Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting)

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Francois]

On the issue of recruitment and retention, the Committee will recall from an earlier debate that I produced a report called “Stick or Twist?” for a previous Prime Minister, which was submitted in February 2020, just one month before the nation went into lockdown. The essence of that report, which contained multiple recommendations—all but one were eventually adopted by the Ministry of Defence, to varying degrees—was that there are a variety of reasons why people twist, or leave HM armed forces. However, the overwhelming reason, which has been consistent for a number of years, is the overall effect of service life on family life. People can be picked up for short-term deployment, sometimes overseas, and not see their partners and children as often as they would like. Sometimes, the cumulative effect of that—the pressure—becomes too much.

For the record, there are a number of other factors, and it is often a decision in the round—normally, it is a combination of factors that persuades someone eventually to leave—but sometimes there is one straw that breaks the camel’s back. I gave the example in a previous debate of someone who had to miss his best friend’s wedding because he was trawled to the British Army Training Unit Suffield as a watchkeeper. He was a rising cavalry officer, who spent nights sitting in a tent with a laptop or reading a novel, and he came back and basically told the Army to stuff it. That was a very poor leadership decision by somebody. Other factors could include pay, childcare and the expense and difficulty of obtaining it, housing—we have debated that previously at some length—and spousal employment, as people sometimes leave because of the effect on their partner’s career rather than on their own.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the different pressures that cause people to leave. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that in the year to September 2025, there was 1,000 more in inflow to the regular forces than in outflow? That year included the first two quarters in a row where inflow has exceeded outflow since 2021.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me; I notice that he said “into the armed forces”, not “into the Army”. I will come on to why that is the case in a minute. As he says, quarter by quarter, more people are joining the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force than are leaving, and the Opposition welcome that. But the latest annual statistics show that more people are still leaving the Army than are joining, which raises the obvious question: why the dichotomy? Why is there still net outflow from the Army when there is welcome inflow to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force?

I believe that one of the reasons for that dichotomy is lawfare, and the Government’s Northern Ireland troubles Bill. It is true that some RAF members, principally at RAF Aldergrove, served in Northern Ireland during the troubles, as did some Royal Navy members. Certainly, many members of the Royal Marines served there during Operation Banner, including the Minister, to whom I pay tribute for his service. But it was primarily a job for the Army, who often ended up as piggy in the middle between two warring communities. That was a difficult task. Therefore, to put it mildly, it is a great shame that the Government are still seeking to push that benighted Bill, the effect of which would be to open veterans up to lawfare. That is why a number of them are leaving the service, particularly in the special forces community.

I know that the Minister has strong historical links with that community. To prove my point, a letter was recently published by the Special Air Service Regimental Association, the Special Boat Service Association and the association for what is now the Special Reconnaissance Regiment—that grew out of 14 Intelligence Company, which served in Northern Ireland. That letter described the situation as a “national disgrace”. We are still world class in the area of special forces, but if we allow this legislation to progress, those people will be dragged back into the dock via inquest and civil prosecutions. Fewer people will join and more will leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Reed]

I will speak in support of new clauses 13 and 15. My right hon. Friend has laid out quite a scary case study of what happens when international legal frameworks are used to affect our service personnel.

New clause 13 deserves support because it reflects a clear and honest understanding of the legal position. While our long-term view is that the United Kingdom should not remain bound by the European convention on human rights, the reality is that the convention still applies today. Until that changes, the Government have a duty to use every lawful tool available to protect our armed forces, safeguard the national interest and uphold the integrity of operations overseas. The new clause would do that by requiring Ministers to consider derogation when significant overseas operations make it appropriate. This is not an acceptance of the status quo; it is a recognition of the conditions in which decisions are currently made.

Our forces operate in dangerous, fast-moving and legally complex environments. They should not be constrained by frameworks designed for peacetime while Ministers fail to even consider whether the convention’s emergency provisions should be engaged when circumstances clearly demand it. Failing to do so is not leadership; it is a refusal to confront responsibility. A Government committed to the rule of law should also be committed to using the law as it is intended. Where a significant overseas operation is under way, the Secretary of State should be required to address the straightforward question: is derogation appropriate in these circumstances? That is a responsible approach.

I raise this point because it has happened in recent history. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Government at the time derogated from article 5 of the ECHR, enacting part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which authorised the indefinite detention of foreign national terrorism suspects.

[Luke Akehurst]

Given that the hon. Member is outlining cases where a previous Government—in 2001, if I am right, that was a Labour Government—derogated from ECHR articles without being required to in a piece of legislation such as this, why would he not expect any future Government to be equally rational in making choices about whether to derogate? We have the example of our great allies in Ukraine, who remain signatories of the ECHR but have taken the appropriate derogations to deal with their wartime emergency. They are fighting an enemy that withdrew from the ECHR in 2022, and I am getting a hint that, morally, the hon. Gentleman is on the side of the line of the country that withdrew from the ECHR, rather than the one that is continuing under it with appropriate derogations.

[David Reed]

I am not sure that I welcome that intervention. To say that I am aligned with the people who—

[Luke Akehurst]

indicated dissent.

[David Reed]

That is exactly what the hon. Member just said. I will go back in Hansard to check what he just said.

[David Reed]

I have spent my entire adult life serving my country, and I view being in this House as an extension of that service. For the hon. Member for North Durham even to hint that I am aligned in that way is absolutely atrocious, and I hope he will withdraw his remark.

[Luke Akehurst]

I am happy to clarify that I had no intention of hinting that the hon. Gentleman was in any way politically allied with Russia. Clearly, he is an ally of Ukraine, as we are on the Government side of the House, but it is a matter of fact that the only countries in Europe that are not signatories to the ECHR are Russia and Belarus. I do not wish us to make the same choice that they have made.

[David Reed]

The fact that other countries that we consider to be close allies are also considering this is an important point that I will come on to. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Government chose to derogate from article 5 of the European convention on human rights through part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. That permitted the indefinite detention of foreign nationals suspected of terrorism who could not be deported without breaching other international obligations. While contentious, that step showed that, in the face of exceptional threats, Ministers can and should use the mechanisms available within the convention itself.

In the same spirit, the provision requires Ministers to take clear, accountable decisions when national security and operational effectiveness are in play. It ensures that responsibility cannot be delayed or sidestepped when prompt judgment is needed to protect our personnel and maintain the proper conduct of military operations. That is important and that principle is evident. The provision follows that precedent by ensuring that Ministers must take clear and accountable decisions where national security and operational effectiveness are at stake. It prevents responsibility from being deferred or avoided in circumstances where timely judgment is essential to the protection of our personnel and the proper conduct of operations. The importance of that is clear. The convention has increasingly been interpreted in ways that place strain on operational decision making, encourage litigation and create uncertainty for those serving on the frontline.

Our armed forces need clarity and confidence. They need to know that the Government stand firmly behind them, not that they will face legal challenges long after the events. New clause 13 would move us towards that clarity. If we are serious about restoring control over our legal framework, we should not pretend that the current arrangements are working in Britain’s interests. Ministers are at least required to consider derogation when our forces are engaged in demanding and hostile conditions. The new clause is a practical and measured step. It does not claim to resolve every difficulty, but it does establish the simple and necessary principle that Ministers must take responsibility, make considered decisions and put the interests of the country and those who served it at the forefront.

I also support new clause 15, which seeks to provide exemption from the European convention on human rights for members of our reserve forces when they are deployed under the Act. The intention behind that proposal is both practical and just. Our reservists serve alongside regular personnel in demanding and often perilous conditions. They shoulder the same responsibilities, face the same threats and act under the same operational pressures. It is therefore right that they should be safeguarded under the same legal framework that recognises the realities of military deployments.

In recent years, some interpretations of the convention have become stretched and detached from the practical realities it was designed to address. The world that we face today is very different from the world of the 1950s. I will not digress too much—in fact, I will not digress at all, Mr Efford—but this is an important point. The structures of the ECHR, designed in the 1950s by the people that experienced world war two, were all just and morally sound, and we can all accept that point. But the world has moved on rapidly in the years since the 1950s. Since the ECHR is broad in scope, we have had a number of different lawyers see interpretations—and able to move things—that may be outside of our national interest.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire raised the interesting point that this is not just a problem for us in the UK—it is also a problem for a number of our allies across Europe who are considering either derogating or leaving the convention because it is not serving their national interest. Bear in mind that we are a tolerant country with a good legal system. I have no doubt that a lot of these laws would be reproduced. We need to be in a position to give our forces the legal confidence that they can operate in those environments and that we have the jurisdiction here in the UK to be able to carry out that legal framework. I very much support the new clauses, and I hope the Committee will consider them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

For the absolute avoidance of doubt, I never said that, and the hon. Gentleman is putting words in my mouth. I never said, or even implied, that our armed forces are a laughing stock—absolutely not. They are still, man for man and woman for woman, among the best in the world, if not the best. It is the Government they serve who are now the laughing stock, not the military personnel. It is a Government who cannot take a fundamental decision about defence spending, whose own MOD Ministers are privately at each other, and who have an MOD and a Treasury that cannot agree. The only way that that is resolved in the British system is when the first among equals intervenes and knocks heads together, and the Prime Minister will not do that because he is terrified of what happens to him if he does. We have an impasse in which the Government, not the armed forces, are regarded as a laughing stock, not just in Washington but in the capitals of our adversaries.

That being the case, I ask the Minister in all sincerity to tell us this afternoon when the defence investment plan will be published.

[Luke Akehurst]

I think that everyone who cares about defence shares the right hon. Gentleman’s anxiety about wanting to see the defence investment plan published. Would he accept that we are only days away from polling in a very important set of elections that are governed by a purdah process? Perhaps, if the Prime Minister stood up in the Chamber on Monday and announced the investment, some of it would be targeted at Scotland, where there is a Scottish Parliament election; some would be targeted at Wales, where there is a Senedd election; and some would be targeted at places around the country where there is a defence industry but where council elections are happening. The right hon. Gentleman’s party would probably say that the Government were breaking purdah and trying to sway the outcome of those elections if we were to announce the DIP between now and polling day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

It has everything to do with it. The Committee needs to understand the details of what has been left, because it has everything to do with it. We cannot take anything in isolation; it is all combined. As a result, we have a deeply complex problem set to deal with.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that the problem is not just the legacy that his Department inherited, but the wider legacy of debt that our Government inherited, which means that the path that Germany is going down—raising new finance—is not open to us? We inherited a bow wave of immense welfare spending from the previous Government, who let the welfare bill get out of control. This is not happening in isolation; these are systemic problems of government that we are having to address, and we are having to find a source of funding for the incredible investment that we now need to make.