireland last year, a government Minister went to Northern Ireland just a couple of weeks ago to support Armed Forces Day, and I have been asked to an event in Northern Ireland in a few weeks’ time, which I hope to go to.

Support for Northern Ireland’s Armed Forces community with respect to the aims of the covenant are clear. We seek to recognise the reality that is there. Councils can pledge themselves to the covenant if they wish. A number have done so, but some have chosen not to. I reiterate the Government’s support for the Armed Forces community in Northern Ireland.

I turn now to a couple of remarks the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made. On the covenant, as I said, it is the bite of the “due regard” that makes a difference. We saw, when it was introduced by the last Government, that “due regard” has impact as it seeks to bite. Cultural change will cause the councils—as they were then; they are now national bodies—to start to do things that they would not otherwise have done.

It is good that drones are in the Bill. They start to plug a gap. There will be questions about how we deal with that.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie, for their remarks. There are many questions that we will have to come back to.

I finish by saying that I welcome the general support for the Bill. I also welcome the various challenges and questions that have been posed. We will seek to address those and move forward in a constructive way. If there can be improvements and adaptations, and the Government agree with them, we will see whether we can find a way forward.

Bill read a second time.

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 and 5, Schedule 2, Clauses 6 and 7, Schedule 3, Clauses 8 to 31, Schedule 4, Clauses 32 to 36, Schedule 5, Clauses 37 and 38, Schedule 6, Clauses 39 to 46, Schedule 7, Clauses 47 to 56, Title.

Motion agreed.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to support strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, just said. He brought to our attention a most significant failure in how Armed Forces pensions have been paid, calculated and mispaid.

It would be extraordinary to be told—but it appears that we will be told this—that the contractors have no obligation whatever to correct the mistakes that they have made, and that they will not be charged under some legal system to make repayments for the mistakes that they have made. It is also extremely important for those who are obliged to pay back, or are being asked to pay back, that the system they will work under is explained to them rapidly and quickly. Every day that goes by, they do not know what is to happen, and, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, some considerable sums are involved.

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

My Lords, I will just start with quite a profound comment, if your Lordships do not mind. Today we mark 20 years since RAF Nimrod aircraft XV230 was lost during a routine operational flight in Afghanistan. That was the biggest single loss of life of British service personnel since the Falklands War, and I know that the thoughts of all noble Lords will be with the families, friends and colleagues of those we lost two decades ago in service to our country.

On a slightly lighter note, can we just get out of the way one sobering fact? The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is right to point this out, so let us get it out in the open and out of the way. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has been on the road to Damascus, seen the light and changed her mind on a number of issues. I have to say that I have been on the same road but in the opposite direction, and therefore I have come to different conclusions. That is the last time I am going to mention that, because there are a number of such examples as we go through the Bill.

However, the serious point that I wanted to make is to say, first, that in a number of the contributions that have been made, noble Lords have made suggestions, “What about this?” or “What about that?” Obviously, I will reflect on all the various comments that have been made. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about the possibility of a meeting to take further some of the comments she made. I am perfectly happy to do that.

I will also deal, slightly out of order, with what my noble friend Lord Davies said, in a very important contribution, supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and, as I see, by others around the Chamber. It is a very difficult and important issue, because it not only involves who has responsibility for whether it falls within the covenant but involves a lot of different people, organisations and financial calculations one way or the other. I know one of my ministerial colleagues is dealing with it, so I suggest that I organise a meeting to bring together the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, my noble friend Lord Davies and other noble Lords who want to attend, to discuss where we are precisely with this issue so we can take that forward. My noble friend’s contribution was so important and had such a huge number of points, so that is the best way forward for us with respect to that. Whether it is part of the covenant or not, my noble friend made a huge number of other points. So that will have been noted and we will take that forward.

I am very pleased to begin our consideration of the Armed Forces Bill, and I look forward to the contributions, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, with the noble Earl, Lord Minto, but obviously also from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and many others. I am also grateful for the amendments. I know there is general support for the Bill. but I also know that nothing is perfect and that there are always clarifications that need to be made, and there is also the possibility of taking things forward and trying to improve it. That has always been the way that I try to take things forward and I will continue to do so.

I will first deal with the amendments from the noble Baroness. We have sailed together on many warships and I have met the RFA crews, as she will know. I thank her for her contribution and I acknowledge the concerns that she has raised about Royal Fleet Auxiliary personnel. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary, or RFA for short, is a unique asset to defence—we all agree with that—and we continue to invest in it. We work closely across government to ensure that the seafarers who work for the RFA have the employment conditions that reflect the essential nature of their work. As the noble Baroness outlined, these amendments would extend the covenant principles to include the RFA. Public bodies in scope of the statutory covenant duty would need to have due regard to the effects of membership of the RFA in the same way as for members of the Armed Forces.

The Government do not support that extension. The Armed Forces covenant legal duty is specifically designed to address the disadvantage arising from the unique obligations and circumstances of service in the Armed Forces. RFA personnel make an important contribution of support to defence activity, including on operations, as the noble Baroness pointed out, but they are civilian seafarers employed on civilian terms and conditions. For all civilians, participation in or support to military operations does not in itself create the same obligations or unique challenges as membership of the Armed Forces.

Extending the duty on that basis would move it beyond its intended purpose and blur the clear boundary around those whom Parliament designed it to protect. However, in Clause 31, the Bill appropriately recognises—the noble Baroness pointed this out—the distinct position of RFA personnel, which brings them within the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner, providing an independent route for concerns about welfare, working conditions and systemic issues to be investigated. Since this is Committee, I would refer noble Lords to the Bill itself, because Clause 31 also refers to Schedule 4, which lays out in more detail some of the additional general functions that would be required, and it is more extensive in terms of welfare provisions, investigating thematic issues that may arise, promoting the welfare of RFA members, and, very importantly, improving the public’s understanding of the welfare issues that RFA members face. Schedule 4 adds to Clause 31 in a way which I think contributes to maybe answering some of the points that the noble Baroness has put forward in her amendments.

The provision, however, fundamentally does not alter their civilian status or justify extending a covenant duty designed specifically to address disadvantage arising from service in the Armed Forces. This does not, however, mean that the RFA personnel are overlooked. In the spirit of the covenant, organisations who have signed the Armed Forces covenant pledge are encouraged to consider the needs of other groups within the wider Armed Forces community, where individual circumstances meet it. That obviously will include members of the RFA, but that is distinct from extending the legal duty itself, which remains focused on disadvantage arising from service in the Armed Forces. However, the Government remain committed to ensuring that RFA personnel receive appropriate support but do not believe that extending the covenant legal duty is necessary nor consistent with its statutory purpose.

I move to the other amendments in the group, which were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in her comments, and signed by the noble Earl, Lord Minto. These amendments would extend the Armed Forces covenant duty beyond national duties to a much wider range of public bodies, as the noble Baroness pointed out in her comments, including non-departmental public bodies and publicly owned companies. I understand the intention behind these amendments, and we share the objective of ensuring the covenant is properly embedded across public service delivery, but we do not believe that such a broad approach is necessary or indeed proportionate.

The purpose of the duty is to ensure that covenant considerations are reflected in the policies and strategic decisions that shape service delivery. For that reason, the duty is placed on Ministers and the relevant national authorities that determine policy and set the framework within which services are delivered. Non-departmental bodies are therefore not included, as generally their role is to implement government policy rather than to determine it. By placing the duty on those bodies responsible for setting strategic direction, the Bill ensures that covenant considerations are embedded throughout the wider system.

In direct answer to the noble Baroness’s point about HMRC, it would not be covered by the covenant. She also pointed out a couple of organisations that she felt it would be appropriate for the covenant to cover, but it would also bring organisations into scope whose functions have little or no connection with the Armed Forces, such as the Met Office or the Environment Agency. There are bodies you can point at and ask, “Why is that not included?”. But there are also other bodies where you would ask, “Really?”. It is a way of considering all that. It would increase administrative requirements without necessarily delivering a benefit to service personnel, veterans, their families and the bereaved. The Government believe that the targeted approach set out in the Bill strikes the right balance between improving covenant delivery and ensuring obligations are focused where they can have the greatest effect.

I point out, as a reassurance—I am sure people have noticed—that the Bill does provide flexibility for the future. Should evidence emerge that additional bodies ought to be brought within scope, the Secretary of State will have power to do so through secondary legislation, and that is included within the Bill before your Lordships today. That is the Government’s view, and I hope it provides some of the necessary assurances to the Committee. I ask the noble Lords not to press their amendments—with the offer, again, that we can of course continue to discuss these matters.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, which seems to me to be one about fairness and about anomalies in the Bill, and I thank the Minister for his reply. I make no apology for highlighting the unique position of the RFA, which I feel the Minister acknowledged in his reply. He acknowledged that they have a distinct position. They are not just civil servants. They may be civilians, but the Armed Forces covenant extends to reservists, who are civilians until they are deployed as reservists. It is profoundly unfair that the men and women of the RFA who wear a uniform and are deployed alongside our Armed Forces are outside the covenant’s protections, and yet they are included in Clause 31 and Schedule 4 for pay and conditions. As the Minister pointed out, it leads to ambiguity; it cannot be the Government’s intention to create this ambiguity.

I feel my amendments are a modest change, but they represent a statement of intent. It seems to me that Defence Minister after Defence Minister is lining up to want to value the RFA more and to give a statement of intent. The Minister has been offering meetings between now and Report. I hope he will consider the position of the RFA within the Bill and how, together, we might clarify this intent. I look forward to further discussions, and I reserve the right to bring this back on Report if necessary.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness is saying it would be helpful to have a further discussion, of course we can.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

I appreciate that very much. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

I am really confused about what “with due regard” would mean given the Minister’s comment just now that health services must be based on clinical priorities. In the case of a reservist being called up and failing pre-callout checks because of something such as a wisdom tooth for which they have been on a waiting list for a long time, would “due regard” mean they would get bumped up the waiting list so that they were deployable, or not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will know, the “due regard” point has come up ever since the covenant was introduced. The question of what it means has been a debate all the way through the existence of the covenant, but “due regard” has stood the test of time. It means what it says. We do not believe in compelling a dental practice, doctor’s surgery or hospital always to prioritise that particular person in that circumstance over and above everyone else. Although I understand the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment, it would require preference to be given irrespective of the needs of everyone else.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

That is not right. The amendment expressly says that clinical need takes priority and it is only with two patients of equivalent clinical need that service need would affect the waiting time.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The point I am making is that “due regard” is the way that we try to ensure that the point the noble Lord makes is actually delivered. Rather than compel a particular organisation or body to do X, Y or Z, we require it through the guidance—the previous Government did it successfully and we have extended and developed it—to have due regard. When somebody comes forward in that situation, with the extension of the national bodies required to have due regard and the issues which they have to have due regard to, such as health and social care, that due regard will not exist until this Bill is passed into law. That means that there is a significant step forward in ensuring that the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment is realised, through ensuring and requiring that those bodies have due regard in the way that the term been accepted over many years since the existence of the covenant. That is why we think that is the appropriate way forward. We believe this meets the right balance between health bodies having due regard for the sacrifices of service life and removing disadvantage arising from service where appropriate.

As I said to the noble Lord, although I support the intention behind his amendment, I do not believe that a statutory obligation on health bodies is the right mechanism for delivering the outcome. What is outlined in the Bill about the extension of the covenant to the new specified persons, which include a health body, and the specific matters, which include health and social care, and requiring all of them to have due regard, is the appropriate way forward. With that, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his remarks. I understand the case he is making and standing behind. I am incredibly grateful for the contributions from my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. I think our argument has been more persuasive. If we are meant to be moving to a war footing and war readiness, I think this, “It would be nice if this happens”, with due regard is wrong. That is a cop-out from the Ministry of Defence. It sounds like it is just trying to take up a bit of slack because it does not want to overburden the NHS even more. If we are meant to be moving to a war footing and war readiness, this is not going to cut it and will come unstuck really quickly. This has been a useful debate to open up some more questions and move the discussion on, but I feel like we might return to this on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I feel like sitting down after that, rather than carrying on. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for his views on the Bill. I acknowledge his concerns about ensuring that the expanded covenant duty is properly monitored, understood and supported in practice.

On Amendments 12 and 13, I recognise the noble Lord’s intention to ensure proper scrutiny, but the covenant already has a clear oversight framework. The Secretary of State is legally required to lay an annual Armed Forces covenant report before Parliament, and that will include the areas brought into scope by the extended duty. I hope that is of some reassurance. It will be brought before Parliament, and Members of both Houses will then be able to scrutinise that and ask questions, should they choose to do so. Officials are working to enhance the annual report, strengthening its role as a tool for assessing progress and for holding the Government and local bodies to account.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also alluded to, about the scope of the covenant and Northern Ireland, the noble Lord will know that page 3 lists what parts of the extended duties will apply in different parts of the United Kingdom. That varies not only between England and Wales and Scotland; there are differences between England and Wales and Northern Ireland. So that is obviously part of that. New Section 343AZB(2)(d) refers to

“the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland acting jointly, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department”.

That is part of the definition of a “national authority”. So in the reporting that will have to take place, part of that is included.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness will also know that the territorial extent at the end makes it clear that some of the provisions apply in Northern Ireland. So, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, it certainly tries to make clear what particular parts of the covenant are relevant, given the devolved arrangements within the UK, not only in England and Wales but in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

Will the Minister accept that it is always good to have it in the legislation, but that is not always reflected in what actually takes place on the ground? That is what I am trying to ensure.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is reflected in the legislation. The Bill says specifically what parts of the covenant apply—if we take Northern Ireland as an example, rather than Scotland or wherever. The Bill lays out the territorial extent and what parts of the extended duties apply in Northern Ireland. I am also saying, in answer to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Morse, that there is a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to give an annual report outlining how the covenant has operated. Officials are working to understand how the new duties will be reflected in that annual report. I hope that offers some reassurance to the noble Lord that it is not just a case of passing it and then forgetting about it. Parliament will be informed about it and then people will be able to understand and decide how well they feel the covenant has been implemented in those areas for which different national bodies within the different parts of the UK are responsible.

Sitting alongside that is independent challenge from service charities and families federations, as well as wider parliamentary scrutiny. That provides an established framework for reviewing the operation and effectiveness of the duty in practice, so I do not consider that either a further statutory reporting duty or a separate independent review is necessary. I hope that what I have said is some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Morse.

Amendments 14 and 15 both concern the impact of the expanded duty on local authorities, including in relation to financial costs. I understand that concern, but a new burdens assessment is being undertaken and will be finalised before the duty takes effect. We consulted widely with local authorities to inform our assessment of any potential administrative and financial impacts. The duty is one of due regard and does not require local authorities to provide specific services or incur particular expenditure. We expect additional costs for local authorities to be limited, as many already have established processes in place to comply with the existing covenant duty. Local authorities will also be supported through additional guidance, training and other resources. I take this opportunity to congratulate all the national bodies, but in this instance local authorities, on the work they have done, are doing and will do to implement the various duties that the covenant outlines. As I say, I hope that I have reassured the Committee and the noble Lord, and that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Morse (CB)]

I thank the Minister very much for that, but does he think it likely that local authorities are going to come forward? Has he had any local authorities coming forward and saying, “No thanks, we can’t afford to do that”, or has he just not had that response? Is he saying he has had nothing but positive responses?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I can honestly say that local authorities coming to me, and the various responsible bodies, have all been positive and have all looked at how they may do their utmost to implement the covenant within their responsibilities. Of course, they recognise that that brings certain demands upon them, but they have been positive about it, accepting their responsibility, and I think it is a great tribute to them and to the local councillors involved. I think it has been a very positive response.

[Lord Morse (CB)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

which I take it would mean single living accommodation, the amendments brought forward in this group seem to be describing only service family accommodation. Although, as I have suggested, a lot of the complaints have been about service family accommodation and the nature of the estate, surely single living accommodation should also be brought within the purview of such amendments.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Shall we leave the point about single living accommodation, since, as the noble Baroness pointed out, we will have a discussion around family and single living accommodation in the next group? Without ignoring the noble Baroness, we will come on to her particular questions around that in the next group and answer some of her points on that more directly then, if that is satisfactory to her.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, as always, for the considered and thoughtful way in which she introduced her amendments. Before I get into my formal remarks, and without getting into a game of semantics on introducing a satisfaction criterion in the functions, on page 7 of the Bill, under functions of the Defence Housing Service, new Section 343(1)(d)(ii) talks about the

“continued wellbeing of those communities”

as being an important function of the DHS. I would have thought that satisfaction would be an important part of that. I do not disagree with the noble Baroness, and I will come to this in my formal remarks, but I thought it was important to say that my reading of the functions is that that is perhaps one of the ways in which the Government have set out within the Bill a way of dealing with the satisfaction point.

Beginning with Amendment 16, I first make it clear that the defence housing service—the DHS—will have a service ethos at its heart. We have set up a new customer service committee with representatives from all three forces’ families as members. The DHS will have service family representatives on its independent board.

We are already making rapid improvements. We have delivered our consumer charter commitments to improve our families’ experiences, which includes seeing over 1,250 military homes improved in the last financial year, with more to be upgraded this year. We have modernised outdated policies, giving families greater freedoms to improve their homes, streamlining processes for those who wish to run businesses from home and removing the need for permission to have a pet. We have delivered named housing officers, more photos and floorplans, and a new online repairs service. Promises made to families are now being delivered.

We are seeing results, specifically with respect to satisfaction. Satisfaction with defence homes has risen to 52%, which is the highest satisfaction rate since 2021. Satisfaction with repairs has increased steadily from a low of 23% in January 2023 up to 66% by the end of 2025. As of August 2026, there were 369 active complaints, compared with a high of 4,200 in November 2023. We can never say that satisfaction is done, but we hope that there is some recognition of the improvements being made.

On Amendment 19, the Bill already provides for a robust framework agreement in place, under which the DHS will report directly to Ministers, a point that the noble Baroness was keen to emphasise. I repeat that the DHS will remain accountable to Ministers through its strategic oversight, with increased reporting to Parliament for the performance of the housing services as set out in the Bill and oversight by a non-executive board. The DHS will continue working closely with departmental teams, and this will be covered in the framework document with the MoD in the usual way. The DHS will be operationally independent within the scope of the framework document and the legal powers set out in the Bill.

Our existing plans already achieve the effect of Amendment 20. Work is already under way to establish an independent board and enable preparatory activity ahead of full DHS mobilisation on 1 April 2027. The board will comprise the chief executive, an appointed chair and at least six other members, with representation from the departmental infrastructure functional owner and director-general infrastructure expected at meetings. Strong governance and family representation are already built into the DHS structure, and four forums aligned to the “families first” pillar of the defence housing strategy and reporting directly to the DHS board and executive committee are already established.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I thank the Minister so much for allowing my intervention. I support the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, because it is about well-being and retention. From what the Minister has just said about how the new board is being set up, it does not sound to me that it will include those with lived experience, including those who have recently lived, or currently live, in forces family accommodation. Having that lived experience would aid retention, because if a family is not happy, the member of the Armed Forces will not stay in their role.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister and the other speakers, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, with whom I have worked for many years on this; I am very grateful for her support. I am also grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has shown some interest in this. I think the point raised about whistleblowing and making sure it is part of this package as well becomes vital. As we discussed yesterday on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, it is absolutely key to changing the culture, which is what one wants in this sort of situation. I am also very grateful to the Minister for the detail he has gone into.

I should have made it clearer that the service stalking protection notices that my amendment seeks to create are different from the interim stalking orders, not least because they would be a tool that can be used by a police officer without having to go to a court. It is like the first step on the ladder. Going to court takes time and you have to assemble a case for it to be heard, whether by a magistrate or in another court. Therefore, it is a much more serious document, with more serious implications.

The point about these notices is that they are a tool to make the stalker aware very quickly that there are now certain rules they must follow and that things will escalate quickly if they disobey them. I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, because I cannot remember what year they were added, but they were added because there was this lacuna between identifying a stalker and being able to get some protection for the victim.

On the other points, the Minister very kindly offered in his letter to meet me and anyone else interested, including the charities I have been working with. I think the best thing to do would be to have them with us at that meeting, because they have some very specific concerns about detail that I could not possibly go into in the Chamber at this particular time of night.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister. I am very grateful to him for that. On that basis, depending on the meeting, I may bring an amendment back on Report, but for now I withdraw Amendment 21.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am very grateful to all the speakers. To address the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I think he is looking at that clause the wrong way round. He asked about the definition of actual bodily harm, where the alleged conduct “amounts to” or “is alleged to amount to”. I think one is an incident that has been witnessed by someone who is not the victim, and the other may be where it has not and therefore it is a “he said/she said” situation. That is my understanding of why the wording is as it is. I hope that explanation helps him.

I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Smith. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, made an important point about the chain of command, and I do not underestimate that at all.

That takes me to my response to the Minister. I am glad that there is a review, and I am sure there are many other issues as well as the ones that I have raised. However, the message that I have been picking up from the organisations and individuals I have been talking to is that in 2026 it may not be completely appropriate in some of these justice issues for the old-style chain of command to remain with the commander. If the review is going to be looking at that, I will be content not to do anything at the next stage, and ditto with the secondary legislation. If I am unhappy with the secondary legislation, I may return to the next Armed Forces Bill after this one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford is, unfortunately, unable to be in his place tonight, so I am speaking on his Amendment 36.

In October 2006, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford moved an amendment to the Armed Forces Bill, with the support of Air Marshal Lord Garden to confine sentencing in court martials to the presiding judge advocate alone, following consultation with the members of the panel. He said: “The area of sentencing for criminal offences is difficult and complex. Sentencing is an exercise for which the members of the panel have no training whatever. They do not attend sentencing conferences or have the training on sentencing that the most junior assistant recorder in this country receives, let alone any further or higher training for dealing with serious offences”.

The 2006 Act was a major reform of the system but did not include this particular amendment. It did, however, abolish the pre-existing review system whereby the Judge Advocate-General reviewed the conviction and sentence before they became final, a process which historically had operated as a check on the sentence passed. The 2006 Act introduced a service supervision and punishment order under Section 173, which imposes a quite concrete restriction on a serving soldier’s movements.

A service community order employs the community order requirements contained in the civilian sentencing legislation, adapted for service courts. The court martial can impose one or more requirements on the convicted serviceman as part of such an order. However, the SCO is principally a sentence for someone who is being dismissed from the service, and it follows him into civilian life. The recent Sentencing Act 2026 brought in the possibility of new restrictions to the SCO, the most important of which is the imposition of a restriction zone to prevent an offender from entering a particular area with, for example, the intention of assaulting or harassing a victim. Other restrictions may prevent him drinking in certain pubs or attending public events or even impose restrictions on driving.

There is, therefore, a whole army of sentencing disposals for those who are convicted. Professional judges are trained to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of imposing particular restrictions on the individual who stands before them. This requires experience and judgment. The court martial panel consists of a president and members of warrant officer rank and above who are drafted in for a particular case. The president is usually an officer for whom the position is a final posting, but the members may never have been in any sort of court before. Compare that with a magistrates’ court. The sentencing powers of a magistrates’ court are still restricted to 12 months’ imprisonment on a single charge, even though the magistrates will individually have undergone considerable periods of training. The court martial panel, without any training, is unrestricted.

Further, there is no longer a review by a professional judge of the sentence they choose to pass. Certainly, the judge advocate at the hearing can advise the panel and has a casting vote in the event of equality of voting by the members, but he can be outvoted altogether and his advice ignored.

In 2014, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford gave evidence before a departmental review in Washington as part of an inquiry which led to widespread reforms of the military justice system in the United States, the equivalent of our 2006 Act. These reforms were intended to transform military justice from a disciplinary system operating under the chain of command to something increasingly resembling an independent criminal court operating within US Armed Forces. In its report, the 2015 Military Justice Review Group also pointed out, as my noble friend had urged, that military judges had greater experience and expertise in sentencing than randomly selected panel members. It was concerned about sentencing disparity. The existing system gave the panel very broad discretion and relatively little guidance. From a constitutional point of view, it was concerned that there was the perception of command influence over sentencing and military command culture could influence punishment. It is perhaps possible to detect such a culture in the public utterances of a certain Mr Hegseth.

In its Military Justice Act 2016, Congress compromised on the issue. Judge-alone sentencing became the norm, but as a concession to tradition, a convicted person was entitled to opt for sentencing just by the panel alone. During the four years that followed that Act, it was observed that defendants chose judge-alone sentencing in 96% of the cases. As a result, the Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military, established in 2021 in the aftermath of intense congressional debate over sexual assault in the armed forces, was concerned in sexual offences cases that a service court martial panel would almost inevitably be male dominated, as in the case of Captain Jacob Wulfson from Lakenheath, that the noble Lord and I both referred to at Second Reading.

The commission recommended judge-alone sentencing in all non-capital general and special courts martial, subject to the establishment of sentencing parameters and mandatory restitution, akin to our own Sentencing Council. We have always led the USA in the reform of military justice, and it galls me that in this instance, it has taken the right and proper lead that sentencing is a matter for professionals and not for one-day amateurs.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

--- 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.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

38: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
“Service of notices by email(1) RFA 1996 is amended as follows.(2) In section 32 (call out of persons who have entered into special arrangements)—(a) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) A notice under this section may also be served on a person by email by sending it to—(a) the last known email address used by that person as a means for communicating with them, or(b) if there is no such address, 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,and such a notice is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been received on the day following the day on which the email is sent.”;(b) in subsection (7) after “subsection (6)” insert “or (6A)”.(3) In section 43 (call out of special members)—(a) after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) A notice under this section may also be served on a person by email by sending it to—(a) the last known email address used by that person as a means for communicating with them, or(b) if there is no such address, 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,and such a notice is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been received on the day following the day on which the email is sent.”;(b) in subsection (8) after “subsection (7)” insert “or (7A)”.(4) In section 58 (call out of members of a reserve force on authority of call-out order)—(a) after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) A notice under this section may also be served on a person by email by sending it to—(a) the last known email address used by that person as a means for communicating with them, or(b) if there is no such address, 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,and such a notice is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been received on the day following the day on which the email is sent.”;(b) in subsection (8) after “subsection (7)” insert “or (7A)”.(5) In section 70 (recall of persons on authority of recall order)—(a) after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) A notice under this section may also be served on a person by email by sending it to—(a) the last known email address used by that person as a means for communicating with them, or(b) if there is no such address, 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,and such a notice is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been received on the day following the day on which the email is sent.”; (b) in subsection (8) after “subsection (7)” insert “or (7A)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause enables certain notices given under the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to be sent to persons by email in addition to the current provisions of the Act enabling service by post.

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

My Lords, government Amendments 38 and 39 in my name are needed to make improvements to the Bill.

Amendment 38 makes a simple but important modernising change. It will allow formal call-out and recall notices for reservists to be sent electronically, in addition to the existing postal route, ensuring that our legislation reflects the way people communicate today. The existing postal system will remain available where needed.

When time matters most, electronic communication can provide faster delivery, greater assurance that notices have been received, and a more responsive process for communicating with reservists.

This is not simply an administrative improvement. The strategic defence review emphasised the importance of national resilience, preparedness and the role of our strategic reserves. If we are to strengthen readiness across defence, we must also ensure that the systems underpinning mobilisation are agile and fit for purpose.

In a crisis or national emergency, speed of communication can be critical. This amendment helps ensure that we can reach reservists more effectively, supporting a force that is ready to respond when the nation requires it.

It is a practical and proportionate measure that forms part of our wider effort to update our reserves legislation. It retains existing safeguards, modernises an outdated process and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to building a more resilient, prepared and responsive Reserve Force for the future.

Finally, Amendment 39 is needed to make a drafting correction. I beg to move.

[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.

[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.

Amendment 38 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

39: Schedule 5, page 129, line 28, leave out “fourth” and insert “third”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting correction.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

Were the devolved nations assured of a seat on the national board?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Again, those are the sorts of things that will be sorted out in the regulations to which I referred. It is laid out in primary legislation that we will be able to ensure that the regions and nations of the country are represented and have the various functions the noble Baroness would want.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this balanced but brief debate. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s position. As with the previous group, I ask: are the number of reserves going up? Not really; we have stopped the bleed, so we have stabilised things, but the numbers are going down. If we keep doing the same thing we will get the same results. That is why what I am suggesting is a big change: it is dramatic, because it is time to do things dramatically differently to get out Reserve Forces where they need to be. For now, I withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we do not accept any of the amendments before us as drafted. Am I going to speak to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the rest of the Committee about what we may do to take on board some of the comments that have been made around Clause 38? Of course we will have discussions about it and of course we will see whether there are changes or improvements that could be made that are acceptable to the Government and which seek to address some of the problems that the noble Lord and others have laid out. That is the commitment that I have always made.

I cannot promise what the outcome will be. This is Committee; it is not a full-on Report stage and it is not Second Reading or Third Reading. Committee is about challenging the Government on what they are doing and the Government responding by saying that they will consider how they may take things forward. Just to set the framework, this does not alter the fact that the Government believe that there should be a national strategic body and regional councils. I will say a little bit more about that as I carry on with my remarks, but do I believe that points are being made that are important for the Government to consider? Yes, I do. I cannot satisfy everybody’s demands that Clause 38 should not stand part of the Bill—that has been referred to in respect of Amendments 46, 47 and 49—but we will address all that.

I have an important comment to make to the noble Lord, Earl Howe, for the Committee to recognise. I do not see this as a debate between people who are young, thrusting and understand today’s society and what the noble Earl said—that he should not be seen as an old-fashioned reactionary. Of course he is not seen that way. He and his wife, who I think he said was the lord-lieutenant in Buckinghamshire, are doing great service and are important contributors to the fabric of our country. This is not a debate between those who are modern and those who are old-fashioned. This is a discussion between people who have at their hearts the understanding that lords-lieutenant, reserves and cadets all make a massively important contribution to our country. The discussion between us is about the most effective way of doing that.

I go back to the point that I made before: the Government’s view is that by establishing of a body that allows a strategic framework to be set and that deals with and responds to some of the criticisms that were made by the various reviews to which I referred earlier, we can establish an overall framework within which those regional councils can operate. The regional councils will be a matter for discussion, but they will retain local knowledge, local experience, local expertise, the local connection, the reserves, the cadets—all those points made by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, for which I thank him, as well as those made by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Craig. Of course they are vital to our country. Nobody is seeking to abolish them. The debate between us is how we make things more effective. The Government’s view is that you have the overall strategic framework within which localism operates.

Again, there is disagreement here. It think that is perfectly compatible with the overall, overarching way in which the Government are seeking to devolve power within an overall strategic framework that allows people to make their own decisions and take their own steps forward. That is why the Bill—the primary legislation—requires that regional councils are not abolished but maintained and protected. What those regional councils should be, how they should be set up and on what area they should be based will be a matter for discussion. It will be a matter on which we will try to reach a consensus.

It goes on, on page 137, to list all the various regulations which I referred to earlier. The view of some in the Committee is that those regulations—membership of the national body and all the other things to which I have referred—should be in primary legislation. The Government’s view is that it should be done in secondary legislation. The commitment I have made to the Committee is that those regulations, which are already drafted, can be shared so that people can seek to understand whether some of the concerns—not all of them—they have about membership, et cetera, are addressed by them. It may be that they are not, but the Government are not going to go back. The draft regulations will not say we accept that Clause 38 should be abolished, but they may say we think the area should be this, the membership should be that, and this is the way forward for us. Giving draft regulations in good time to your Lordships’ House will enable a discussion to be had on Report which can take that forward and people will make their own mind up as to whether that is appropriate.

From the Government’s perspective, therefore, Amendments 46, 47 and 49 are not necessary, because the Government are seeking to deliver some of what those amendments are asking for in a different way. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, in a very interesting, logical and emotional way, put forward the case for the regional chairs and for many of the established ways of working to continue, supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and many others. The debate between us will not be about how we reach consensus, because there is a disagreement, but I have been asked whether, if Clause 38 and Schedule 6 are to remain part of the Bill, there is something we can do which may satisfy some of the concerns that your Lordships have expressed in a way which means that some of the old-fashioned reactionaries among us, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned, can at least address some of the very important points, which are not old-fashioned or reactionary but are important considerations which any Government should make when they seek to make a significant change, to ensure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is the commitment I make to your Lordships’ Committee and, with that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, not to press his amendments.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of these amendments. I thank the Minister for his response and for offering to meet and discuss these matters, to which of course I am open. I say to him that the way the Bill is drafted, there are to be regional councils but there are no members beneath them supporting them and they have no representation at national board level, so they are suspended in mid-air and it seems to me rather pointless. We are in Committee, so I reserve the right to return to this matter on Report, but for this evening I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[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—

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

I suggest, in answer to that point from the Minister, that what it does is call into question their independence from their MoD masters.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That might be a matter for us to consider in the conversation that we have. I do not want to go on for too long, but I understand many of the comments that different people have made this evening; I agree with some of them to a larger or lesser extent. I have never thought, generally speaking, that, in certain circumstances, unpaid work is the way forward. This is one of those situations, in respect of the board: I do not think it undermines the voluntary ethos as a whole because, here, it is related to board membership. In that circumstance, it is perfectly reasonable, given the new board that we wish to set up, that the position should be remunerated, although I accept the point that, in the broader establishment of lords-lieutenant and others across the wider—

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

The Minister has said that he does not believe that having paid non-executive directors will lessen their commitment. That is not the question, though. Surely the question is: does having unpaid representatives lessen their commitment? It does not. So why do we want to change it?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is the difference. I understand the whole point about the voluntary ethos generally across the reserves and cadet associations; I absolutely accept that. I am saying, with respect to the board members, that, where you are creating a national board that wants to take on certain statutory functions, that position should be remunerated. That is the difference between us. In the end, personally, I think that that is not inconsistent with the belief that you can have a voluntary ethos.

Look—we have voluntary organisations all over the country that display a voluntary ethos of which we are all proud. At the top of those organisations are people, including board members, who are remunerated. We would not expect them to be able to do that job of work without that remuneration. That is the principle and the point that I am making.

We are committed to equality of opportunity and to breaking down barriers that prevent people contributing to public life, so we want public appointments to be open to all those who have the skills, experience and commitment, not only to those with the financial means to do so without compensation. The Government’s objective is to attract the best candidates from the widest possible range of backgrounds, and retaining the option to remunerate supports that aim. I hope that explains the Government’s position while accepting, again, that many noble Lords will disagree with it. That is my point about payments for the strategic oversight board while respecting the voluntary ethos more widely within the reserves and cadets associations.

--- 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.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I wonder if I could ask a brief question, because it is relevant to my response to the Minister’s contribution. Is there currently an agreement between the UK and the USA, as is described in the Visiting Forces Act and referred to elsewhere? Other countries have it. Is there already such an agreement about protocols for the sort of case we have been discussing this evening, along with other details that are not relevant? I will leave my question at that.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am concerned about misinforming your Lordships on legal matters. When I take legal advice, I will write as to the correct answer to that. I will copy in other Members of your Lordships’ House and place a copy in the Library.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I understand if the Minister will want to write in answer to this question as well. He referred to the National Police Chiefs’ Council considering further formal guidance and writing to forces. What will that be based on? What is the legal basis of this? Where is it coming from? Surely, it is a matter for Parliament and not just for the police chiefs to work out the way forward. Where is the framework coming from?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am not sure if I totally understand what the noble Baroness means. I thought it was a pretty important step that the National Police Chiefs’ Council was taking in looking at whether the current guidance was appropriate or further guidance was needed to ensure that some of the issues that have arisen and some of the concerns that have been rightly expressed were avoided in the future. That is the normal practice of the National Police Chiefs’ Council on a whole range of very difficult issues. It reflects on the law and the guidance with respect to the law when considering whether any of its guidance needs to be changed or adapted. That is my understanding of the guidance to be issued to the various police forces: it is to ensure that questions of jurisdiction are properly answered within the context of the law as it stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. As he rightly says, the technology and its increased availability to many more people is the reason why the broader changes that the Government are seeking to make through the Bill are so timely and needed.

On my Amendment 55A, I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to investigate the position in detail before Report. I understand why, before that investigation takes place, he does not want to say any more about it now, but I reiterate my offer to speak to him further if I can be of assistance or put him in touch with those who have conducted the research that led me to table this amendment. If, as he mentioned at the end, his department and DCMS are going to update their guidance documents in the light of it, that will be necessary so that there can be absolute legal certainty for those who wish to dive and enjoy the investigations and the sport that they do, but also for those, including divers, who care deeply about the sanctity of these sites and their heritage significance.

With gratitude, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?”

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, very briefly, the Minister answering my question in such a positive way is very encouraging. It certainly made my day—or perhaps I should say it has made my night. I also thank the noble Baronesses and the two noble Lords who spoke in favour of my amendment, which I thoroughly accept as very supportive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for introducing her amendments, and acknowledge the points she has made. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his contribution to the debate. I say to him that clearly—not only in the context of this Bill but also within a whole range of other Bills, debates and topics—many of the cases that he mentions will be raised. There will be a more extensive debate on a whole range of those issues, and we need them to be discussed.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the Council of Europe, the debate about the ECHR goes on continuously. Whether anyone has raised the specifics of this amendment with it, I am simply unaware.

The ECHR provides for legally enforceable rights within the jurisdiction of the state. In some circumstances, that jurisdiction can extend beyond the territory of the state—namely, extraterritorial jurisdiction. Extraterritorial jurisdiction does not apply uniformly in relation to the various ECHR obligations, and the position has evolved over time through the case law of the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I understand the concerns about how extraterritorial jurisdiction of the ECHR has been interpreted, but I want to make this very important point, which gets to the heart of why this amendment should not be made. Amending the Human Rights Act directly does not change the UK’s international law obligations under the ECHR, to which this Government wish to adhere.

For instance, new Section 7A seeks to restrict the territorial extent of the Human Rights Act in relation to overseas operations. However, Article 13 of the ECHR requires the UK to provide an effective domestic remedy for anyone with an arguable claim that their convention rights have been violated. In other words, if the extraterritorial application of the Human Rights Act is removed, the UK will still need to ensure that there is a domestic remedy in respect of arguable ECHR breaches occurring in an overseas operation. Additionally, the existence of a domestic remedy separate from that provided for by the Human Rights Act would not prevent the European Court of Human Rights hearing a case where an applicant had exhausted that domestic remedy.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. He is right up to a point, in the sense that it is true that, provided we remain a member of the European convention, there is potentially a remedy if there is considered to be a breach of the convention right, at Strasbourg. But we chose, in 1996, to incorporate the convention in our domestic law. What this amendment is doing—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, may correct me if I am wrong—is amending our domestic law to restrict the remedy. Of course, ultimately, it might be possible to go to Strasbourg to pursue a remedy, but what this is concerned with doing is limiting the possibility of anybody relying on a statute passed by this Government—that is, the Human Rights Act—and seeking a remedy in our courts relying on that.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand the point, very well made, by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—but that is the debate we are having. The argument the Government put forward is that the disapplication of the Human Rights Act does not prevent the application of the ECHR. That is the point that is being made, and that is the point of difference between us.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

May I simply say this one thing? Until we had the Human Rights Act, we were a member of the European convention. We did not initially even have the right to go to Strasbourg. We then allowed those who wanted to bring an action to go to the Strasbourg court, but it was completely unnecessary. It was thought by the then Government—the Labour Government in fact—to incorporate the convention. So, this is considerably diluting the right, and it is an important difference. The Government may say that we need this right incorporated into our law in the United Kingdom, and that is a different point. If the Minister is simply saying yes, we are a member of the convention, and there is always a right to go to Strasbourg, then I agree with that. But that is not quite what the amendment is focusing on.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Government would make both points; I am just speaking to the amendment. If I was not responding to the amendment but putting the whole point around the Human Rights Act and the ECHR, I would say that the Government are proud to have the Human Rights Act, which a Labour Government passed, and the consequent ability to go to the ECHR. However, I am speaking to the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has moved. In doing so, we see that the disapplication of the Human Rights Act does not work as the noble Baroness wants because you can still go to the ECHR. That is the point that I am making.

For example, before derogating, an assessment must be made of whether the circumstances amount to a

“war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation”;

whether derogation is necessary; which convention obligations require limitation, noting that some rights are absolute and cannot be departed from; and whether any measures adopted are

“strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”.

These assessments are inherently context specific. By seeking to make derogation mandatory whenever an overseas operation is deemed significant, the amendment risks replacing the individualised assessment that is required by Article 15 with a blanket statutory presumption of derogation. On the basis of this, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I promise the Minister that this is the last intervention that I will make. It is to deal with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Her understanding was that the Government cannot derogate. I understand the Minister’s answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that we want to consider the position and whether it is appropriate. However, from what I understand from the Minister, it is accepted that the Government have the right to derogate but they do not want it to be mandatory for it to be exercised in overseas operations because it will be context specific. Is that the position?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

In all the time that I have been in this House, that is the first time that I have not understood what the noble Lord means. I have said what I have said and I will leave it there.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I will give it one more go; it is probably my lack of clarity. Do the Government have the right to derogate at all? That was the issue that was being raised; maybe I have misunderstood it. The Minister’s understandable answer is that the Government have the right to derogate but do not feel that this ought to be automatic because they need to consider the circumstances to decide whether it is appropriate to derogate.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her brevity at this late hour when many of us want to be tucked up in bed. It was worth staying up to hear the analysis of the noble Earl, Lord Minto. That was particularly helpful regarding the different jurisdictions around these islands, especially the potential for amending laws in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am immensely grateful to the Minister for all his hard work on this Bill and for giving the commitment that he has to your Lordships’ House to look at this in further detail. My understanding is that the Service Protection Authority has given legal advice that it does not believe that service police fall under the definition of emergency workers. That is all part of the conversation to go on as this Bill progresses towards Report. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- 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.

--- 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.