House of Lords
Electoral Commission Investigations
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many investigations the Electoral Commission and the police have undertaken as a result of a suspicious activity report relating to suspected breaches of electoral finance law; and how many of these have resulted in accounts being frozen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government do not comment on the submission of suspicious activity reports. The Electoral Commission, the National Crime Agency and the police are operationally independent. Suspicious activity reports are confidential and breaching that confidentiality risks committing a tipping off offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Every year, the Electoral Commission publishes a report on how many investigations take place into potential breaches of political finance rules. I know my noble friend asked a Question similar to this a month ago, so I wanted to give him information on the numbers. In 2023-24, there were 17 investigations; in 2024-25, there were 14; and in 2025-26, there were nine investigations concluded. We cannot release how many of these come from SARs.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her informative reply. Does she agree with me that it ill behoves the leader of a national party that aspires to government to say, as Nigel Farage did yesterday, that his response to complaints about dodgy party finances is to throw them in the bin? Can she tell the House what further measures the Government are considering to tackle foreign-based cryptocurrency billionaires interfering with our rules-based democratic system?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure my noble friend will understand that I will not comment on individual cases. However, following the recommendations of the Rycroft review, the Government are introducing a complete ban on crypto asset donations of all value until such point that Parliament and the Electoral Commission are satisfied that there is sufficient regulation in place to ensure confidence and transparency in donations being made in this way. The ban has a retrospective effect from the date of its announcement on 25 March this year to prevent malign actors circumventing it. With this policy, we are taking decisive action to defend the legitimacy and integrity of our democratic system from foreign interference. I hope all politicians will take seriously that the rules apply to everybody.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, successful investigations require the right powers to be available, yet both the National Crime Agency and the Met Police have warned that they cannot use their full sweep of powers because the maximum sentences for many political finance offences are too low and do not trigger them. Both the Rycroft review and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy have highlighted this loophole. Can the Minister reassure us that the Government will be using the Representation of the People Bill to table amendments to close this loophole so that the full power of law enforcement can be used against politicians who might or might not be breaking the law?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We want to see all the loopholes around this issue closed, and we are taking very strong and clear action. We have accepted all of Philip Rycroft’s recommendations, and we are taking forward a comprehensive package of reforms to strengthen the safeguards against foreign political influence and interference in our politics. I look forward to debating this Bill with Members of your Lordships’ House—we start on 14 September.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, Section 44(4) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act says that you must not tell your auditor either “knowingly or recklessly” something which is incorrect. Can the Minister tell me whether there have been any prosecutions under that section? I am sure she will have to write to me. It is a very important section, and it would appear to be a section that would certainly be able to drive making sure that the accounts of individual political parties are accurate and correct, which I think would be a most valuable feature in updating our political party finance arrangements.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Earl is quite right in that I cannot answer his specific question off the top of my head, but I will write to him on that. However, the whole system of suspicious activity reports requires, as I am sure he knows, that banks, lawyers, accountants and other anti-money laundering regulated businesses must submit a suspicious activity report to the NCA where they have a suspicion that activity may constitute money laundering or terrorist financing. There has been a significant total of SARs submitted in each year. That system appears to be working, but we continue to look at it to make sure that it is doing what it is intended to.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
Does the Minister know that there are around half a million Muslim women, and others, who do not speak English and speak only their native language, who are therefore ignorant about their rights to vote under British law? Surely the Minister will recognise that these are the prime victims of any corruption of voting, with family voting seen as the priority. Is there any way in which the Government can consider the rights of those ladies and in some way offer special education to them at an adult age which will enable them to use their rights more effectively?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We want to see all those who are entitled to vote having the information they need to enable them to do so. That is a very important part of the process. We continue to explore with local authorities, the Electoral Commission and electoral registration officers how we might better do that and make sure that the information is available to everyone who is entitled to vote. Of course, the offence of undue influence, first under Section 8 of the ROPA Act 1983 and then amended by the Elections Act 2022, protects electors from intimidation and malicious interference with their vote. We need to tackle this from both angles: from the education angle and by making sure that people are not coming under undue influence and that those offences are prosecuted.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, to return to the original question, such investigations depend on good record-keeping, such as the submission of election expenses. Can the Minister clarify how that data is held, how many estimates are not submitted accurately, and the capacity of the police to investigate suspicious activity?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Record-keeping is subject to both the Electoral Commission and local authorities, which are the initial point of contact for this. We want to make sure that there are always sufficient resources to do that. I do not think local authorities have been helped in their management of elections through the cuts they have had in their funding in recent years, but we will continue to make sure that we are talking to our local authority partners about the resources for doing that. On police investigation, we are working very hard with police colleagues to make sure there are sufficient resources to do what needs to be done. Under the current enforcement framework, most political finance offences are treated as possible criminal offences, even when they amount to minor administrative breaches. The new Bill will put that right so that we are focusing attention where it needs to be, which is on the actual criminal activity.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that, at the moment, our politics is being funded by spivs, thieves and tax-dodgers, and that the only way we are going to control this is to control the amounts of money that can be spent at elections? That is the way to deal with this problem—not trying to fix the rules but stopping what is becoming a nuclear war for funding for political parties.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am not sure that I would use the exact language my noble friend used, but we need to make a concerted effort to tackle what is seen as corrupt practice in election financing. The Government have published an anti-corruption strategy. We want to bring the corrupt actors to justice, prevent them benefitting from illicit wealth, tackle the vulnerabilities to corruption at home and build resilience overseas. That is all coming forward in our new Bill. We need to be robust in our approach to this, otherwise the whole of our democratic process is undermined. I look forward, as I said, to debating the Bill with Members of your Lordships’ House. I hope that we can get this tightened up as quickly as possible.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the very welcome ban on direct crypto donations, but can she say something about controlling those donors whose wealth is derived from cryptocurrency dealings?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We have significantly strengthened the ability to identify, freeze and recover illicit crypto assets in recent years through a combination of legislative reform, operational capability uplift and system-wide co-ordination. We are going further now, following the introduction of the Financial Services and Markets Act regulations this year, implementing a broader crypto asset regulatory regime, which I hope will do exactly what the noble Lord referred to, covering activities such as trading, custody and consumer protection. We need to make sure that we know the source. The “know your donor” provisions in the new Bill make sure that political parties are taking serious account of where their funding is coming from.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I strongly support the Liberal Democrat Front Bench in saying that we should look at amendments when we consider the Representation of the People Bill on 14 September and beyond. I also suggest that this might be a good topic for a special committee of this House to examine. Just to be really helpful, I have submitted a proposal to that effect.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his point. I think that there will be several days of “special committee” exploring these issues when we consider the new Bill. I look forward to debating it with him.
Data Centres: Water Resources
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of new data centres on water resources.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, a recent report by the Water Research Centre concluded that existing data centres in England account for just 0.2% of current non-household demand. However, the Government recognise that the expected increase in data centre development could place additional demand on water supplies. Therefore, we are engaging closely with regulators and industry to help us better understand data centre water use and to explore ways to minimise this impact.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
I thank the Minister. She will no doubt be aware that the majority of planned data centres are in areas of water stress or even severe stress. Currently, plans that are put forward do not have to say what the consumption of water will be. The Environment Agency wants more data in order to plan better. Does she not think it should be a matter for planning to know how much water will be consumed by any proposed data centre—because it is very variable—so that we can plan properly?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Proper information about the actual water use of data centres is clearly very important. We are taking action to support the data centre sector in England on this. Part of what we are doing is working across government to determine how we can increase water efficiency, to reduce the data centre water demand in the first place. We are also looking at not just the available evidence but the emerging evidence that is coming through on water use in data centres. One way to get that is to work with Ofwat’s Smart Water Metering Delivery Group, which will look at rolling out smart meters in the non-household market. That will help us better understand what the standards and delivery expectations are and how much water is being used. That work is due to be completed over the next 12 months.
Baroness Grender (LD)
Does the Minister accept that individual data centres can use as much water as thousands of homes yet it is still so ironic that these data centres do not appear able to provide transparent data about their own usage of water? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that new data centres put their own capabilities and machine-learning know-how to good use to tell us and provide us with that information?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I mentioned the Water Delivery Taskforce in response to the previous question. The whole point of that is to bring together government, industry and regulators to improve that evidence. We want to look at how best we can get that information from data use centres. It is early days with this at the moment, but we are very aware that we need to get this information if we are to look at the best use of our water resources. This year has clearly demonstrated that we need to look at this, and not just at data centres. Golf courses use an enormous amount more water than data centres, for example, so it is about looking at that bigger picture as well.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
The proposed data centre at Thurrock in Essex will concrete over habitat for bees, butterflies, plants and birds. It will consume up to 3 million litres of water a day in an area routinely subject to hosepipe bans. It will consume 2.65 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year and generate 570,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent every year. Which of the consequences has a low priority for the Government?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Government have a number of priorities. One is that we need to make sure that we underpin the digital services on which we all rely every day—your phones, your banking system, healthcare, business systems—and we need data centres to be able to do that. Also, we have a conundrum here. I am being asked about water use. Water-cooling methods use less electricity. So, again, what are we focusing on? What are the priorities? We need to encourage data centres to become more efficient and more effective. That is our priority.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, can the Minister tell us what assessment Defra has made of the current regulatory framework and whether it will provide enough protection for the environment from the cumulative demand of data centres on water resources?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, the planning system is key to this. The very large data centres need to go through the NSIP—nationally significant infrastructure project—programme of planning, which also looks at full consultation. So there is a lot of interest; a lot of considerations are fully taken into account on the particularly large data centres. Clearly, like any major infrastructure, it will have an impact in a number of areas. We need to ensure that we get the balance right.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I am reliably informed that data can be sent through fibre-optic cables at the speed of light. Can the Minister tell us why we are putting, and planning to put, most of our data centres in the south and east of the United Kingdom when the vast majority of our water resources, and, indeed, most of our energy resources, are in the north and west of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can certainly confirm that the north-west, where I live, has been particularly damp this year, unlike the rest of the country. I think that looks to the bigger question: how are we going to look at our water infrastructure over the coming decades? There are parts of the country, like where I live, that do not have water shortages, where there is still rain, and other parts where there is nothing. It is important that we consider as a country how best to use our water resources more broadly. Where do we need to build reservoirs? How do we support farmers in holding water, for example? The water usage question is a bigger part of that, as is the question of where we build our different infrastructure.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, our uniquely high electricity prices, created by ideological energy policies, already make the UK an uncompetitive location for data centres. Developers need to navigate a tangle of many of Defra’s 34 arm’s-length bodies—of which the Minister has mentioned two—planning authorities and water companies to create cost-effective solutions to cooling without endangering our scarce water resources. What is the Minister doing to reduce this complexity, in particular through the implementation of the Cunliffe commission report? I disclose an interest as an unpaid adviser to a data centre developer.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
More broadly, regarding the complexity and the number of different organisations, the Cunliffe report has made recommendations that Defra is not just looking at but working on, because we realise that we have to be more efficient and effective, as does the whole of government. As I mentioned, water-cooling systems use less electricity, so again we have this balance to make on those resources. We are looking at standards of efficiencies right across; specifically on water, there will be the opportunity to debate this more broadly when we get the water Bill in front of us.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, next. He has been trying to get in.
Lord Wigley (PC)
If I understand correctly, the Government are looking at the possibility of recirculating some of the coolant water. If that is the case, is there a possibility of using it for district heating purposes? Can the Minister give an assurance that any heat dissipated will be allowed only if it does not adversely affect the biodiversity of that vicinity?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord makes some good points about that kind of system which would clearly need to be taken into consideration. At the moment, as far as I am aware, no final decision has been made around that, but we are working with the water companies and the data centres to look at how we can get the most effective use of systems, whether that is through air cooling or through water cooling, and if it is water cooling, whether we can use rainwater systems, for example, to increase efficiencies.
Baroness Teather (LD)
In May this House’s Environment and Climate Change Committee asked the Government to publish a prioritisation plan for emergency drought this autumn. The Government only partially accepted this, saying that any approach will be developed with critical national infrastructure sectors and not published in full. Can the Minister say when Parliament will be told how households, food production and data centres would be ranked if it came to it?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am not able to give the noble Baroness that information today, but the department is taking the issue of drought very seriously, as it has done with floods previously. We need to understand what the impacts of both floods and drought are in this changing environment, and many of the issues she has talked about will be part of those discussions.
Schools: Mobile Phone Policy
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the ‘not seen, not heard’ mobile phone policy in schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, our mobile phones in schools guidance is statutory from yesterday, 1 September, and is clear that schools should be mobile phone-free environments by default. We trust school leaders to choose the approach that works best for their setting. This includes the use of “not seen, not heard” policies if they are backed by strong enforcement to ensure that pupils do not have access to their phones during any part of the school day. We have committed to reviewing the guidance and making necessary revisions by September 2027.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for that reply, and I am pleased that she reiterated the Government’s commitment to review the guidance. Can she say what data and evidence the Government will use to inform their decision and when they expect to take that decision? I know that normally the school behaviour survey is published in November each year, and obviously it would be helpful to schools and trusts to hear as quickly as possible after that if they need to change their policies going forward.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness will be pleased that we are already seeing evidence—for example, from research done as part of Teacher Tapp—that schools are continuing to strengthen their approaches, with 41% of secondary schools planning changes to their mobile phone policies for this new academic year. On the review, I think we will want to start from January 2027 with the data that we are able to collect, the results of the behaviour survey, as the noble Baroness says, and engagement with stakeholders, so that we will be in a position to put any revisions into the guidance so that it can be implemented from September 2027.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
I listened closely to my noble friend the Minister’s response. It is fantastic to hear all the work that the Government are doing to reflect on this. Parents at this time are reporting that schools retaining the “not seen, not heard” policies are having lots of challenges. They are hearing from their children how the children are still accessing those phones at break or lunchtimes because, understandably, teachers are not able to police all areas of the school. Is it possible that parents will also be spoken to in order to gather the evidence?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, of course parents need to be involved in this. They need to be involved in the development of schools’ behaviour policies in which, or alongside which, the mobile phone policy should sit. They need to understand the benefits for children of not using phones during the course of the school day. As I say, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of secondary schools use a policy that could come under the broad category of “not seen, not heard”, there are lots of examples of schools, even within that category, that have strong and effective mobile phone policies that are making a real difference to the calmness of the classroom and the learning of their pupils.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, the effectiveness of a policy is always about how it actually happens on the ground. What assessment has been made about the variations in how schools are implementing “not seen, not heard” policies? In particular, what support is given to those schools that are facing a challenge from either pupils or parents? We heard during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in the last Session that a small group of parents are very vocal about this issue and often take up a lot of teacher time.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that the difference is made on the ground. That is why school leaders, and their capacity to be able to decide what is right for their school, are absolutely at the heart of this. Where school leaders are finding it difficult to do that in a way that supports their school’s functioning effectively for children, there will be support from the department’s attendance and behaviour hubs, and of course Ofsted will now be inspecting schools on the basis of the extent to which their mobile phone policies are not only in place but being properly implemented. That will potentially have an impact on their standard for attendance and behaviour.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I am slightly confused here. I have taught in three schools but never in one that allows mobile phones. The Department for Education expects schools to implement a policy whereby pupils do not have access to their mobile phones throughout the school day. It says “not seen, not heard”, but if the phones are in their bags they have access to them. Surely “not seen, not heard” does not actually apply to this guidance.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Well, it does. If the noble Lord wants to have a look at some of the case studies that we have also provided for schools to support their implementation of the policy that schools should be mobile phone free by default, he will see that lots of schools are successfully using this approach and getting the calmness in the classroom, the focus of pupils and the support of teachers that we all want to see.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, schools with effective phone bans, which means handed in and locked away, are twice as likely to be rated outstanding, with GCSE results one to two grades higher. The poorest pupils gain the most. However, the reality is that this costs money, and providing a Yondr pouch costs about £20 per pupil—some £75 million nationally, in a schools budget of £65 billion. The Government have not provided a penny to schools to do this, and they have to find the money from stretched budgets. Will the Minister commit to funding the actual equipment needed to make our schools phone free?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This Government have committed to funding a whole range of things, which is why there are considerable increases in school budgets. Nevertheless, it remains for head teachers to choose how to spend that additional investment, given the very clear and now statutory guidance that this Government have provided.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, as was well rehearsed during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, protecting our children online is not just about what happens in school. Last week Meta settled claims with 47 states in the US in which it committed to making a whole series of product and service changes for under-18s, but only in the US. What are the Government doing to ensure that our own children receive the same protections?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Noble Lords know that on 15 June the Government announced that they will ban social media companies from providing their services to under-16s and prevent under-16s engaging in livestreaming and stranger communication on a wider range of services, alongside stronger default protections for 16 and 17 year-olds. The Government intend to lay regulations before Parliament on that social media ban by the end of 2026. We expect the restrictions to enter into force in spring 2027, and they will be among the strongest controls, if not the strongest, across the world.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if particular tech companies cannot agree to the safety of children, they should not be allowed to have a licence to operate?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The provisions we are making with respect to social media for young people build on provisions in the Online Safety Act. It is important, and the Government have been clear, that Ofcom needs to continue to put in place the strongest possible protections for children and take the strongest possible action against companies that do not fulfil that.
Childbirth-related Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Nargund
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the study published in the British Journal of General Practice which found that thousands of women have undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder after childbirth every year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, we take the findings of this study seriously and recognise the significant impact that PTSD after childbirth can have on women and families. Postnatal appointments provide opportunities for identification of PTSD and specialist perinatal mental health services are available nationwide to support diagnosis, treatment and professional training. The national maternity and neonatal action plan will provide further opportunities to strengthen prevention and postnatal support for those affected by birth trauma.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply and her ongoing commitment to improving women’s health and mental health. This new evidence highlights that thousands of women with post-traumatic stress disorder following childbirth may be going undiagnosed. Will the Government use this evidence to raise awareness about childbirth-related post-traumatic stress disorder and work with NICE and other stakeholders to implement screening tools for diagnosis and a pathway for specialist referral in primary care so that women can receive timely diagnosis and treatment?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The key thing here is identification, because without that we cannot have treatment. Prevention of PTSD is really our starting point. I certainly agree with my noble friend that early identification is crucial and that women should be routinely asked about their mental health and birth experiences during postnatal contact. That is why training resources have been developed to support this. I can assure my noble friend that I am very keen that we continue to work with clinicians, charities and, crucially, women with lived experience, because further improvements are needed, including on how women can be identified earlier and referred for appropriate support.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
Can the Minister share the access rates to perinatal mental health services for Black, Asian and minority-ethnic women during and after pregnancy, and what actions are being taken to help them overcome barriers that they may face? One area that needs attention, for example, is cultural attitudes towards mental health.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
While I cannot give the specifics here and now, I will be pleased to get that information to the noble Baroness. She is right to highlight the need to make sure that all women have access and that all women who have PTSD or experience of birth trauma are identified. Record numbers of women are now accessing specialist perinatal mental health services—66,500 women last year in England alone. The figures I can get the noble Baroness will, however, give a much better flavour of how we are reaching groups who may well be marginalised in the way that she describes.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, given that six out of 10 maternity units have been assessed as unsafe by the Care Quality Commission, it is not surprising that this research identifies thousands of women experiencing birth trauma. Will the Government now guarantee one-to-one midwifery care during labour and a consultant on every maternity ward 24/7 to support women giving birth?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Safety is key, and so are the experiences of women and their families. The noble Baroness and the House will be well aware of the national maternity and neonatal plan, which will drive proper, sustained improvement across the system. This is what I believe we have been lacking for years, and it is why we asked the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, to conduct an independent review. She has reported on that and the maternity and neonatal plan will be announced by the end of this year. I certainly look forward to that; it is being worked on as we speak, involving both clinicians and those with lived experience, as well as campaigning organisations and all those with an interest. I am feeling positive about how we move forward, and the point made by the noble Baroness about staffing and ratios will of course be part of that.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, one of the stresses for mothers, and indeed parents, and their mental health post traumatic birth is having a child in NICU. I understand that hospitals such as Alder Hey have piloted schemes where parents have been involved with the care of their child in NICU. Organisations such as the First 1001 Days Movement and Ei SMART have seen that this can have a huge benefit both for the mental health and longer-term care of the child and for parents. What can the Minister do to ensure that NICU units beyond Alder Hey are encouraged to involve parents, and even have them staying overnight within their units?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the involvement of parents being key, and it is variable across the country. This is not least because of the estate and the ability to do it. This is why we have invested £187 million in the maternity and neonatal estate since April of last year. I think that is a step forward; I do not think it will resolve the whole issue, but I hope it gives an indication to the noble Baroness that the point she is raising is well heard and being responded to, and that we will continue to respond to it.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness is referring to a paper by Susan Ayers, who has studied this for many years. It is certainly not a new problem. In the literature, there are over 700 papers on post-traumatic stress disorder in childbirth and another 1,700 papers on it during or in childbirth. This is a long-standing problem. It is not always serious, but when it is then it needs to be taken very seriously. Most cases are relatively trivial and the national incidence is about 3.17% of women in childbirth. This is something we can handle. As the paper by Susan Ayers correctly points out, we could do something much better in primary care in this situation. I hope the Minister will take this on board.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly will take that on board. I completely agree that this is not a new issue, but the report shines another light on the situation. I can confirm to my noble friend that I have specifically said that early identification of issues is crucial. Yes, there is a six-week to eight-week follow-up point, but I know—and many noble Lords will be aware from their own experience in their communities and families—that it is very variable how appropriate, good and effective that is. It is not acceptable that we have such a wide range, so I will focus very much on making those improvements.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I will focus on two concerns. The first is that GPs often mistake PTSD for postnatal depression, meaning that mothers do not get the appropriate treatment. The second is that at the six-week postnatal check-up, to which the noble Baroness referred, there is no approved framework for assessing women’s risk of having PTSD. As the responsible Minister, what conversations is she having with NHS England and GP organisations to make sure that these two issues are addressed?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the noble Lord heard in my response to my noble friend, that is exactly one of the points of focus. He is aware that, following portfolio changes, I am very specifically the Minister for Women’s Health and Maternity—there is a very special reason for that: to give that area focus—but I am also responsible for early years. The combination of all those things will be crucial. I emphasise that there are several touch points at which women vulnerable to and experiencing PTSD can be helped, supported and assessed, but we are not necessarily using them correctly. That is where I will be focusing.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister about two issues. First, has any research been done on the effect of early discharge on the subsequent development of PTSD after a traumatic birth? Mothers are now routinely sent home from hospital within hours of giving birth, which leaves them very little recovery time, particularly when they are going home to difficult family circumstances. The second issue is the wider context of education. When mothers have a baby and are having things such as flashbacks about the birth, they can be afraid that they are going mad. If they are afraid to declare these things and are unable to articulate them, they will continue to try to work with them, and we will end up with a situation in which very tragic events can occur. There is a need, even today, for wider education for women about the fact that, when you go home with your new baby, particularly your first baby, you do not necessarily have to find that you can do everything perfectly and that, where you have serious mental health issues, you must be able to seek help.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right to say that, and that there is no shame in seeking mental health support. The most recent CQC maternity survey showed an upward trend in women accessing mental health services, which may reassure her. Just last year, there was an upward trend in respondents being offered mental health support. Some 90% were offered it, so the offer is there. I also feel it is being offered in a way that normalises it, which is important. It is also important to reduce the situations in which a traumatic birth may take place. We must hang on to that. As the noble Baroness said, education is part of that more positive way forward in supporting mothers and babies.
Armed Forces Bill
Wednesday 2nd September 2026
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 36–I Marshalled list for Committee - (28 Aug 2026)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and three others in the name of Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie seek to include Royal Fleet Auxiliary personnel within the statutory provisions of the Armed Forces Covenant.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, this first group of amendments addresses the scope of the Armed Forces covenant. I will speak to Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 in my name, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for her support. They all relate to page 2 of the Bill and all, after the word “forces” on lines 13, 16, 19 and 21, seek to insert the words “and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary”. The modest amendments in this group correct an anomaly in the Bill as a whole and give clarity and certainty to the RFA, which is widely acknowledged by us all as a vital part of the Royal Navy and the UK’s national security and defence.
In winding up at Second Reading, the Minister addressed the position of the RFA in acknowledging that the Government have given the Armed Forces Commissioner responsibility for RFA personnel in Clause 31. Given this, it seems nonsensical that the RFA is covered in this way in one part of the Bill but not in another. Are the Government really saying that RFA personnel are recognised as part of the broader Armed Forces community when it suits, yet fall outside of the statutory legal duties applied to that community for members of the Regular and Reserve Forces? Can the Minister explain why the RFA is included in the commissioner’s powers but is excluded from the rest of the Armed Forces covenant?
The Minister is aware that I have been focused on the status of the RFA for some time. It is my belief that it is a vital, but always overlooked, part of our defence. The main issue stems from the unique position of the RFA as a civilian-manned naval auxiliary fleet owned by the Ministry of Defence. Rather than accounting for the risks and sacrifice they take as seafarers supporting military operations, the Government seem to view RFA personnel as just another type of civil servant. This is to fundamentally misunderstand their role and function.
Let us not forget that members of the RFA work to the same standards and are trained alongside other military personnel, and, if they are deployed on military operational service, they come under the same rules and regulation as the Royal Navy. At this time of constrained resources, they are frequently tasked with roles that would formerly be given to warships. They are not civil servants.
I noted that, during the Recess, Veterans Minister Calvin Bailey visited RFA “Tidespring” and “Mounts Bay”, where improving the welfare and morale of the crew, and supporting their families, was high on his agenda. The Minister was quoted as saying that the RFA had slipped from public consciousness, despite quietly underpinning operations, as he described it, like a “big … Swiss Army knife”.
Like other branches of the Armed Forces, the RFA has experienced considerable recruitment and retention challenges. Recently, in order to fulfil its remit, the RFA was having to move personnel between vessels, stretching the workforce dangerously thin and leading to questions about whether ships could be crewed effectively and safely. Commodore Sam Shattock, head of service, has sought to address this. He has had to reduce the operating fleet for now, but he has also reviewed the training and career framework to streamline progression and ensure that personnel are developed and deployed more efficiently. I am pleased to note that recruitment is increasing and that applications have reached their highest level in five years.
I am heartened also to hear that the new Armed Forces Commissioner has already met Commodore Shattock and is fully aware of the unique position of the RFA. On assuming office, she stated:
“Ultimately, my purpose as Commissioner is simple: to ensure the lived experience of those who serve is understood, valued and continuously improved”.
This Bill includes those who serve as part of the RFA in her remit, and the Minister has previously acknowledged that members of the RFA are part of the Armed Forces community, so again I ask: why are they not included in the provisions of the Armed Forces covenant in Clause 2?
My amendments would result in a very small extension of the covenant by numbers. If you take a total Armed Forces population of around 140,000, plus veterans and families, we are talking about only an additional 1,700 serving RFA members, plus veterans and families. It is an increase of less than 1.5%.
The RFA population would welcome recognition as beneficiaries under the Armed Forces covenant: a covenant founded not on status but on military service, such as that provided in areas of conflict and crisis by members of the RFA. My amendments would give these men and women the clarity and recognition they deserve.
Defence Minister Luke Pollard recently told the Portsmouth News:
“We’ve got the opportunity to reset the relationship with the seafarers within the RFA, and it means we can start the process of valuing the RFA more. I feel they have been undervalued in the past”.
The Government can start the process of valuing the RFA more right here, by accepting my amendments. If the Minister does not wish to accept them then, given our shared appreciation for the men and women of the RFA, I look forward to his response and his explanation of why not. I beg to move.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, as I set out at Second Reading, I am supportive of the Government expanding the scope of the Armed Forces covenant, building on the work the previous Government undertook in the Armed Forces Act 2021. I say to the Minister that although, as the Minister, I was somewhat diffident about this expansion, now that this Government have seen fit to provide it, I am 100% in there and want it to work as well as possible.
My amendments in this group are intended to strengthen that legal duty. As drafted, the Bill extends the covenant legal duty to four persons. New Section 343AZA(4) specifies that those persons are
“a national authority; a local authority; an education body; a health body”.
New Section 343AZB(2) sets out the definition of “national authority” as being
“a Minister of the Crown, within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975; the Welsh Ministers; the Scottish Ministers; the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland acting jointly, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department”.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I gave way to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, precisely because she had her name first on a set of amendments in this group. I am delighted that I did so because in the previous Parliament, when she sat on the Government Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, now the Minister, sat on the Opposition Benches and I still sat in this corner, I kept encouraging the Government to expand the Armed Forces covenant—not only in the way the previous Government sought to do, but to bring it within the purview of the Government and make it a duty on them. At Second Reading, I welcomed the provisions of the Bill. I am delighted that the previously diffident former Minister, now sitting on the Opposition Benches and speaking for His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, sees how important it is to expand the Armed Forces covenant.
The amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, are valuable. Quite whether we need the level of detail in them, or how we go about them, needs to be thought about. I am sure the Minister will have all sorts of reasons why these specific amendments might not be the best way of doing it. I hope that, in his response, he can explain whether the noble Baroness is right that currently, HMRC, or the proposed defence housing service, do not come under the requirement to be under a duty to the Armed Forces covenant. If they are not under that duty, I would be happy to work with the noble Baroness to bring forward amendments on Report. Clearly, we want to make sure that the duty is on the Government and public authorities more generally. I therefore very much welcome the thrust of this suite of amendments.
I also cosigned the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, very much for the reasons she articulated. The role of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is crucial in our defence. RFA “Lyme Bay” is—or has been—in the Middle East, responding to a crisis. It serves our security and defence very significantly. As the noble Baroness pointed out, those on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are not civil servants in a traditional sense. They may be civilians, but the service they are giving is the sort that would seem to make coming under the purview of the Armed Forces covenant appropriate. If His Majesty’s Government disagree with that idea, could the Minister explain why and suggest ways in which it can be ensured that civilians serving on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are not suffering any detriment, which is exactly what the Armed Forces covenant is intended to countermount?
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the scope of the Armed Forces covenant. I thank the noble Baronesses for the speeches they have made. I found what they said convincing, although I look forward to the response from my noble friend the Minister and expect I will find his reply even more convincing.
I want to take the opportunity to raise a practical example of where I hope the provisions in Clause 2, with or without the amendment, might make a difference. I suspect it will come as no surprise to the Committee that it relates to the role of the covenant in relation to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. I should mention here that, in the past, I have been a paid consultant to the Forces Pension Society, and I thank the society for providing me with a briefing on the matters I am going to raise. I should add that it was when working with the society that I became aware of the practical significance that members of the Armed Forces place on the covenant. It is significant not just as some general principle but as applying to practical situations.
By way of background, the Armed Forces Pension Scheme provides a world-class pension, and it is an important bond in the relationship between those who govern and those who serve—otherwise known as the Armed Forces covenant. It is designed to incentivise service, maximise the human element of defence’s operational effectiveness, facilitate servicepeople’s transition to civilian employment and provide for a dignified retirement. That is why I have been concerned by the recent reports of veterans being told that they must repay substantial sums of pension that they have received because those pensions were calculated incorrectly at some point in the past. The issue has received considerable coverage on the BBC, and in the Times, the Telegraph, the Express and the it Paper.
Please bear with me in explaining the problem, because the scheme’s administrative arrangements are a little complicated. Defence Business Services is responsible for the scheme through Veterans UK. It has contracted in turn Sopra Steria to deliver the pensions. Sopra Steria has in turn sub-subcontracted Equiniti as its paymaster, and the system is overseen by the Armed Forces Pension Board, supporting the Secretary of State for Defence as the scheme manager. There are clear doubts about how Defence Business Services, Veterans UK, Sopra Steria and Equiniti should be held to account. There are other problems, but I want to highlight the disappointing pattern of overpayments in areas such as pension sharing on divorce, early departure payments, guaranteed minimum pensions and national insurance modifications. Between 1,000 and 2,000 members have received such overpayments, which indicates a lack of rigour in calculation, inadequate training, a lack of oversight and paucity of quality assurance.
I will give the Committee two examples. I will not name the individuals involved, but the circumstances illustrate the problem. One is a 72 year-old veteran who served in the Army for 31 years, reaching the rank of warrant officer class 1, but who faces having to repay a pension overpayment of £37,500. This arose from four separate errors in the calculation of his pension. The second example is a 70 year-old former RAF flight lieutenant who was overpaid by £32,000. He queried the increase when he first received it but was told it was correct. Years later, he has now been told that there was indeed an error, and it is he, not the administrator, who is liable for repayment. It is worth noting that there are many cases with higher overpayments, but these cases illustrate the complex nature of the problems members face.
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.
Lord Harlech
“343AZAA Duty to identify service people(1) This section applies where, and so far as, a person specified in section 343AZA(4) exercises a public function which relates to a relevant matter in relation to that person.(2) The person must make arrangements to establish and record whether an individual in relation to whom the function is exercised is a service person.(3) The arrangements must enable the individual to state which of the descriptions in section 343B(1) applies to them, and in particular whether they are a current member of the reserve forces, and to correct or update that information.(4) No individual is required to answer, and a refusal to answer must not affect any entitlement to, or the provision of, any service.(5) The Secretary of State must, after consulting the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland department, issue guidance about arrangements under this section, including the form of words to be used; and a person specified in section 343AZA(4) must have regard to that guidance.(6) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report on the operation of this section.(7) In this section “service person” means a person falling within the definition of “service people” in section 343B(1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require bodies subject to the covenant duty in Clause 2 to ask and record whether an individual belongs to the armed forces community, distinguishing current reserve service from veteran status. Answering would remain voluntary.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a serving officer in the Army Reserve. In moving Amendment 6, I shall also speak to Amendment 7, which stands in my name in the same group. Before I focus on the amendments in detail, I would like to briefly preface the intent behind all the amendments to the Bill in my name. The Government Whips can rest assured that I am not about to launch into a Second Reading speech—but, as Max Hastings wrote in the Times this week:
“When the Cold War ended in 1990 the TA still mustered a strength of almost 73,000”.
We can all agree that we are a long way from that now. All my amendments are with the aim of improving the lived experience of reservists in order to strengthen recruiting and retention and therefore the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces.
The two amendments in this group have a single purpose between them. Clause 2 puts the covenant properly into law, and I welcome it, but a duty of due regard is only as good as the ability of the body under it to see the people it is supposed to be regarding; Amendment 6 makes them visible, and Amendment 7 gives the duty a specific task. Amendment 6 would require bodies subject to the Clause 2 duty to ask, and to record, whether an individual belongs to the Armed Forces community and, in particular, to distinguish current reserve service from veteran status. I anticipate that the Minister will tell me this already happens. The registration form for a general practice does carry a question about Armed Forces service, but the question is optional, is framed in the past tense—about having served—and is asked once at the point of registration. Consider what that means for a reservist. Reserve service is a status acquired in mid-life. I registered with my general practitioner long before I attested, and nobody has asked me since. The whole design is veteran-shaped, and serving reservists fall through it.
Although a clinical code for Armed Forces reservists already exists within the National Health Service, it remains entirely underutilised. The framework is in place, yet throughout my years in the reserves I have never been queried about my military status when scheduling a medical or dental appointment—an experience that I am confident is widely shared. The consequence is that the entire burden of the covenant falls on the individual to self-advocate. They must explain what the covenant is to a receptionist who has potentially never heard of it in order to claim something to which they cannot prove they are entitled. Most people do not bother, and I do not blame them.
I will address the inevitable criticism head-on. Proposed new subsection 4 would ensure that the decision to respond remains entirely voluntary, stipulating that declining would not prejudice an individual’s access to or quality of care. While the serviceperson retains their autonomy, the provider is stripped of the plea of ignorance.
If we lack this data, the ministry remains unable to evaluate the covenant’s impact and this House is denied the means of oversight. We would in effect be creating a statutory obligation while simultaneously refusing to provide the tools necessary for its fulfilment.
Amendment 7 turns to what the duty should deliver. It would require health bodies to have due regard to a reservist’s need
“to attain and maintain the standards of medical and dental fitness required”
for call-out and recall.
The Bill expands the liability to serve, extends recall to the age of 65 and introduces a lower threshold for mobilisation and an opt-out model. Every one of these provisions assumes that the individual is medically and dentally fit to deploy. Applying recall powers to people who cannot pass a medical grading is simply relabelling, not enhanced capability.
Dental fitness is the sharpest illustration of this. A reservist who cannot obtain a dental appointment fails dental fitness standards and becomes non-deployable. That is not a health inconvenience; it is a capability loss that the state has created by asking the serviceperson to be ready in the first place.
Reservists routinely pay privately to stay deployable. That is a hidden tax on service. Proposed new subsection 3 would provide that nothing in the clause
“requires a health body to provide any assessment … or treatment otherwise than in accordance with clinical need”.
The amendment bites only between patients of equivalent clinical priority. It is a tie-break, not a preference, and it cannot displace a single patient with a greater clinical need. It is the same bounded logic as the existing veterans priority, which survives precisely because it is bounded. Proposed new subsection 4 would require the Defence Council to publish those standards, because nobody can have due regard to a standard they cannot see.
I have two questions for the Minister. What is the department’s assessment of the proportion of trained reservists who are currently medically or dentally non-deployable? Will the Government publish those standards, irrespective of what happens to this amendment? Neither of these amendments costs any money. Together, they are the difference between a covenant that is declared and a covenant that is delivered. I beg to move.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
I support my noble friend and declare an interest in that my daughter is a serving member of the reserves. Amendment 7 would have helped her enormously in the autumn when she received her call-up papers to join the Welsh Guards in Kenya. She had a wisdom tooth issue and had been on the waiting list for some time. Because her reservist service was not known to her dentist or, frankly, anyone else, she was very nearly medically undeployable and people had to bend rules. That had an effect not only for her and the Welsh Guards but for her employer, who had to sign up to give her the time off to go and do three months with the Welsh Guards. That was a real-time example of why these amendments really matter.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. As he said, they should not bring a financial cost but might bring material benefits for the individual reservists and for defence. There are all sorts of questions that could and should be considered. If somebody is a serving member of the Regular Armed Forces, they will be dealt with. If you are a reservist, however, and you cannot get your dental appointment, or if you are deployed, you do not have your six-monthly check-up with your NHS dentist and you get deregistered, where does that leave you next time around?
There are all sorts of questions that could be dealt with in a relatively straightforward way, as long as medical and dental practices understood that somebody was a reservist. The idea is that you would be happy to say, “This is my status”, but could there not be regular questions? There are all sorts of things that medical practices will ask, or when you go to the dentist. Do you take medication? Do you have any health issues? Has anything changed? You could also be asked whether you are a member of the Armed Forces, or a reservist? It should not be too difficult.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I too am pleased to support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Harlech, both of which, I believe, attempt to strengthen the Armed Forces covenant, much as my amendments in the previous group were intended to do.
Amendment 6 addresses what could become a gap in the application of the covenant. It is all very well and good placing this new legal duty on select public bodies, but that duty means little if those bodies cannot identify who among their community belongs to the Armed Forces. This amendment attempts to correct that by requiring the relevant bodies to ask, sensitively and consistently, whether an individual falls within that community and to distinguish reserve service from veteran status, since the two carry quite different implications for practical support. I understand that this is something a number of hospital trusts have started to do when patients attend their A&E departments. Identifying early on whether a patient is a serving member of the Armed Forces or a veteran allows clinicians to develop tailored care.
Amendment 7 addresses the operational readiness of our Reserve Forces, which I know is of particular importance to many of my noble friends, as eloquently attested by my noble friend Lord Harlech. This Bill extends liability for callout and recall, which we will discuss later, but that rests on an assumption—a very important assumption—that reservists are medically fit to serve when summoned.
There is nothing in the current drafting that asks health bodies to have any regard whatever to that reality. My noble friend’s amendment remedies this. The provision has effect only where patients are already of equivalent clinical priority, at which point a reservist’s mobilisation requirements may be properly weighed.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech for raising these two important issues about the potential operation of the covenant once a legal duty is established. I very much hope that the Minister will give these amendments the due consideration that they merit.
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.
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?
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.
Lord Morse
“Independent review(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent authority to review the operation and effectiveness of section 2 and to receive representations from individuals who are affected by this Act.(2) The review must be completed within three years of the day on which this Act is passed.(3) A copy of the review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that there was an independent review of whether the specified persons have had due regard to the Armed Forces Covenant in taking decisions on specified matters.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name, comprising four new clauses after Clause 2—a little excessive, perhaps. When I last spoke on this subject, I characterised myself as an “Army brat”. I realise that I should perhaps broaden my claim to relevant knowledge on this subject by stating that I have served as chair of the Office for Local Government—I will say a bit about local government —and as defence commercial director in my past life.
My concern is a practical one. Parliament is being asked to create new statutory duties. Whenever Parliament does so, it has a responsibility not merely to express worthy sentiments and aspirations but to satisfy itself that those duties are effective, affordable and capable of proper scrutiny. The amendments therefore address four related questions. First, how will Parliament know when the legislation is working, and how will it measure that effective working? Secondly, what will the impact be on those public authorities expected to implement it? By this I mean the financial and well-being impact on those bodies. Thirdly, who will bear the cost? Finally, who will independently assess whether the intentions of Parliament are actually being achieved?
Amendment 13 would require an annual report to Parliament on the operation and effectiveness of the covenant duty. Under the amendment, that report would examine
“whether members of the armed forces community continue to experience disadvantage arising from service life”,
the outcomes public bodies are achieving in addressing that disadvantage, what expenditure has been incurred, and what improvements have been achieved. In other words, is this going anywhere? But there is a further reason for annual reporting. The Armed Forces covenant reflects an enduring national commitment to those who serve and those who have served. By requiring Parliament to consider an annual report, we ensure that parliamentary attention on these issues is maintained year after year and is not merely a single mechanism for scrutiny. It is also a demonstration of Parliament’s continuing support. The Armed Forces community should know that Parliament’s commitment to its welfare does not end when this Bill receives Royal Assent but will continue into the future.
My next amendment concerns local authorities. A significant proportion of the services affected by the covenant duty are delivered through local government. Councils are responsible for many public services, and many already operate under substantial statutory obligations, particularly in areas such as social work and support for vulnerable families. I know, as do many noble Lords, that many local authorities have faced considerable financial pressures over an extended period. They do not have a lot of resource available for new obligations. It therefore seems prudent that before these new duties come into force, the Government should publish an assessment of their likely impact on local authorities across the United Kingdom. This is the sort of information that, in any case, Parliament ought to have before deciding on something as substantial as this.
My next amendment follows naturally from the previous one. If Parliament imposes new obligations, it should be honest about who pays for them. The amendment therefore applies a straightforward new burdens principle. Where local authorities reasonably incur additional expenditure as a consequence of duties imposed under the Act, funding should be provided by the Secretary of State. Too often, Governments of all colours have found it tempting to create obligations centrally while expecting others to absorb the costs locally. That approach risks disappointing everyone involved: local authorities face additional pressure, services struggle to meet expectations, and beneficiaries do not receive what Parliament intended. If we are serious about supporting the Armed Forces community, we should also be serious about ensuring that the organisations expected to deliver these commitments have the necessary resources to do so.
My final amendment is perhaps the most significant. It would require the appointment of an independent authority to review the operation and effectiveness of the legislation within three years, and to receive representations from individuals affected by it. The review would then be laid before both Houses. This reflects a simple principle of good governance. Government departments should certainly monitor their own performance, but Parliament should have access to independent evidence. An independent review would allow us to assess whether public bodies are genuinely giving regard to the covenant, whether the legislation has improved outcomes, and whether unintended consequences have emerged that could be set right. It would also provide a means for those directly affected to bring forward their experience of how the duty is operating in practice.
Taken together, these amendments are united by a single common theme: accountability. They do not seek to alter or undermine the purpose of the Bill; they merely ask whether we not only support the Armed Forces covenant but are prepared to monitor its success, scrutinise its implementation, provide the resources necessary for delivery and maintain Parliament’s commitment to the Armed Forces community in the years ahead. I beg to move.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I will make a few brief comments on the amendments in this group. I am quite attracted to and interested in them, because the noble Lord indicated that they all amount to accountability; to me, they are more about consistency. Throughout the United Kingdom, there are various ways of implementing the Armed Forces covenant. I declare an interest as a former member of the Northern Ireland security forces and the armed services. This is about consistency, because the UK Government, the devolved institutions and the local administrations have different mechanisms and ways of developing and producing results. Only a few months ago, there was a difficulty in Belfast City Council whereby Sinn Féin attempted to block the signing of the Armed Forces covenant.
We want to ensure—and I see it in these amendments —that we have a process of reporting back to Parliament and the people that this is working effectively and consistently. I want to see that level of consistency throughout the various administrations and governments. For example, in Northern Ireland we have a different way of developing health services from England. That is only one example; there are many more, such as education and local government. All I want is to see that consistency. I hope that a reporting mechanism such as that proposed by the noble Lord would be one way of achieving that. It would be a positive implementation of the Armed Forces covenant. It would almost be a covenant with not only the Armed Forces but between the Armed Forces, the Government and the people.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for bringing forward this series of amendments. They are important for accountability and the role of Parliament, and they will have implications for local government. I am not declaring an interest because it was a long time ago, but I was a city councillor in Cambridge for 12 years. The first seven years were under a Labour Government, and the last five years were under a Coalition Government. One of the things that was very clear in local government was that central government would have many bright ideas: things that they would suggest could be done by local authorities—for example, free bus passes. That had asymmetric implications for local authorities. It was very difficult for local authorities to kick back. There was no opportunity for them to say, “We cannot do this”. It was not a matter of a government of one particular colour or another; it was central government versus local authorities.
We now have a new Prime Minister, and seemingly a new enthusiasm from the Government to think again about devolution and the relationship between central government and local government. Until we have clarity on that, it is important for us to be aware of the implications of extending the Armed Forces covenant to local authorities. Here, I might sound as though I am caught on the road to Damascus: I had seen the light, and thought that the Armed Forces covenant should be extended to central government—which I still believe—but am I now saying that we do not need to extend it to local government?
Of course, local authorities need to be there, but we need to be clear what the requirements are, and the funding arrangements, if we are imposing new duties on local authorities. Clarity from the Government about some of the implications—looking at Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morse—is very important. I also ask the Minister to give us clarity on how this legislation stands in relation to the devolved nations; the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, raised the question of consistency. It is one thing to look at local authorities within England, but it is another to look at Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Obviously, defence is a retained power—it is a national, United Kingdom-wide policy—but in terms of devolution, how does this fit with what the Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern Ireland Executive have the power to do? What is the opportunity for ensuring that we have the consistency that the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, is rightly saying that we need? This should not be a question of where you are from in the United Kingdom; that should not impact how well you are able to access the roles and responsibilities of the Armed Forces covenant.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for these amendments, and I must confess that I find myself in some sympathy with the spirit of most of them. Amendments 12 and 13 seek an independent review of how the new covenant legal duty operates in practice three years after commencement, with a copy laid before both Houses, and an annual report to Parliament prepared by the Secretary of State. That is simply good legislative housekeeping, as we are expanding the covenant duty quite considerably, and Parliament would be failing in its own responsibilities if it simply passed this provision and walked away, hoping for the best. So, in principle, I am in agreement with the noble Lord.
However, I have an inherent aversion to the creation of yet another independent authority to oversee the operation of government policy, as set out in Amendment 12, and I am not convinced that this provides the taxpayer with good value for money. If a review or reporting requirement is to be introduced, it is best to find another avenue. It is more sensible, for example, to give the review or reporting duty to the new Armed Forces Commissioner, whose office is set up for precisely this sort of work, and this overview of welfare issues. I hope that is something the Government might be prepared to consider.
The third amendment in this group would require an impact assessment from local authorities before commencement. Although that appears to be a suggestion of basic prudence, I note that the impact assessment produced by the department specifically for the extension of the covenant legal duty includes considerable analysis of the new burdens on local authorities. It is not often that I give a supporting hand to the Government—I do not promise to make a habit of doing so—but, where they have fulfilled their duty efficiently, I am prepared to acknowledge that and give due praise. So, in this amendment, I am not convinced that it is necessary.
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.
Baroness Goldie
“(e) improving the satisfaction of service personnel and their families with the accommodation provided.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would create a new function for the Defence Housing Service of improving satisfaction for service personnel.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 16 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Minto; I will also speak to the other amendments in the group. Notwithstanding that in the next group I shall be critical about the creation of the defence housing service, my three amendments in this group are intended to try to strengthen the new body created by Clause 3. I have my reservations about that new body, and I shall clarify that in subsequent debate, but I have enough experience of these things to know that I am very unlikely to stop a determined Government establishing this new body. If it is to exist, I would like it to be the best it can possibly be, and that is the approach I take with these amendments.
Amendment 16 is intended to create a new function for the DHS. As drafted, Clause 3 sets out a number of objectives for the defence housing service and its functions, including
“improving the supply and quality of defence housing … managing land or other property used (or formerly used) for defence purposes … securing the regeneration or development of such land or other property, and … supporting in other ways—(i) the creation, regeneration or development of service communities, and (ii) the continued wellbeing of those communities”.
I am sure there are no noble Lords who would object to those objectives; I certainly do not. But given the history of the service family accommodation estate and the severe challenges for morale, recruitment and retention caused by the state of the housing offered, I think it is necessary to introduce a fifth objective, which is what this amendment tries to achieve. That new objective would quite simply be
“improving the satisfaction of service … families with the accommodation provided”.
I have no doubt that those who dreamed up the imaginative idea of establishing a new independent government body to operate and oversee the family housing estate had that very aim front and centre of their thoughts. But if that was their central objective, and they believe it should be the central objective of the defence housing service, why is it not one of the explicit functions laid out in new Section 343E(1)? It is perfectly reasonable and eminently sensible to make this small change to the Bill to ensure that the satisfaction of those who will be using the housing provided by the DHS is improved by the creation of this new body. It would be fairly straightforward to measure by using the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Surveys. If it does not improve, that would be a sure indicator that this new body has failed in its task. Conversely, if it does improve, it would be a clear indicator that the DHS has succeeded and my scepticism has been unduly harsh.
Amendment 19 would require the chief executive of the DHS to report directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces. This amendment was tabled by my right honourable friend Mark Francois in the other place in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the lines of accountability for the defence housing service. From reading Hansard from the other place, I am not quite convinced that we have nailed down this issue. My right honourable friend raised the point that the DHS will report to the National Armaments Director and asked the Minister in the other place why that decision was taken. Unfortunately, answer came there none. I would be grateful if the Minister could now give me a straightforward answer to the question of why the line of accountability is to the National Armaments Director.
The more fundamental point is that accountability really matters. We know how shoddy the provision of service family housing has been and how our service personnel have suffered as a result. None of us wants that to be allowed to continue, but I am acutely concerned that this new organisation may end up becoming infected with what I might describe as bureaucratic capture, a disease that has afflicted so many independent public bodies over the years. If this occurs, we may very well see the DHS prioritise its own interests over those of the service families it is intended to help. Consequently, clear lines of accountability to Ministers, who are in turn accountable to Parliament, are paramount; my amendment attempts to embed that in the Bill.
Amendment 20 has a similar intended effect. It would require the defence housing service to have an oversight board comprising four members of each of the three service branches, to be chosen in a manner decided by the Defence Council, although it is my intention to have them elected by their peers. To be eligible for the oversight board, an individual would have to live, or have recently lived, in service family accommodation to ensure they have the requisite experience of the system. This would ensure that the concerns and views of those who actually live in the housing provided by the DHS are represented directly at the top. I suggest that, in this way, we can further guard against the tendency for the DHS to be captured by its own interests as a bureaucracy and ensure it never forgets those who really matter.
I sincerely hope the Government take this suggestion on board. I simply cannot believe that any noble Lord would be opposed to giving our service men and women a greater voice in the provision of their housing. I hope the Minister, in keeping with the new Prime Minister’s appetite for collaboration and constructive relationships between government and opposition, can find it in himself to agree to these amendments—if not in drafting, at least in spirit.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, for years we have talked about standards of service accommodation. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, when she was a Minister, stood up many times and answered questions, as did so many of her predecessors as Ministers of State for Defence. Much of that was about service family accommodation, but not only that—some of it was about single living accommodation.
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.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
“(aa) single living accommodation,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add single living accommodation to the definition of defence housing to ensure that defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation as well as service family accommodation.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, my two amendments, which have been signed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, seek to fill a gap that arose in the Renters’ Rights Act in 2025. There was much discussion, and an amendment, to ensure that service family accommodation would be raised to the equivalent of decent homes. The same was not done for single living accommodation, and that may well reflect the fact that there is not exactly an equivalent of single living accommodation in civilian life. Nevertheless, it is vital that individuals living in single living accommodation should have decent homes and decent accommodation.
It might be tempting to assume that those living in single living accommodation will be new recruits, young service personnel. But, as my honourable friend Ian Roome, a member of the Defence Select Committee and a member of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in the other place, pointed out, many service personnel spend much of their working life in the forces in single accommodation. It is not simply a question of living there until you get married and have a family; it may be that you live there because your partner and family are living in family accommodation somewhere else. This is something that does not just affect individuals; it may still affect service families.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 17 and 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and I am very grateful to her for spending time over the weekend explaining them in more detail. The noble Baroness is quite right in what she has just said to this House about the need to care for those who are in single accommodation, recognising that that accommodation can be used throughout a whole service career.
My two concerns around why I think single accommodation needs to be brought in scope with further consideration are about, first, well-being and, secondly, retention. Well-being is vital for the good running of His Majesty’s forces. We ask a huge amount from those members and we should be providing them with accommodation that is of a standard that is comfortable to live within, because, certainly on deployment, they are often living in accommodation that is very challenging. It is good for mental health and it is good for general all-round health and fitness to have accommodation that provides that basis for a good, well-lived life.
On retention, we know that we are not recruiting at the levels we should be, that there is loss of forces, and we would like to see people staying for longer military careers. Having accommodation of a good enough standard, places that people can call home, is vital for retention. I very willingly support the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on her Amendments 17 and 18.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled these stand-part notices for Clause 3 and Schedule 1 to probe why the Government have decided to pursue the creation of a new public body to deliver and manage service family accommodation. I indicated to the Chamber that I would pursue this under this group. These provisions would establish the defence housing service as a new free-standing non-departmental public body, taking over responsibility for the provision, maintenance and modernisation of service family accommodation. Nobody on my Benches disputes the scale of the problem that confronts the Ministry of Defence; what I do intend to question is whether the Government are pursuing the best solution.
The defence housing strategy, published last year, offers a familiar formula: it talks of a clearer statutory footing, better focus and an accounting officer with defined responsibility for the housing estate. None of this tells us why the defence housing service, as an arm’s-length body, will succeed where the Defence Infrastructure Organisation has so conspicuously failed. The DIO, too, was created as a discrete organisation with a clear remit, and it has become a byword for bureaucratic unresponsiveness, even, sadly, being nicknamed—not affectionately, I may add—“DI-no”.
The lesson of the failures of the DIO—and, as we must not forget, Annington Homes—is that defence housing needs a different operating model altogether, one genuinely run by people whose entire professional life is housing, and one that is accountable to the families it serves, rather than upward to the department in Whitehall. That is precisely why my party’s alternative is a forces housing association. That would be an organisation modelled on an ordinary housing association, not run for profit, with every pound of revenue reinvested in the housing stock. Its executive leadership would be drawn from the social housing sector rather than the Civil Service, and representatives of each of the three forces families federations would be given a formal seat on its board. That model would give service families something the Bill does not: an institution whose culture, incentives and governance are drawn from the industry that already knows how to run good-quality rental housing well, rather than a new public body. By contrast, a national NDPB brings with it precisely the accountability weaknesses we are all too aware of. I really would appreciate if the Minister could give the House a straight answer to a very simple question: what specific mechanism in the Bill will make service families’ complaints be taken seriously and improve the satisfaction with, and quality of, service family accommodation?
My second point concerns money. I put this to the Committee because a new structure is worthless without the funding to back it up. In their defence housing strategy, the Government promised a 10-year £9 billion programme to upgrade around 43,000 defence homes—roughly nine in 10 of the whole family estate. That was, and remains, a welcome goal. Ministers understandably wanted credit for it; indeed, the Minister for the Armed Forces in the other place repeated these figures with confidence when the Bill was scrutinised in Committee in the other place in the spring. But when the defence investment plan was finally published this summer—nine months late, let us not forget—we learned that refurbishment work on some of the worst properties, the very homes surveyed and found to require substantial work or complete rebuilding, has been pushed back to fund other priorities within that plan. Antony Cotton, the campaigner who had fronted the Government’s own publicity for this programme, said plainly that families would feel let down. He had told them, in his words, that their homes were “on the horizon”. Now, sadly, that horizon has swiftly receded.
My right honourable friend Mark Francois pressed the Minister for the Armed Forces repeatedly in Committee in the other place on exactly this point: the gap between the confident figure given by the Ministers in the spring and the reality that emerged a few months later once the defence investment plan was published. We have seen this pattern all too often with this Government, not least on the path to 3%. They make an announcement with headline-grabbing numbers and reassure us that everything is in hand, but, with depressing predictability, they end up pushing everything back because they cannot get a grip on the welfare budget. In a Written Answer to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Docherty of Milngavie, the Minister stated that:
“The Ministry of Defence will publish its delivery timeline for the £9.2 billion Defence Housing Strategy over the next 12 months”.
Respectfully, this is simply more delay with the money. The housing strategy was published in November last year. Why have the Government not established a delivery timeline already, and why will it take yet another 12 months just to publish the delivery timeline, yet alone begin with the investment?
That matters directly, because we are being asked to approve the creation of an entirely new statutory body to deliver a programme whose funding has already been rewritten within months of being announced, before the body designed to deliver it has even been established. If the Government cannot hold to their own funding timetable under the current arrangements, no amount of institutional reorganisation will fix that. Without funds that the Government promised, this is a chimera—a verbal soufflé. I ask the Minister this again, directly: can the Government confirm today, on the record, that the £9 billion and the 43,000 homes remain their firm commitment on the original 10-year timetable? Can the Minister explain why service families should have confidence that the new body created for the Bill will succeed in fixing the standard of their housing?
I do not oppose the reform of defence housing delivery; I oppose the assumption that the creation of yet another arm’s-length body will solve anything. I did warn of my scepticism on this proposal, but I feel a lot better having shared it with the Committee.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness—and I congratulate her on finding a different way of having a therapy session. She made some very interesting and important points, and I will deal with them as I go through the remarks that I make. I will come to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about single living accommodation a little bit further down.
I begin with Clause 3 and Schedule 1, which create the defence housing service, a new public body dedicated to improving the supply and quality of defence housing and spearheading the regeneration of defence communities. Our defence housing strategy sets out a vision for the future transformation of military homes: 90% of military homes will be upgraded—that work has already started—or renewed or rebuilt, through a record £9.2 billion investment over a decade. The defence housing service is the vehicle to drive this transformation. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked me to confirm again the Government’s commitment to a figure and the time for that. Let me say it again, in direct answer to her question: it will be a record £9.2 billion investment over a decade.
The defence housing strategy recommended establishing the DHS as a professional arm’s-length body focused on the specific needs of service personnel and their families. The direct partnership with the military to support this can be achieved only within a public body. That was the recommendation of the housing strategy. I say to noble Lords that many of the people who drew the strategy up have had years and years of experience in housing. Without reading them all out, noble Lords can see for themselves if they look at the review work and the team that put this together. The Government supported the recommendations that they made.
Given the control required by the Ministry of Defence to meet operational needs, the purpose of the housing, the close relationship with welfare outcomes, and the exercise of housing discretion, transfer outside the public sector to a housing association or other private sector structure is not appropriate in the Government’s view or, indeed, the view of the strategy. It would, in our view, set back the renewal of the estate, increase costs of delivery, hamper the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces and undermine Crown tenancy arrangements.
The purpose of defence housing is to meet the operational needs of the Armed Forces. Central to that is the ability to move service personnel wherever needed and without delay. To support that mobility, accommodation is provided as part of their terms and conditions, at a rate heavily subsidised by the Ministry of Defence through a Crown licence arrangement which manages occupation in accordance with military operational requirements. This requires the Ministry of Defence as a whole to have operational control over its housing stock and who is in occupation of particular homes. That would be hampered by a transfer of the estate to a third-party organisation that is not part of the Ministry of Defence family.
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.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I thank the Minister. What I was about to say—and will continue saying—is that, in light of the debate, I will withdraw the amendment, but I may bring it back on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Direction of Government
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for being here to repeat this Statement.
The new Prime Minister was in place for 42 days before meeting Parliament. That is an all-time record for a new Prime Minister and I trust it will never be equalled. So, we certainly need accountability and, having ordered his troops to vote down a debate in July, I thank the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms for repenting a little and granting additional time for Back-Bench questions on the Statement today.
The Statement began with a tribute to Sir Keir Starmer. On hearing it, I was a little reminded of Brutus’s speech in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. The Prime Minister plotted to destroy Sir Keir, not because he did not love Sir Keir but because he loved No. 10 more. Sir Keir has responded to the loyalty that he was shown and, understandably, voted with his feet. We wish him well.
This Statement was grandly entitled “Direction of the Government”. So what is it? What will be different from what was done by the Starmer Government? If she answers nothing else today, can the Minister tell us three things Sir Keir was doing which will now be dropped and three things he was not doing which will now be done? After all, she is in the Cabinet; she must know.
The Prime Minister in the Statement made a lot of things going wrong over 40 years. He blamed Brexit, among other things, and then announced a reduction of VAT on energy prices—ironically, impossible without Brexit. He said that he wanted to help the hospitality industry. Your Lordships may ask who has been pummelling that and crushing summer jobs over the last two years. It is this Labour Government in their disastrous tax policies and the unemployment Act.
The Prime Minister used another Brexit freedom to cut VAT temporarily on pubs. They are now closing at the fastest rate ever known. We might call it “last orders with Reeves and Rayner”. But then the big new idea in the Statement to help hospitality is a tourism tax—that is a funny one.
Always, always, always with the party opposite, the answer is not a spending cut but a new tax. You cannot tax your way into growth. Jim Callaghan said that in the 1970s, as the Prime Minister recalls so fondly. The Prime Minister’s friend, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, understands that equally well now. The noble Lord seems unwilling to serve under the Prime Minister’s leadership. Perhaps he is the canary in the wealth tax coal mine. Yesterday, he criticised the “tone” of the Prime Minister’s Statement, calling it the
“last thing investors wanted to hear”.
Business has heard the message of tax and spending loud and clear. We should beware, for this is the real danger to our country, to jobs, to mortgages and to business—tax, borrowing and spending running out of control just as they did under the Labour Government in the 1970s the Prime Minister recalls so fondly.
Let us come back to the “Direction of Government”, the title of the Statement. This Government have already added £74,000 million to the tax burden in two years. Some £130,000 million is already spent every year on servicing debt: that is over £1,800 a year for every man, woman and child in the country. We have more borrowing, more nationalisation, more spending, more intervention by civil servants, more tax and more state control.
Can the Minister confirm that that is the direction of the Government? It certainly sounds like the 1970s. Can she say whether the Government’s plan is to increase borrowing or reduce it? Do they plan to increase government spending to pay for all the new initiatives that the Prime Minister has announced, or to curtail spending? Will they address the burgeoning weight of welfare spending on the necks of the working man and woman, or reduce it? Come to think of it, can the Minister tell the House of one significant reduction in welfare that she is recommending to colleagues?
The Prime Minister makes a lot of this new No. 10 North. Well, it is nice to have your office just down the road. To give him credit, I am told that the replica front door cost a thousand quid. I wish somebody had told someone in this House about our new front door. We are told that everyone must now beat their path to No. 10 North to get subsidies, get spending, get more civil servants and get the right to put up tax. If Cornwall wants a so-called “devolution deal”, it must go up to Manchester. Can the Minister say whether these deals will let regional mayors reduce tax? If this is about the direction of the Government, what is the Government’s strategy on taxation? Is it for the taxation burden to go up or fall under this Government? Can the Minister tell the House? Hard-working people up and down the country, who are already paying the highest peacetime tax burden in history and the highest taxation on property in Europe or the G7, deserve to know the Government’s intentions.
National security is the first duty of any Government. The former Defence Secretary resigned over this Government’s failure to do enough. He is now the Chancellor. So, with that following wind in her sails, can the Minister commit to the defence funding that the Chancellor said was necessary to keep British troops safe? That is, 3% of GDP by 2030.
The ultimate test for any Government is whether people feel richer, freer and more prosperous. There is agreement across the House that this can be achieved only through growth. It can be achieved only through innovation and hard work by individuals and businesses. The Prime Minister admits that the cost of doing business is already too high. Yet, in the same breath, he apparently recommits himself in the Statement to the same net-zero policies that are driving up energy costs for households and businesses. Again, which is it? It cannot be both.
The direction of the Government in so many respects remains confused and unclear, but nothing would do this country more harm than the agenda of back to the high-tax, high-spending 1970s, which this Statement presages and which, in the last two days, the financial markets have ominously discerned.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, Andy Burnham is the seventh Prime Minister in the 13 years I have been a Member of this House. Under our unstable one-party government system, Prime Ministers have had an average tenure of 21 months in my time. I worked out that this is precisely the average lifespan of a domestic hamster. Of course, we wish the current Prime Minister a longer time in Downing Street than the lifespan of a hamster. We wish him well if he seeks to make changes to our country for the long-term good on social care, political reform, cutting the cost on businesses and restoring the ease of trade and travel within Europe. These Benches will work with his Ministers to meet this ambition. I wish the new Ministers who have been appointed in this House well and I thank those who left office for their service. We are also interested to see the structure, as referred to by the noble Lord, of No. 10 North. It is not north from where I live, north of the border—it is a bit more No. 10 in the middle—but I will be interested to see how the structure of government operates in reality.
It is fair to analyse the words of the Labour Prime Minister. First, I agree that there is
“a weariness in the heart of a nation”.
I agree that there is a yearning:
“For change. For national renewal”.
These Benches also agree with the Prime Minister’s call for “actions not words”. Finally, we share the need for
“the hope, the spirit, the belief in a better future”.
These sound like Andy Burnham, but they are all actually Sir Keir Starmer’s words in his first speech as Prime Minister.
The new Prime Minister’s speech on taking office, when cross-referenced with that of his predecessor, is a little like an Elgar’s variation on a theme but with a little more espressivo and emotion. Keir Starmer said that too many people no longer believe Britain would be better for their children and promised to work until they “believe again”, and Andy Burnham ended with almost exactly the same emotional destination. He said that Britain should start to “believe again” and that he wanted to “bring back hope”.
Expectations are high, but as my former Scottish Liberal colleague Russell Johnston said:
“You don’t change the taste of the whisky by changing the shape of the bottle”.
Nor are the fundamentals and the challenges facing the Government any different because of the new Prime Minister. The tasks ahead of him are enormous, and I agree with the noble Lord that it is right that we have extra time. Indeed, tomorrow we have a debate in the House where we will be exploring further what the Government’s plans are under the new Prime Minister.
Some of the Prime Minister’s statements are welcomed by these Benches, especially in the areas we have campaigned for, where hitherto action was not as rapid as we had hoped—for example, on waste dumping, championed by my noble friend Lady Sheehan in this House; on reducing the tax burden on hospitality businesses; or on securing what we hope to be real changes to the political system on donations, on clarity, on transparency and on regulation, as my noble friend Lord Pack indicated at Questions today. On the last point, we believe there need to be full cross-party talks on protecting our democratic processes—this is of vital importance—but we also need democratic reform. I would be grateful if the Leader gave an indication of what she understands the Prime Minister’s priority to be on the electoral system and democratic reform, not just on devolution.
On water reform, for example, we had been told that we would have legislation around now, but in the Makerfield by-election Andy Burnham told the Guardian that he was in favour of public ownership. He recently told the FT that he is in favour of control, not nationalisation. Can the Leader offer clarification as to what we will receive when it comes to water reform, Thames Water in particular, and when we will receive it? It is urgent. Dumping is being carried out as we speak today. Andy Burnham also told the Financial Times that he wanted to address not just the cost of living but the cost of businesses, particularly energy costs. We welcome this, but there needs to be more clarity as to what he means by it.
He said that there is a slight difference between his approach on growth and that of his predecessor. He agreed that the number one priority of government should be growth, but he said it should be “good growth”. I wondered what that means. Is good growth not investing in fossil fuels or being pragmatic on fossil fuels? Is it trade agreements where we ditch human rights clauses? Is good growth that we increase imports from poor standards in China? More clarity as to what good growth means would be helpful. For example, many people welcomed the cap on bus fares, and I understand why. That was the first announcement by Mr Burnham. It is paid for by a further cut of development assistance for clean travel in the poorest country in the world, so more clarity is needed.
On travel, we welcome the Government’s announcement on the extension of disabled travel, championed by Tom Gordon MP in the House of Commons. We welcome the concession on digital ID. In particular, we welcome the talks on social care. Sir Ed Davey took part willingly in the talks with the Prime Minister on the need to seek cross-party consensus, and I know that the Official Opposition took part in those talks as well. Can the Leader explain a little more what we may see as a result of these talks? As Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham have both said, we need action, not words, and we need reform, not talk. On care, on electoral reform and on fiscal decentralisation, these Benches will be constructive in working with the Government, but we need a lot more information about what and when on the Government’s programme.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that I am not repeating the Statement today; I am answering questions. We agreed that earlier. I welcome him back to his position as Leader of the Opposition. Long may he stay in that role—I say that genuinely. I also thank him for his comments about Sir Keir Starmer. Many of us were very proud of the work in the Government he led. He took us into government from the worst defeat the Labour Party had had, and those two years in government are years of which we can be proud. We wish him well as he continues in his role of public service, however he chooses to do that.
The noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord True, asked about the differences and the similarities. There are always differences with a change of Prime Minister, but both Prime Ministers are Labour and they share the same values. Those values guide people in different ways. The heart of what they believe in is very similar, but they will discharge that in the ways that they know best from their experiences. The noble Lord, Lord True, had lots of questions on these things, as he often does. I listened with some interest when he was talking about the 1970s. Some of us do not think the 1970s were that bad. I lived through them as a teenager—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am talking about the music. For those of us who lived through the 1970s in our teenage years, there are lots of things to be pleased with. The point the Prime Minister is making is that every action has consequences. In the 1970s we saw deindustrialisation, more centralisation and privatisation of the most basic utilities. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned the water industry. There are consequences—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Noble Lords opposite want to heckle. There will be time to answer questions. I now have something like five minutes left to answer these questions, which I am trying to do. I would like to be able to do so, if I may.
Water privatisation has had an impact on how the water industry is now run. The lack of investment in our infrastructure since those times has consequences. That is the point the Prime Minister is making about looking back. It is not to say who is to blame; it is to ask what we can learn from what we did in the past. How can we do it better and how can we avoid such mistakes again?
The noble Lord, Lord True, has completely misunderstood the purpose of No. 10 North. The Prime Minister has been clear about the value of ensuring that all parts of the country think they can connect and have a role to play in the growth of this country. There is no doubt about having a central point at which decisions are taken, with the full authority of the Prime Minister, engaging with the Treasury and working together to say, “This is our focus on what we can deliver for the nation”. I have to say that the cost of the door is neither here nor there. We should perhaps look at our own House before we look at that. We in this country should be proud that we want to decentralise more and see important decisions being taken across the country.
I do not have time to answer the questions on welfare reform, and I am sure there will be others on that issue, but I just say to the noble Lord how important it is. The two reviews whose results we are waiting for—the Milburn review on youth unemployment and the review of PIP undertaken by Stephen Timms—really will inform the decisions that are to be taken. We have to look at the long-term consequences of decisions that have been taken in the past. Welfare spending is predicted to remain pretty stable and the rise that has been predicted is half of that which happened under his Government.
However, if we do not get a grip on this then there will be serious problems, not just in the finances but for the welfare of the nation as a whole. It is a priority on this side of the House; it is completely wrong that we have over a million young people who are in neither education nor employment. They are not working or learning. We have to address that, but just removing any benefits will not do that. We have to get them off benefits and into work so that they are not claiming benefits but paying taxes. That is a huge priority for this Government, and one that we will deliver on.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, spoke about democracy. He will have heard the Prime Minister’s comments on electoral reform. He said that he needs a mandate for that. He is not going to set up a commission without a mandate, and he referenced that in terms of the general election. He has his own view, and I think views across the House vary on this issue, but he is absolutely committed to ensuring that we preserve and protect our democracy while ensuring that everyone across the country values it. He is particularly interested in the voting system, but the money coming into politics, how we conduct our politics and the integrity of the voting system are all crucial issues.
I am sorry; because of the length of time for which the noble Lords spoke, I cannot answer any more questions, but I will endeavour to do so during the Back-Bench questions, as we have longer. The noble Lord, Lord True, complained about us not having a debate before the Recess. We have a debate this Thursday as well, which came partly from the discussions we had after he complained about that. I think only six Members of his group have signed up to it, including the Front Bench. Given what he said, I thought that rather more might have wanted to do so, but we were pleased to offer extra time for questions today.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we now move on to up to 40 minutes for Back-Bench questions. Questions should be short, sharp, succinct and to the point. If Members start giving speeches, all they will do is prevent other Members asking questions. The first question will come from the Conservative Benches.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, on this point about good growth, does it remain the Government’s policy that any company that is operating lawfully and fulfilling its legal responsibilities should be encouraged to grow its revenue and profits, hire people and pay its taxes, or is it the implication of the Prime Minister’s statement about “good growth” that there are companies which we would rather not do those things?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I expected a better question from the noble Lord, if I am honest. The whole purpose of growth is that it benefits the country, the company and the employees of that company. When those conditions are fulfilled, of course that is good growth. The noble Lord will see from measures coming forward how much we want to support business. Some of the things he can look at—this ties in with the welfare reform argument—are getting young people into work and working with companies and businesses to support them to take on those young people. So yes, we want good growth across the country.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, some of the coverage of the Prime Minister’s Statement has been rather dismissive of his references to, and reliance upon, his experience as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, but it seems to me that this experience is central to the Government’s mission. Can my noble friend the Leader tell us more about the Government’s ambition to place regional and local government at the heart of their agenda for delivery?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
One of the things the Prime Minister said early on, when we met in Cabinet and in other meetings we have had, is how much he learned from being the Mayor of Greater Manchester. He brings to the table now as Prime Minister his experience not just as a previous Secretary of State and a Government Minister in Westminster but of what can be achieved when power is decentralised. It is a case of ensuring that we devolve not just responsibility but the power to make decisions to those who are best placed to understand the needs of their areas, how to bring growth to their areas and how to bring the hope and optimism that noble Lords have spoken about.
The Prime Minister has laid out a number of things already. On his visit to Truro last week, he talked about how we could look at having a devolved model in that part of the country, as well as about giving advice and support to other parts of the country that do not currently have elected mayors about how they may benefit from the powers that can be given to them. That is not just rhetoric; it is born out of the experience of what he was able to achieve in Manchester, working across the country with other mayors—from all parties, as he has been clear—and the difference that can make. That is high up on the agenda. Part of the role of No. 10 North is to bring that together and show how it has a real drive from the Government, with a focus very much on that policy.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the Prime Minister was on a tour of the United Kingdom in recent weeks, and I welcome that. He recently visited Northern Ireland and referred to a border poll and to the Troubles Bill. However, the one thing that was not mentioned was the inter-state case being taken to the Republic of Ireland against the United Kingdom on the amnesty issue, from a Government in Dublin who have been operating a concealed amnesty since 1998. Can the Leader of the House assure us that representations will be made to the Irish Government to withdraw that outrageous case straightaway so that we can have a proper relationship and not deal with a hypocritical situation where the Republic can allow over 500 people to be murdered on our border and refuse 108 applications for people to be extradited?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I know the noble Lord, and I think he has spoken to my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office about this matter. Having taken advice from my noble friend the Northern Ireland Minister, who is sitting next to me, I know that she has had conversations with the Irish Government on this and those conversations will continue. If he wants to take that up further with her then we will be happy to talk to him, but he can be assured that conversations and discussions continue on that issue.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister yesterday said that the other place had ignored for far too long the question of IPPs. Will the noble Baroness accept that this House has most certainly not ignored it? Across the whole House, there has been a concerted campaign to rid this stain from our justice system. He promised legislation “soon”. What does “soon” mean? We need to get this legislation up and running, whether it begins in this House or in the other place, as soon as we return in October.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He is right, and I have made this point; there have been a number of discussions and debates in this House on the issue. It is a difficult issue, and I know he is aware of its complications and how complex it is. I think it is understood that for people who have served significantly more than the sentences imposed on them at the time to be held so much longer is wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, said that we should end the sentences and he was quite clear-cut, and across the House there has been quite a strong view on that.
When any prisoner is released, we have to deal with issues of public safety, whether that is on IPP, on early release or at the end of sentences. That is why we have invested so much additional money and support into the Probation Service; I think it was £700 million extra for recruiting new probation officers. I cannot give the noble and learned Lord an exact timetable for this, and I certainly could not promise to bring it back in October because the legislation has yet to be drafted—it was not drafted before, and we need to ensure that we get it right. Can I keep in contact with him on this? I am happy to do that and keep him informed. I am sure he will have views on how the legislation could be drafted. I will keep him and the House updated, but there will be no undue delay. This is something on which we want to move forward as quickly as we are able.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
These Benches wish the Prime Minister well and assure him of our prayers. I welcome his attendance at COP 31 in Turkey in a couple of months’ time and that he recognises the impact of climate change—he referenced the glacial collapse at the Nepal-China border with tragic loss of life and this being the hottest summer on record. How can the Government work to rebuild the cross-party consensus that there was just a few years ago about the urgent need to take action for the common good for those who share this single island planet home, both now and in the future?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I am not sure it is a question that should be necessarily addressed to the Government; perhaps addressing it to the Opposition might be more helpful. But, yes, it would be good to have a cross-party consensus on the actions that need to be taken. It is quite clear that climate change has a devastating effect across the world and has consequences in the UK that need to be addressed. The Prime Minister’s attendance at COP has been signalled early on for a good reason—he wants it to be recognised that he will be there and wants to play a full part. As the issues progress, the right reverend Prelate will see matters coming forward to this House. The Prime Minister has been very clear, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his comments about working together on these issues. This is a Prime Minister who has always had to work through consensus to get things done, and he has been clear that that is how he would rather progress things, so there will be discussions ongoing and I would hope to see greater support from the party opposite on these matters.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the strong message yesterday from the Prime Minister on hope. Hope is definitely the right message, but it can be sustained only if it is followed by real, visible, continuing delivery. It is great to see the progress on small boats, NHS waiting times and school results and even growth in the economy in an uncertain time. What are the Cabinet and the Prime Minister thinking about to sustain that growth and build the momentum that we need?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The Prime Minister is good on hope and optimism, and I like to think that the Prime Minister may follow in my footsteps. I was reflecting earlier that it was 10 years ago that I gave a lecture on the benefit of hope and optimism in politics; perhaps it had some impact—perhaps not. The whole purpose of having optimism and growth is because, if people are optimistic about the future, if they believe their lives will get better and believe their children’s lives will be better than their lives, that galvanises them into an energy that the country benefits from. Part of that is economic growth, but part of it is the democratisation issues that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to. It is people feeling they have some control over their lives and their future and can have an impact on decisions about how they live and how they work. It is not just an abstract concept.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord True, said, because, on the one hand, he said there was nothing different and then he talked about all the new initiatives that had come forth from the new Prime Minister; both cannot be true. But when the Prime Minister is talking about these initiatives, he is talking about concrete change to let people know that they can have a greater say in their lives—in how they work, how they live and where they live. That will help our economy to grow and bring the economic growth needed if we are going to deliver on these changes.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Why do the Government not rule out any tax rises in the next Budget, given the disaster of the previous two Budgets when speculation about tax rises and actual tax rises destroyed jobs, drove up unemployment, closed businesses, undermined confidence and abolished hope?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am always intrigued when the party opposite talks about disastrous Budgets, because I remember one very pertinent one. But I think the noble Lord is on to something with one of the things he said, and a very interesting debate on the economy this morning on Radio 4 raised it. He talked about the speculation and the discussion before the Budget. Part of the radio debate was that it does not happen to the same extent in other countries at all; it is something very peculiar to the UK. It does have an impact and, as much as it would be very nice to be able to give him an answer and say I can rule this in and rule that out, it adds to the fuel of speculation. One of the reasons the Government have brought the Budget forward to 28 October is to try to limit that time for speculation, so that you get a complete answer. I hear calls from the party opposite, “Can you rule this in, can you rule that out, can you say this, will you commit to that?” No, but there will be a Budget, and everything will become clearer.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I actually watched the whole of the Prime Minister’s Statement in person, and the key things he identified were some of the fundamental challenges that this country faces. The key thing that I took away was the fact that he said Brexit had caused huge damage. If that is the case—and I agree with him—why on earth are the Prime Minister and his Cabinet still having those ludicrous red lines of no single market and no customs union? Joining those are the easiest way of getting growth into our economy.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
It is very easy to say that Brexit is the total reason for all the problems. It is part of it. In his Statement, the Prime Minister did not say that all these problems were caused by Brexit. He went back to the 1970s, back to the deindustrialisation of the country and back to some disastrous privatisations and he also referenced the poor Brexit deal that was not in the best interests of the UK. The Government do have their red lines and we are not going to go back into the European Union, but, as has been said from the Dispatch Box before and will be said again, we do want a much better relationship. We will look at decisions that can be taken and agreements that can be made to improve the position, but we are not going to rerun the argument on Brexit in the near future at all.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear next from the Cross Benches, then the Labour Benches and then the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the Government have cut VAT, cut business rates and reinstated the £2 bus fare. Simultaneously, the cost of their borrowing continues to rise to increasingly frightening levels. The Prime Minister tells us that he is funding this through reprioritising spending within government, so can the Minister tell us what has been deprioritised?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The Prime Minister has looked at a number of issues and said, “Where can we do things better and do things differently?” It has been about deprioritising some issues and reprioritising others. I have not got a complete list; I will get some more information for when I come to the Dispatch Box next time on this. He has wanted to give a breathing space because, for most people at the moment, it is really hard just day to day and looking at price increases. We need to have a breathing space for people. We need to support the kind of fiscal discipline that can bring the cost of borrowing down. As we do that and say more will be available in the Budget, we need to find a way through so we take the pressure off families.
It is worth noting that, in the first half of this year, this country was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and wages have increased more in the first two years of this Government than they did under a decade under the previous Government. One of the issues we have to contend with is the international situation, which is very volatile. No one could have predicted that the Strait of Hormuz would have been such a political and economic issue at this time. The Government are looking at all ways. Noble Lords will have heard the Prime Minister say that one of the reasons he appointed the former Defence Secretary to be Chancellor of the Exchequer is because he understands the competing pressures that we have to meet. As the Budget comes forward—and work is going on apace on that at the moment—it is a way to get money working better for the country and just give a breathing space to families and individuals who are trying to make ends meet at what is quite a difficult time for them.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)
My Lords, can the Leader say more about how we can significantly embed the work being done to create what I believe will be around 50,000 new apprenticeships by the end of this Parliament for young people aged 18 to 24 years? I know that she mentioned already a lot of work being done by the Milburn review and others across government, but how is the Prime Minister going to really bring this together to ensure that there is a road to success for all young people in this country?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her question, because it gets to the nub of many of the issues. Support is already being given to young people to start in these new guaranteed jobs, and those jobs are being taken up now as we speak. If you can reshape the system so that people do not feel they are being written off, and there is money available for employers to take on apprentices, with jobs available at the end of that system, then that is what matters.
We are not just waiting for the Milburn review; there is work ongoing already on some of the things that Alan Milburn has said in his conclusions, such as increasing face-to-face assessments, providing personalised work programmes and providing employment support, with £3.5 billion for employers taking on those who want to work. People have dismissed this Government too quickly in saying we have done nothing on welfare reform, but an important thing that we have done is providing a right to try work for people with disabilities. Too often, it had been assumed that people with disabilities could not work, and if they could, they had to give up any benefits and simply leave those, and if it did not work out for them, they would have to apply again. Now, there is a gap where they can apply to work, can try to work and get the opportunity to do so. When it comes to these types of issues, we need to pay for success rather than keep paying for failure, which is what happened over the last 10 years.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
The sense of positivity that the Prime Minister brought to the House in the last two days, particularly in respect of hope and growth and tax, as the Minister said, is in marked contrast to the previous regime, and it is genuinely welcome. Unfortunately, however, growth is now predicted to be negligible for this quarter and the next, and the gilts market has responded by raising our interest rates to a record higher than the aforementioned Liz Truss Budget. Can I therefore pick up the point the Minister made in reply to my noble friend Lord Redwood in respect of Budget measures? I take the point about her not wanting to rule things out. In fact, the Labour Party manifesto, which the Prime Minister has agreed to follow, specifically ruled out increases to income tax, increases in VAT and increases in corporation tax. Leaving aside the sleight of hand with national insurance, it would be possible to rule out wealth taxes and increases to capital gains tax. I ask this because I can tell the Minister that the market is frozen, and people are not making decisions. We might end up with the same mess that we had last time. I urge her Government to think carefully about whether it is possible to indicate or to tell the market that certain tax rises will be ruled out.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord and thank him for his comments, which were in marked contrast to those of his leader, who did not think that we should have been saying some of these things. He makes a valid point, but as soon as you get into speculating about one area of the Budget or another—“Can you rule this out, can you rule that in?”—there is a problem. One of the reasons that the Government have brought the Budget forward is to limit that speculation period, so that things will be clear as soon as possible. If you listen to the interview that I heard this morning, one of the greatest problems that is affecting gilt and other markets is how much speculation happens in terms of asking the Government to rule things in or out. I hope to see the noble Lord here on 28 October, when there will be a debate in this House following the Budget, but I think the Government are right to bring it forward to avoid, as much as possible, the kind of speculation the noble Lord is talking about.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s Statement, particularly on the areas of hope, optimism and devolution. As someone from Northern Ireland, I encourage the Leader of the House to talk to the Prime Minister about ways to make the institutions in Stormont more functionable and workable and to enable growth in the local economy. With that in mind, can she discuss with him the possibility of the reform of the institutions to make them equitable and fair?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
As a former leader of her party and a former Minister in Stormont, the noble Baroness knows how complex these issues have been and how hard-fought the institutions were. As a Northern Ireland Minister myself, I remember the discussions that went on, at length, to get there. It is really important that we all work together, and I think the Prime Minister has shown his commitment to Northern Ireland by visiting Northern Ireland so early as Prime Minister. We must also work together because the institutions need to be effective. Politicians may argue about it, but the people of Northern Ireland are desperate for parties to work together, and desperate to see the organisations being as effective as possible. I can assure her that I will discuss these issues with the Secretary of State and with the Prime Minister, and with my noble friend who is the Minister for Northern Ireland in this House.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is very refreshing to have a Prime Minister who looks like he wants to be Prime Minister and is enjoying it. I also welcome his very first announcement that showed his interest in sport. When he was a spad, back when I was Sports Minister, he made it quite clear that Sport England would still be consulted over the loss of playing fields.
The Prime Minister is committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, yet it is being decimated in many ways, particularly on cross-community consent. Could the noble Baroness put forward any measures that would give us more confidence that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is being honoured in full, as the Prime Minister wants?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
As we approach the 30th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, what comes across is how important confidence was. That was voted for by the people of Northern Ireland with a sense of optimism. We have to redouble our efforts to recommit to all the values that were expressed in that, and the hope that was expressed in that. Northern Ireland only operates with cross-party consensus and agreement. When that is damaged, it is not just the institutions that are damaged but the future of Northern Ireland too. When there are protests et cetera on TV, it damages the economy of Northern Ireland as well. We may not agree on everything, but I share with the noble Baroness a commitment to ensure that the future of Northern Ireland should be as positive as possible. I hope we would both agree to work across parties and make all efforts to ensure that can happen. She is right that the Prime Minister is enjoying being Prime Minister, but he is only enjoying it because he wants to achieve something, and Northern Ireland will be part of that.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, back in 2010 I knew the Prime Minister slightly; he has probably forgotten me. He was a rather nice man, I thought, and I did offer to help him with his first election campaign for leader. He did not accept me, and the MPs who knew him did not vote for him. The question I have is this: in his Statement, the Prime Minister did not mention defence spending. This coming year, we are meant to be spending 2.75% on defence and, by 2030, we are meant to be spending 3%. Can my noble friend the Minister help with that?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am pleased to be called the noble Lord’s noble friend. He may not have stayed for the whole three and a half hours of the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday, but I certainly heard him talk about defence. He was very clear that one of the reasons that the Chancellor is the Chancellor is because he has been Defence Secretary and understands these issues. What he was clear about was that the Budget and the spending review will set out how we get to 3.5% by 2035, and also establish the path to 3%, and how that will be done. He was very clear on that.
I think that there are two sides to this. As a country, we have to step up on defence. I would say to the noble Lord that we promised in our manifesto, at the last election in 2024, to get to 2.5% spending on defence in this Parliament. We have already achieved that, and I have to say that the party opposite never got to 2.5%—but circumstances and times are changing. I can assure the noble Lord that the Prime Minister did talk about this in the Statement. I do not expect every Member of this House to listen to the full three and a half hours, but it might be worth the noble Lord reading Hansard, because the Prime Minister was quite clear about his commitment when he spoke yesterday in Parliament.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome our Prime Minister’s ambition to deliver good growth in every postcode, but good growth depends on good health. Our Prime Minister has already demonstrated his commitment to addressing social determinants of health in the Greater Manchester region. Can the Leader of the House confirm that reducing health inequalities and addressing wider determinants of health will be at the heart of the regional growth agenda?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
A healthy nation is always the aim of every Government. If we look back to when the National Health Service was first set up, we see that it was set up as part of the Department of Housing, because those two things are inextricably linked. I remember being at a friend’s 60th birthday party a while ago. She said the three things you needed for a long and happy life were home, good health and work—she added “someone to love”, because she was very happily married. Those are the determinants that make life worth living. If we have not got a healthy nation, we will not have a productive nation.
As well as physical health, we need to do more on mental health issues, which have become a serious issue. If you look at the number of people who are not working because of mental health issues, you see that that is something that desperately needs changing across the country. So, yes, I can give my noble friend that assurance. The Health Bill was recently introduced in the other place. It will be coming to this House, where we will have the opportunity to discuss those kinds of issues.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I too wish the new Prime Minister well. The key question is whether he represents a change in style or substance. Going back to the question asked by my noble friend Lord True, what are the three new things versus the Starmer Government that the Prime Minister wants to bring in, and what are the three things that he wants to stop?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not answering questions such as that. It is more than a change of style. There is a change of style, but the same values remain. As measures come forward, both in the Budget and as we progress the programme, and then when we see a King’s Speech in due course, we will see the changes. However, totting up a change here or a difference there, as if it were some kind of balance sheet, is not the way we want to do politics.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Cross Benches next, then the Labour Benches, then the Conservative Benches.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I too think that words of thanks need to be paid to Sir Keir Starmer, because he did many things, in particular making our country respected outside of these islands; people took note of that, so he was in my prayer. The new Prime Minister will also be in my prayer.
The question I have to ask is on the statement I made in your Lordships’ House about large majorities in Parliament. In the words of Francis Pym, large majorities do not make for good government, because one day they may turn against you—which we saw over the reform of the welfare state. Can we be assured that the new Prime Minister will have the nerve to depend on all Members of Parliament to bring necessary reform to the welfare bill?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
First, I am grateful that the noble and right reverend Lord is remembering both our Prime Ministers in his prayers; I am sure they will appreciate that. The noble and right reverend Lord is right to highlight the work of Prime Minister Starmer on international issues. When he became Prime Minister, I do not think it was anticipated or expected that we would see so many international issues at crisis point and needing intervention. As a result of his premiership, our country is more valued and respected on the international stage than it was previously. Even today, Prime Minister Burnham will be talking to President Macron, and they will be building on the work of the coalition of the willing, which has been so important in Ukraine.
On good government and Governments taking on their own Back-Benchers, the important thing with Governments that have both large and small majorities is to work with and listen to people. Among Labour MPs, I see engagement and a real willingness to deal with issues such as welfare reform and the Budget. The key thing is always how it is done. The measures that were taken last time included providing people with disabilities with the ability to test work to see if it works for them. If it does not work, they can go back on benefits, but we try to give them support to go into work. Those kinds of measures will be warmly welcomed. Talking to MPs—last night I was with Back-Bench MPs in the Commons—I see a real willingness to engage with this issue and ensure that we do better for those people who are not in employment or education, who are not earning or learning; they cannot be written off. The determination is there. It is not a case of taking it on but of listening to and working with people to get the best possible result for those who need work, and for the country as a whole through the benefit that will bring to our economy.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s Statement refers to the rewiring of the British state and poses the question of
“who, in government, drives growth?”
In that context, can my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what role is envisaged for the new Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade? There is no doubt that, if we are going to achieve the growth that we want, we will have to utilise the science and technology expertise in this country, not just to grow businesses but to ensure that they remain in the UK.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friend brings his experience of science to his question. This is absolutely crucial. If we do not have innovation or new technologies, we are not going to maximise the potential for growth. It is significant that, when we look at these issues and at where the advantages and disadvantages are, particularly on AI, we see for the first time around the Cabinet table a Minister with direct responsibility for AI. He will look at where it brings benefits and at where there are problems that need to be addressed.
My noble friend talked about rewiring the state, but we are bringing the talents of all departments together. That is part of the role of No. 10 North, where there will be one door for people to go through. People will not have to go to different departments; there will be better co-ordination. The No. 10 Delivery Unit here in London will also be an important part of showing how you can make a difference. Once you have got the policy, you have to make sure the policy works. Too often, across all Governments, we pass legislation, step back and wait for it to happen. If we are going to bring change, we need to know that that legislation is there for a reason, and we need to make sure we implement it and that it has effect.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, domestic abuse charities have issued warnings about the safety of victims following the early release of prisoners. What assessment have the Government made of the risk of early release to victims of domestic abuse, and what assurances can the Minister offer them?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness hits on one of the really difficult issues around this. That is why so many of the categories of people who would previously have been under early release will not be receiving early release. Whenever somebody is released, even if it is at the end of their sentence, it is important that the surviving victim understands the protection that is available to them. Whereas previously we had exclusion orders, in future there will be restricted areas. We are also putting additional money into the Probation Service for additional probation officers. This will be the biggest change we have seen in how victims are protected from offenders. There will also be a far more aggressive tagging regime; more people will be tagged. So a number of measures will come together.
When the Prime Minister and Alex Norris, the Justice Secretary, were looking at this issue, at the forefront of their minds was how this will impact on those who have survived attacks and abuse. Most of us will know people who have been through that ordeal: people who have sometimes had to give evidence in court and go through all that, and sometimes have not even got to court. This is absolutely crucial. The noble Baroness will be aware of some of those measures, but there may be new measures coming forward of which she is not aware. I will keep her informed on how we can progress this.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Leader and I were both members of the Government when our now Prime Minister had his first go at solving the social care issue. I invite my noble friend to, first, welcome the commitment of the leader of the Liberal Democrats to take part in this, and to perhaps explore how we can ensure that, this time, the loyal Opposition party can do the same, to land the big prize that reform of social care would bring to millions of people.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
So many of us in this House are dealing, and will deal, with the care of family and friends; it is a huge strain, both financially and emotionally. The prize of getting this right is enormous, and it is very easy, when any solution is suggested, for people to say, “We cannot do that, that is too expensive”, or “This will not work”. We have to be a bit more creative, and all of us here may be the beneficiaries of this if we get it right. I hope it will be this House, and not the other House, that has to wait that long. I would invite all of those who care about this issue to put any prejudices aside and not to start making red lines over what we can and cannot discuss. We have to find a way through, and the Prime Minister, while not scarred, will remember the previous difficulties. The noble Baroness, Lady May, looked at this as well, and had similar problems when she tried to find a way forward. Rather than just criticising people for something that people do not think is acceptable, there is a way of saying that this is such a crucial issue that touches the lives of nearly everybody. Around this House, we all know lots of people who are going through this at the moment. If we can find a way through this, we will give peace of mind and dignity to millions of people across the country.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
The Prime Minister said in his Statement that he will
“build a pro-business culture and an innovation-led economy”.
to drive growth and job creation. That is fantastic news, and I congratulate the Lord Privy Seal and the Prime Minister on those words. Does this mean that HMG will now listen to every single business group in this country, and heed their overwhelming advice to repeal those parts of the Employment Rights Act that are currently undermining jobs?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I was disappointed when the party opposite set its face against the Employment Rights Act in the way that it did. It is important, and most employers which are good employers find the benefits from it in both their balance sheets and their productivity. I have not heard the Prime Minister talk about repealing anything in the Employment Rights Act, but we want to work with employers on how we implement it and ensure that they can get the best from their workforce. One of the things that we are doing is providing the grants and support we were talking about to take on young people and people with disabilities. Unless we look at the whole nation for employment, employers are losing out, and the country is losing out as well.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Prime Minister’s Statement, and he faces a daunting task in reversing the Conservative legacy. This includes 25.3 million people living below the minimum living standard, declining life expectancy, potholed roads in every street, 7.6 million on NHS waiting lists in England alone, social care in disarray, universities in crisis, the poorest 20% paying a higher proportion of their income in direct and indirect taxes than the richest 20%, and the UK languishing at or near the bottom of the G7 and the OECD league of investment in productive assets. I am not sure there is enough paper in this place, but will the Leader consider producing a list of Conservative failures?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I will do my best in the time available, but I might not be able to repeat them all. One thing that is important to note is that decisions, and consequences of actions taken, do not happen in a vacuum. I come back to the example I gave earlier: the failure of some of the privatisations, water being an example, where we then failed to invest in the water companies. We are paying for the consequences, from dirty rivers and water supplies being cut off. At the end of the day, we have to look back and see what went wrong, and why some of those things had such a disastrous effect on the lives of people in this country. As a Government, we can do better. It is important to be optimistic and to offer hope, but also to offer concrete change that really makes a difference; not just providing economic growth, but a better quality of life for every citizen of this country, and—to coin a phrase—growth in every postcode.
Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Frost
That this House regrets that the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 involve the alignment of Great Britain with European Union law, which the Windsor Framework does not require.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, before we begin, as set out in Today’s List, I remind noble Lords that speeches should be limited to two minutes, with the exceptions of the mover and the Minister. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all noble Lords when I say that if everyone can stick to this advised speaking time, we will ensure that the Minister has adequate time to respond to all the points that are raised.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to speak as quickly as I can to my regret Motion on the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. Despite its title, this is at one level a very simple piece of legislation: it just adds two plant types to certain lists in assimilated EU law, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. However, at another level, it raises some major issues of principle, and that is why it is right to debate it and perhaps even vote on it—who knows?
I want to look at three areas in the short time available: first, the specifics of the legislation; secondly, its wider significance; and thirdly, how it relates to the wider EU reset.
First, on the legislation, when HMG legislate on plant health, one normally assumes it is because they think that there is an issue to be dealt with, but this legislation does not actually deal with that at all. The Explanatory Note signed by the Minister says:
“These regulations implement the Windsor Framework”.
The Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The purpose of this instrument is to bring Great Britain (GB) into alignment with European Union (EU) import requirements”,
and says that it is “necessary” to keep certain goods available for the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme. It does not say anything at all, as far as I can see, about the substance of the matter, or any UK risk assessment on the products concerned. My first question to the Minister is: are we right to understand that this legislation is entirely about compliance with EU requirements, or has Defra looked at the merits of what it is trying to do? If so, what is its view on the substance?
What is the broader significance of this legislation? The significance, of course, is that it concedes wider points of political concern. We are all familiar with one element: the Windsor Framework stops the UK Government legislating in Northern Ireland in certain areas, giving the power to the EU instead. One consequence of that is growing separation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Without rehearsing all the history, there is a clear line to be drawn between the 2017 joint report, the 2019 agreement of the protocol —more or less under duress once this Parliament had closed off the option of leaving the EU without a deal—and all the problems that have since followed.
As I have often said, the Johnson Government never wanted the protocol arrangements. We expected that they would be difficult to work in practice, and that the protocol itself would end up being removed or overridden. We sought to achieve this, first by negotiation, and then through the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. As we know, that fell, and so fell with it any effort to deal with the situation that it created. Now we have the Windsor Framework instead, and there is a crucial difference in this framework. In return for some arguable and minor improvements to the Irish Sea border, the Government are now committed to defending the protocol-like arrangements, instead of trying to remove them, and that makes a huge difference to the politics. For one thing, other actors come to see it as semi-permanent, and adapt to it; hence the trade diversion that we are already seeing.
But, more than that, there is politics. Those in Northern Ireland who do not want the bond between Northern Ireland and Great Britain to be weakened still further are left without political support on matters that deal with the Windsor Framework. That is what we are seeing work out.
This is not the only problem. The Windsor Framework may be about Northern Ireland, but it has big effects in Great Britain too. It creates an incentive to align. This SI and all those like it make clear that not only does the Windsor Framework abrogate the Government’s lawmaking capacity in Northern Ireland but it also means that, in practice, there is a huge incentive for GB to follow the EU in all the areas covered by the Windsor Framework. If we do not, we lose the benefits graciously granted to us in operating the border within our own country. That loss of national power is why legislation such as today’s is so significant.
We have debated this many times already and will do so a couple of times yet, even before the Recess. A pattern builds up: the EU leads on something, we follow and Britain’s national independence is gradually watered down. If we do not want to follow, or if we want to change our own rules, Northern Ireland pays the price. All the incentives are for the Government to acquiesce in the EU’s political need and to comply for fear of benefits being removed.
Today’s legislation may be on a relatively minor point, but some future foreseeable cases are not. Northern Ireland is about to be deprived of the benefits of Brazilian beef and much else under the EU’s so-called health ban on imports, and there is already pressure for GB to follow suit. Does the Minister foresee similar legislation in this area? If not, why must we align on peppers and ginger? Perhaps the Minister could explain what the Government’s plans are in this area and whether they take the same view as the EU on the substance of the matter.
Similarly, looking a little more widely, on AI the Government are currently considering delaying a firm reaction to the EU’s insistence that the AI Act should apply in Northern Ireland. But some of it already does: Articles 103 to 107 and 109 already apply in Northern Ireland to vehicles, rail and other machinery. The digital omnibus law, just passed, will raise similar issues, and so, no doubt, will future legislation. If the Government’s overriding policy is the pursuit of alignment with the EU in areas covered by the Windsor Framework, they will end up aligning in GB too with some or all of the EU’s AI Act. Are the Government happy with that? If they are not and intend to resist, why can we not resist in other areas as well?
I turn briefly to the Government’s so-called reset. Will anything in this change? No, it will get worse. At least now we have the theoretical choice on aligning in GB. In future, the reset and the eventual European partnership Bill will remove much of that choice in many areas. GB will have to comply with EU SPS rules, just as Northern Ireland must. This will not remove the awkwardness of days like this; it will make them worse, in fact, because Ministers will have to admit that this House has no choice in the matter. The fig leaf of parliamentary power will be entirely removed—not even in return for free-flowing trade because, after all, the customs border will remain in place. I really wonder whether the Government are content with this and happy that we are giving away the British birthright of freedom for a mess of EU pottage.
This Heath Robinson set of arrangements cannot last. Either it will do what we always feared and its proponents always hoped—drag the whole country back into an EU alignment arrangement like the May Government’s ill-fated Brexit deal, with national independence in name only—or it will be seen as what it is: a monstrosity that is entirely incompatible with being a properly independent country. The Windsor Framework is leading this country into deeper and more dangerous waters with every day that passes. It must one day be removed and, one day, I hope it will be. I beg to move.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, first, it is entirely unacceptable that we have only two minutes to discuss this piece of legislation. Secondly, it is an outrage that the democratically elected Chamber has been given no opportunity at all to discuss it.
Thirdly, it sets a dangerous precedent—or, rather, it perpetuates a dangerous habit—of using the Windsor Framework to extend to the rest of the UK the undemocratic subjugation of Northern Ireland to laws it has had no say in making.
Fourthly, can the Minister confirm that, despite this measure aligning legislation in Great Britain with that of Northern Ireland, plants moving within the UK internal market between Northern Ireland and Great Britain will still face border controls and paperwork that they will not face when moving between England and Wales or Scotland and England?
Fifthly, can the Minister confirm that there is no need for this measure, and still less for dynamic alignment with all EU SPS legislation, because we already have an SPS agreement covering ourselves and the EU? It is called the WTO SPS agreement, and it spells out in terms:
“Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other Members as equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own … if the … measures achieve the importing Member’s appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection”—
which here is the case. Is the Minister even aware of that agreement?
Sixthly, do the Government believe that the EU is exempt from any obligation to comply with international law, not just the WTO SPS agreement? Is not the EU’s insistence on maintaining a border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland contrary to the UN declaration on principles of international law, friendly relations and co-operation between states? That lays down:
“Every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country”.
I await the Minister’s reply.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, although it is true, as has been acknowledged, that the impact of this SI will be slight to say the least, I accept that the Windsor Framework has been oversold. It was oversold by the Sunak Government and it has been oversold by this Government. But, then again, the Good Friday agreement was oversold by Tony Blair. The fact is that there is no possible better way forward for Northern Ireland in either case. The agreement exists. In both cases, these agreements were a result of a conflict and a historic compromise between profound forces both inside and outside Ireland. So the Windsor Framework is still a model of a way forward.
One of the most important things about the Windsor Framework is the way it declares itself, on page 4, to be restoring the “balance” of the Good Friday agreement of 1998 in its three parts. This is very important. The work of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on grace periods was, at the time, of tremendous importance for ensuring the stability of Northern Ireland. I recall it with admiration. But, that said, I disagree with what he has just said about the growing separation between Northern Ireland and Britain. The Windsor Framework says on page 5:
“Inherent in this … way forward is the prospect of significant divergence between the two distinct economies on the island of Ireland … building on the existing differences in every area of economic … life such as services, migration, currency and taxation”.
It might now have added defence; Harland & Wolff is now working on contracts for the Royal Navy.
There is not a growing separation. We have a return, in a way, to what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, was engaged in negotiating in the last week of the Good Friday agreement: a practical model of north-south relations rather than one dominated by nationalist solutions of one sort or another—solutions that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is quite right are to be found in the 2017 EU-UK agreement and in the withdrawal agreement. This is a significant modification, though it is imperfect. In the last debate, the Lord Privy Seal talked about the Prime Minister’s successful trip to Northern Ireland. She said it was clear that the Prime Minister saw Northern Ireland as part of the success he wanted for the UK as a whole. That is the spirit.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, perfectly obviously, this is dynamic alignment in practice. Turning to the minutiae, I look forward to the Minister’s pronunciation of the various micro-organisms dealt with in this SI, and I am sure she will rise to the occasion.
There is a serious point, and I have asked her about this on a number of occasions. A review of the trade and co-operation agreement is due in 2026. What have we done on that? A whole apparatus has been created as a result of the Windsor Framework, but the amount of potential risk to the single market is so infinitesimal that it is barely measurable, in terms of the volume of goods that could cross the border. If people on the island were properly organised under our own legislation, you could spot a mile away anybody who was attempting to damage the European single market.
That has never been the objective of the United Kingdom. We can prevent it. In fact, we can make it an offence for anybody in the United Kingdom to go out of their way to breach the rules of the European Union. It has a right to protect its single market, but we have a right to protect the United Kingdom. I just ask the Minister: what have the Government done and put on the table with regard to the review of the trade and co-operation agreement that is due this year?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I urge my noble friend the Minister to put pragmatism before some of the concerns that we have heard already this evening. There have been some rather purist ideas, I would say, from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, which he holds very dearly and consistently, and I respect him for that, but I think we have to remind ourselves that we are talking about tomatoes, ginger and peppers here, about some diseases and pests and avoiding their importation into the United Kingdom. Yes, the EU is the originator of these measures; that does not mean, in and of itself, that they are wrong or unnecessary. The benefit of passing these regulations is that we maintain the integrity of the UK single market. That is something that I would have thought would be of great concern to those who are interested in affairs in Northern Ireland.
I note that the issues that were raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee were around the border within the UK and the desire, which I share, to maintain as frictionless trade as possible between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If we were to not pass these regulations, we would be making those concerns more sharply—it would be worse. There is, of course, an alternative, which would be dynamic alignment, it would be a full SPS agreement and it would perhaps be being a member of the customs union and the single market. Some of those things are easier to deliver than others, because they all have consequences, and some of them, I am sure, would be opposed deeply by the noble Lord and others in this House.
For now, this is an imperfect solution, it is a pragmatic solution, it is a fudge, but it is where we have arrived. Having gone through the trade agreement, the Northern Ireland protocol, all those debates, this is the solution that we have today. I favour closer alignment, but these regulations are needed, it is important that they are passed, in order to allow for as frictionless trade as possible, and I expect and hope that my noble friend will put pragmatism and the needs of producers first.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, these regulations were imposed without any discussion with parliamentarians in Northern Ireland, and I think this is totally unacceptable. Of course, the Government are now saying that this is better for the internal market, which is just not true, because it is based on a deceit. If imports are moving from GB to Northern Ireland, they must comply with customs paperwork. This is not a UK internal market system but a GB/EU/Northern Ireland international trade border. The Government are really misleading on this. Why can they not be honest? Why can they not say that, yes, the customs forms may be shorter, but an internal market for goods is not created by demands for shorter customs forms but by there being no requirement for such forms in the first place? The shorter forms are offered in return for businesses having to accept separate additional border frictions, including the costs of needing to acquire and maintain trusted trader status, to demonstrate that goods do not reach the EU and to carry “Not for EU” labels. None of these border frictions applies in an internal market.
Will the Minister be honest and admit that if GB submits to EU law regarding imports under these regulations, what is on offer is not a movement from GB to Northern Ireland in the UK internal market but movement, as I said, through an alternative GB/EU/NI trade border system? This arrangement is unsustainable and it is unjust because, as has been said over and again in this House, it involves accommodating the desire of 27 other states to disrespect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, in violation of international law, as was said by the noble Lord, and undermining our democracy. It is not sustainable. I just wish that His Majesty’s Government and the Minister would be honest about what this regulation actually does, in further dividing Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Redwood (Con)
We need to renegotiate the Windsor Framework agreement, which is totally unacceptable. This Parliament needs to govern, and establish the laws for, Northern Ireland, and we need to integrate our internal market across from the mainland of Great Britain to Northern Ireland itself. There is every opportunity in the reset, because we read in the press that the Government have already made massive and unreasonable concessions to the EU, which seems to be getting every item on its wish list. We are giving away billions of pounds of fish for no good purpose. We are substituting our rather good Turing student scheme for a much dearer one which helps the EU more and our students less. We are probably going to concede on mobility of labour for people under 30, so that they will have much more benefit, with many more of them coming to us to take advantage of our jobs, markets and facilities. We are probably going to extend EU lawmaking rights over many more areas.
The Government will undoubtedly end up paying the EU a lot more money, so, Government, wake up—the EU is taking you for fools. It needs to be the case that Britain demands other things. We could certainly put in a much better system to free the borders between Great Britain and Northern Ireland without putting new barriers on the border to the Republic of Ireland, under the mutual enforcement system that I and others have promoted in the past to previous Governments. We can certainly do much more to reduce the costs of Europe by going through, in the negotiations, how the residual financial liabilities are too excessive. Above all, we should reinstate the unity of the United Kingdom by regaining the right to make the laws, in this Parliament and in Northern Ireland, that apply to the people of Northern Ireland, and to reinstate our internal market throughout the whole UK.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, the people of Northern Ireland had the legislation we are debating today simply imposed upon them. They were not consulted in any way. Northern Ireland parliamentarians first became aware that we were subject to these laws only when regulations were published proposing to extend them to GB. This is wholly undemocratic, profoundly humiliating and completely unsustainable. More importantly, these regulations rest on the misleading premise that if GB submits to these laws, goods imported into GB can then move freely throughout the United Kingdom internal market for goods, including Northern Ireland, via the UK internal market system.
The term “internal market” has an established meaning: the free movement of goods without encountering a customs or international SPS border. The clear implication of the term “UK internal market system” is therefore that goods imported into GB should move freely to Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, without encountering such borders. But goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland encounter a customs and international SPS border requiring customs paperwork, under EU regulation 2023/1128, and international SPS paperwork, under EU regulation 2023/1231. This is not a UK internal market system; it is a GB/EU/NI international trade border system. To describe it otherwise is to deliberately mislead the people of the United Kingdom.
Some may point out that the customs and international SPS forms required under these regulations are shorter than would otherwise be the case. That is true, but an internal market is not created by a border requiring shorter customs or SBS forms; it is created by there being no border and no requirement for any such forms. Moreover, these shorter forms come at the cost of additional border frictions, including for businesses. It is time for the Government to face up to reality. It is all very well multiplying words and fine statements, but that does not correct things, and I trust that this Government will find the courage to do what has to be done.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, we have had several debates over the last couple of years in relation to the Windsor Framework. They have all originated from those who are basically opposed to the Windsor Framework, which is a direct consequence of Brexit—for which they voted. That has caused economic and political instability in Northern Ireland. Instead, as my noble friend Lady Chapman said, we need not only a pragmatic approach but a collaborative one to be able to avail ourselves of the opportunities presented by access to both the UK internal market and the EU single market, which bring benefit and economic opportunity to all producers in Northern Ireland.
Let us cast our minds back: what is the purpose of the Windsor Framework? It is to fix trade and political problems caused by the post-Brexit Northern Ireland protocol, by making it easier to move goods between Britain and Northern Ireland. Yes, there are challenges, but the report by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, which was accepted by the previous Secretary of State, indicated that a one-stop shop would be established. Can my noble friend the Minister provide an update on the one-stop shop, the SPS agreement and the UK-EU reset? Those are vital vehicles to bring us to a better place.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Frost; I missed the first minute of his introduction.
Since the introduction of the protocol and the Windsor Framework, we have witnessed—although many of us have not agreed with—a significant divergence of trade and goods movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We now appear to be witnessing Great Britain being required to accept those EU regulations. I notice that a number of those speaking this evening in your Lordships’ House are from Northern Ireland, but this has a significant impact on the people of Great Britain as well.
Is this a situation of “back to the future”? As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has indicated, the detail of this particular legislation may be relatively minor, but today in the Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee we had a number of regulations for consideration. These ranged from electric vehicles to animal feed safety, cereal products, vegetables, nuts, fruits, honey, jellies, veterinary products and now the EUDR, the European deforestation regulations. How many more of these are we going to have to contemplate over the forthcoming years?
It is the public and the businesses who are suffering in all this, administratively and financially. In Northern Ireland we know the significant negative impact this has had over the last number of years on businesses, particularly small businesses, as they try to bring in goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Larger businesses have some flexibility in that they may be able to employ administrators, but small businesses are suffering greatly and they are the people most impacted.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, this EU regulation banning the import of certain fresh food products into this country imposes EU laws on GB by negative statutory instrument. It anticipates the dynamic alignment for the whole agri-food sector proposed by the EU reset. As has already been pointed out here and in the other place, it does so under cover of the 2018 withdrawal agreement Act, which at the time was understood to be for Northern Ireland and not the whole of the UK. This set of regulations imposes EU law on the UK, with dynamic alignment with the EU on SPS policy. I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. It may be peppers or tomatoes, but perhaps it would be helpful for the House to know that more than half of the fresh foods that come to supermarket shelves are from rest of the world countries. It will perhaps have an impact on the cost of living; we will see about the competitive market and how this works.
This dynamic alignment raises serious constitutional questions about an executive diktat to which noble Lords on both sides have referred. It is a matter of importance on which the whole country has voted. It voted twice, in the referendum and in 2019, to take back control of our lawmaking from the EU. In February 2026, the House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs raised this and said there were concerns about Parliament’s role in scrutinising European legislation and the capacity within EU institutions to check that. I leave noble Lords with this: it is a constitutional issue of the first importance, and it is lawmaking by the backdoor.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, time does not permit me to reiterate or examine the constitutional issues that this SI raises. They have been dealt with by a number of other speakers. Nor can I comment on whether those constitutional concerns are in any way ameliorated in practice by the impact on the plant health trade. I have to confess that plant health is not something I know a great deal about; I suspect I may not be alone in the Chamber on that.
In the Explanatory Memorandum for this SI, the Government themselves indicate that there was no consultation on the SI. It was felt to be not necessary, so it is hard to see how the Government can also say with confidence that this is of practical benefit. It is clear that while this SI would align the whole of the UK with the EU, it does not create any compensating removal of the internal border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It leaves in place, for retail movements, an export licence, customs declarations, SPS checks and identity checks. The Government may be able to claim that this is at a reduced level than it would otherwise have been, but the one thing they cannot do is claim that this creates an unfettered or frictionless border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That creates a major problem for the future.
As has been indicated, we are moving into further reset discussions. We wait to see what direction the new Prime Minister takes. I simply say that if we reach a point at which, at the end of those reset arrangements, we have full alignment on SPS with the EU while leaving in place an internal border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it is not the much-vaunted best of both worlds. We are leaving ourselves in the worst of all possible worlds.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, another day, another SI on the Windsor Framework on just a few products, the excuse being that if we do not do it, we will drag Northern Ireland further away from the rest of the United Kingdom. But the fault is in the Windsor Framework, which was designed—as it carefully was, originally in Chequers and then in the Northern Ireland protocol—to drag the UK back into the EU eventually.
The next stop is the reset, with whole categories of products and sectors of the economy. But the only places the UK economy is growing right now are in those parts of the economy that are specifically not under EU law and diverge from it: the flat white tech economy, the City, precision breeding, gene editing. All these are growing precisely because we are not in the EU. Are we eventually going to give up those sectors too, and without any hope of growing the economy? Worse, are we going to continue to deny Northern Ireland the ability to participate fully in those sectors, which right now it cannot do? No—enough of these statutory instruments. The Windsor Framework must go. In the fullness of time, it will. We must all hope for that happy eventuality as we actually, properly, finally leave the EU.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Windsor Framework was not an inevitable product of Brexit, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, claimed—and as has been endlessly claimed. If anything, it was a product of the Benn Act. Or, I should say—to spare the familial honour of that good and worthy man, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—it was a product of the 2017 election, which brought into another place a majority of people who made it clear and passed legislation to the effect that we would not leave other than on terms that were agreeable to the EU. They did not put it exactly those terms. They said, “We won’t allow a no-deal Brexit”. If you think about it, that is exactly the same thing.
I can tell noble Lords, having been a Member of the European Parliament at the time, that nobody in Brussels suggested a different status for Northern Ireland until the second half of 2017, in response to this extraordinary weakness that they saw on our side. It is extraordinary that we have allowed the Windsor Framework to remain in place, unless we are deliberately wanting the chafing and uncomfortable aspects of it to drive us towards some kind of reintegration.
Let us focus on what we can do to solve where we are. I hope this might appeal even to some of the noble Lords present who hanker after reunion. One way of solving all the issues that are supposed to be tackled by the Windsor Framework would be to allow EU regulations as an alternative system throughout the UK; to allow British companies to choose whether they want British or EU regulations. It would be great. We would have some regulatory competition and perhaps some pressure on deregulation.
This is not unprecedented. The coalition Government in New Zealand, for example, have recently changed the rules so that any pharmaceutical product approved by any serious country—the European Medicines Agency, our MHRA, the FDA in the United States—is automatically legal in New Zealand, which does not need to do its own regulatory system. If we were to do that, the rationale for the Windsor Framework would collapse and we would become more competitive. In fact, the only argument that I can see against it is that it would solve the problem and therefore remove one of the arguments for going back into the European Union, which I suspect is what motivates some of the people present today.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, in my two minutes I would like to make three brief points. First, I would like to deal with the regulations themselves. From these Benches, we support these short, technical regulations, which provide protection against external plant pests, particularly in tomatoes, peppers and ginger. We support greater alignment with the EU in general on these matters, which we believe will reduce friction to trade. Indeed, we would like to see the UK eventually rejoining the single market.
However, as this debate has illustrated once again this evening, the issue is not so much about the substance of the regulations before us, but more about genuine concerns about democratic accountability and parliamentary oversight. Since we left the EU, we no longer have a voice in the European Parliament’s committees or other EU institutions when this type of highly technical but important regulation is discussed. We therefore have virtually no say or input into them. As we face an ever-greater number of these regulations stemming from dynamic alignment, it would be very helpful if the Minister could say whether the Government intend to publish a strategy for how Parliament will carry out its scrutiny role in future more effectively. Relying on regret Motions from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others, does not amount to an acceptable strategy for parliamentary oversight.
While I personally welcome the introduction of a time limit on these SI regret Motions, it is important to allow an adequate amount of time to ask the Minister questions or to seek clarification. Two minutes is very brief indeed in order to do this adequately.
Finally, can the Minister give us an indication of when she expects to update the House on progress being made on negotiations on a wider SPS agreement?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for being in her place to listen to the concerns of noble Lords. These regulations relate to the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which was established under the Windsor Framework to allow goods to move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland more easily.
It is central that we protect the integrity of our union. These regulations, however, seek to align our import requirements with those in the EU for goods originating from non-EU countries, specifically pest measures. When it comes to our import requirements, these should of course protect from plant pests, but it is not clear why our requirements must mirror future EU requirements, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for his Motion. A formal consultation and full impact assessment were deemed unnecessary, but can the Minister explain the evidence base behind this decision?
Regarding NIRMS more widely, there is concern that businesses may not be able to meet the 19 October deadline for “Not for EU” labelling for bottles moving from GB to Northern Ireland. Can the Minister clarify whether she believes the sector has capacity and guarantee that this will not result in sudden commercial waste or widespread product delistings? Our regulations should be evidence-based, practical and pro-business, not ideological. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for introducing the Motion, and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today.
The purpose of the instrument is to facilitate the continued smooth movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland by achieving alignment with the European Union on its import controls. It is a small, technical change so that businesses can continue to benefit from the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme’s simplified arrangements.
This instrument does not amend or extend the Windsor Framework in any way, nor does it introduce new policy. Its purpose is simply to update existing biosecurity requirements so that established trading arrangements can continue to operate effectively. It is a minor, pragmatic change that is intended to guard against pests and to protect the biosecurity of the island of Ireland.
Without this legislation, these goods would no longer be eligible to move under the NIRM scheme. As a result, traders moving these goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would lose access to the simplified processes, creating unnecessary costs and complexity for businesses.
The Government remain committed to implementing the Windsor Framework because it supports trade, reduces unnecessary barriers and provides certainty for businesses. This instrument makes a modest but important contribution by ensuring that existing arrangements continue to operate effectively.
Speeches may have been short, but a large number of questions have been asked. I have only 10 minutes to respond, so I will do my best to work my way through them and will write to answer any that I do not reach. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, asked about the purpose of the SI. I have just explained why we are doing it: through protecting the biosecurity of the island of Ireland, we are looking to maintain the flow of trade between GB and Northern Ireland. The provisions in the SI introduce additional pest-related import measures targeting a type of fruit fly for tomatoes and peppers from Taiwan and Israel, and a plant pathogen for ginger from rest-of-the-world countries.
We need proof that consignments are free from these pests because, if we do not have it, as I said, people cannot access those markets. We need an additional declaration as part of the phytosanitary certificate that is specific to the pest. Keeping GB aligned with EU import controls will mean that the additional pest control measures will be checked for these goods on entry into GB, which will enable the goods to travel onwards to Northern Ireland using simplified certification.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, asked about the impacts of the SI. The impacts to industry are minimal but necessary. Over the course of a three-year period from 2023 to 2025, there were zero imported consignments of tomatoes, peppers and ginger from Taiwan. There were 226 consignments of peppers, one of aubergines and zero of ginger imported from Israel.
The largest impact that this SI introduces will be to ginger imported from rest-of-the-world countries. Over the same three-year period, 3,671 consignments of ginger were imported. The total net direct cost of this SI across the whole of industry is estimated to be £10,000. This one-off cost is mainly based on familiarisation costs to businesses, ensuring they are up-to-date and compliant with the new technical guidance. However, as businesses will need to align with the necessary biosecurity-driven changes implemented by the EU anyway, any additional burdens or costs incurred by traders would not be as a direct result of these regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked about labelling. Our priority is to make sure that businesses do not face unnecessary or disproportionate burdens. We expect the need for businesses to label goods “Not for EU” to diminish significantly as a result of the future arrangements under the SPS agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, made an important point about the impacts on businesses, which is one of the reasons I meet regularly with businesses and their representatives when I go to Northern Ireland, because we need to understand the impacts properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Weir, said that the NIRM scheme does not secure unfettered trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, the Windsor Framework provides a stable legal foundation to facilitate the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, allowing everyday goods to move more easily from GB to Northern Ireland. It does so while protecting biosecurity on the island of Ireland, which has been treated as a single epidemiological unit for decades. It also safeguards Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market.
Pragmatism has been mentioned. I thank my noble friend Lady Chapman for her comments on the need for pragmatism. It is one of the reasons we do what we do.
The noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Roborough, talked about consultation. No public consultation was undertaken on this SI because there was no statutory duty to do so. However, I reassure noble Lords that the Government engaged closely with industry when the NIRM scheme was originally established, including on the list of goods eligible to move under the scheme. This instrument makes limited updates to the existing requirements, so that goods already covered by the scheme can continue to benefit from its simplified arrangements. We will continue to engage closely with traders, to ensure that any future arrangements support smooth trade to Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, implied that the UK has ceded biosecurity responsibilities for Northern Ireland to the EU. We retain complete autonomy to make our own regulatory decisions, and we are committed to maintaining robust biosecurity protections across all parts of the UK. We continue to protect against many of the same significant disease and pest risks as our European neighbours. As noble Lords will be aware, and as I have said, the island of Ireland has been treated as an epidemiological unit for decades. We need to look at the practical realities of managing animal and plant health risks. Therefore, the island of Ireland would align on biosecurity matters, regardless of EU regulations or the Windsor Framework.
The upcoming SPS agreement was mentioned by a number of noble Lords; the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, discussed regulatory influence. I recognise these concerns but do not agree that the arrangements would place us in the same position as when we were a member of the EU. As I said, we retain complete autonomy to make our own regulatory decisions. However, I remind the noble Lords that the matter before us today is this technical instrument. While broader discussions on the SPS agreement are important, they are separate from the measures contained specifically in this statutory instrument. This is designed to reduce paperwork and other barriers to trade, and to support farmers, food producers and exporters right across the UK. The Government believe that it is important to deliver those benefits for businesses and consumers and that this is firmly in the UK’s national interest.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked about the timings of the SPS agreement. I confirm that negotiations are at an advanced stage. Now that we have the new Prime Minister in place, we are looking at a date for the summit.
The Windsor Framework was also mentioned a number of times. The SPS agreement is designed to remove the majority of regulatory barriers for agri-food products and to tackle the wider barriers relating to trade in organic products and key agri-food marketing standards. My noble friend Lady Ritchie referred to the fact that establishing a common SPS area with the EU means that most movements will be made without the need for the majority of certificates or other routine SPS border controls that are currently required for such movements. These same benefits would be extended to movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said that the Windsor Framework must go. It is worth reminding ourselves of what it delivers. It is not perfect but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said, we do not have a better way forward. It provides a durable means of protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland, and maintaining the smooth functioning of trade within the UK. It preserves Northern Ireland’s unique access to both the UK internal market and the EU market for goods. The Government remain fully committed to delivering it.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, mentioned AI. The substantive provisions of the EU’s AI Act and the Cyber Resilience Act do not apply in Northern Ireland and would apply only following an agreement by the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked about the trade and co-operation agreement. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, at the meeting of the EU-UK Partnership Council on 2 February, the UK and the EU agreed that the review of the implementation had been largely completed via commitments undertaken at the 2025 UK-EU summit on the common understanding. Both sides are continuing to engage with stakeholders, and we will announce the conclusion of the review later this year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked why Northern Ireland is still being treated differently. It is important to look at the biosecurity issues that I have talked about and the importance for trade. I am about to run out of time—I am very sorry—so I will have to wind up now.
This is a pragmatic way we need in order to move forward. We need to ensure Northern Ireland and GB trade can continue in the smoothest way possible. This statutory instrument enables that.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all those who have taken the trouble to speak this evening on this very important constitutional issue. I note that we have actually finished over five minutes early, even though quite a few speakers ran over the two minutes. In the future debates next week and the week after, which I am sure the Minister looks forward to with eager anticipation, perhaps we could consider a way of reflecting that in the speaking times.
Despite the two minutes that most noble Lords had, I feel that a lot of important points that I, with the luxury of eight minutes, did not get to raise were nevertheless raised. We have had a good discussion that we can come back to. In the circumstances, I will not press this Motion to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, we are not due to return to the Bill Committee until 8.12 pm, and we are running five or six minutes ahead of that, so the House will now adjourn during pleasure until that point.
Armed Forces Bill
Wednesday 2nd September 2026
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 36–I Marshalled list for Committee - (28 Aug 2026)
Baroness Brinton
“Part 1AService Stalking Protection Notices1A In Part 3 of AFA 2006 (power of arrest, search and entry), after Chapter 1A (inserted by paragraph 1) insert—“Chapter 1BService Stalking Protection Notices74E Power to give a service stalking protection notice(1) An authorised service police officer may give a service stalking protection notice to a person falling within subsection (2) (“P”) if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that—(a) P has carried out acts associated with stalking against another person, and(b) it is necessary to give the notice to protect that other person from stalking, or the risk of stalking, carried out by P.(2) A person is within this subsection if the person is aged 18 or over and is—(a) subject to service law, or(b) a civilian subject to service discipline.(3) A “service stalking protection notice” is a notice prohibiting P from carrying out acts associated with stalking against the person for whose protection the notice is given.(4) A service stalking protection notice may provide that P—(a) may not contact the person for whose protection the notice is given;(b) may not come within a distance specified in the notice of any premises in which that person lives or any other specified premises.(5) If P lives in premises in which the person for whose protection the notice is given also lives, the notice may also contain provision—(a) prohibiting P from evicting or excluding that person from the premises;(b) prohibiting P from entering the premises;(c) requiring P to leave the premises.(6) It does not matter where the acts associated with stalking referred to in subsection (1)(a) took place.(7) In this Chapter—“acts” includes omissions;“authorised”, in relation to a service police officer, means of or above the rank of naval lieutenant, military or marine captain or flight lieutenant;“service police officer” means a member of a service police force.74F Matters to be considered before giving a notice(1) Before giving a service stalking protection notice to a person (“P”), an authorised service police officer must, among other things, consider the following—(a) the welfare of any person under the age of 18 whose interests the officer considers relevant to the giving of the notice; (b) the opinion of the person for whose protection the notice would be given as to the giving of the notice;(c) any representations made by P about the giving of the notice;(d) in a case where the notice includes provision relating to premises lived in by the person for whose protection the notice would be given, the opinion of any relevant occupant as to the giving of the notice.(2) In subsection (1)(d) “relevant occupant” means a person other than P or the person for whose protection the notice would be given—(a) who lives in the premises, and(b) who is personally connected to the person for whose protection the notice would be given or, if P also lives in the premises, P.(3) The authorised service police officer must take reasonable steps to discover the opinions mentioned in subsection (1)(b) and (d).(4) It is not necessary for the person for whose protection a service stalking protection notice is given to consent to the giving of the notice.74G Further requirements in relation to notices(1) A service stalking protection notice must be in writing.(2) A service stalking protection notice given to a person must state—(a) the grounds on which it has been given,(b) that if the person is reasonably suspected of being in breach of the notice, they may be arrested in accordance with section 67(2), (3), (4) or (5) by a person subject to service law,(c) that an application for a service stalking protection order under section 236M will be heard within 48 hours of the time of giving the notice and that a notice of the hearing will be given to the person,(d) that the notice continues in effect until that application has been determined or withdrawn, and(e) the provision that may be included in a service stalking protection order.(3) The notice must be served on the person personally by a service police officer.(4) On serving the notice on the person, the service police officer must ask the person for an address at which the person may be given the notice of the hearing of the application for the service stalking protection order.(5) After serving the notice on the person, the service police officer must make reasonable efforts to inform the person’s commanding officer of the giving of the notice.74H Breach of notice(1) A person who is reasonably suspected of being in breach of a service stalking protection notice may be arrested in accordance with section 67(2), (3), (4) or (5) by a person subject to service law.(2) Section 67(6) applies in relation to the power of arrest conferred by subsection (1) as it applies in relation to the power of arrest conferred by section 67.(3) A person arrested by virtue of subsection (1) must be kept in service custody and brought before the Court Martial or the Service Civilian Court—(a) before the end of the period of 24 hours beginning with the time of the arrest, or (b) if earlier, at the hearing of the application for a service stalking protection order against the person.(4) In calculating when the period of 24 hours mentioned in subsection (3)(a) ends, the following days are to be disregarded—(a) any Sunday,(b) Christmas Day,(c) Good Friday, and(d) any day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971.(5) If the person is brought before the court as mentioned in subsection (3)(a), the court may—(a) give orders for the further detention of the person in service custody, or(b) direct that the person is released from service custody.(6) The court may, when directing a person’s release from service custody under subsection (5)(b), require the person to comply, before release or later, with any requirements that appear to the court to be necessary to secure that the person does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.(7) Where a person is given a service stalking protection notice under section 74E, a Provost Marshal must apply for a service stalking protection order in respect of the person.(8) The application must be heard by the court not later than 48 hours after the notice was given to the person, and subsections (3) to (7) of section 236D apply to the application as they apply to an application for a service domestic abuse protection order.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a Service Stalking Protection Notice (SSPN) by mirroring the existing framework for Service Domestic Abuse Protection Notices, giving service police an equivalent power to provide immediate protection pending the determination or withdrawal of an application for a Service Stalking Protection Order.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have all three amendments in this group. They aim to improve the arrangements for cases of service stalking. Amendment 21 wants to create a service stalking protection notice—SSPN—by mirroring the existing framework for the service domestic abuse protection notices, giving service police an equivalent power to provide immediate protection orders pending the determination or withdrawal of an application for a service stalking protection order. I am very grateful to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Aurora New Dawn for their briefings and for correspondence in recent weeks.
Before going into the detail of these three amendments, I want to thank the Minister for his letter of a few days ago, following Second Reading. He says very clearly in that letter that the changes I want in order to strengthen the protections against stalking are not necessary because
“we fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the Service Police and other relevant personnel have the skills and knowledge necessary to identify stalking behaviour, assess risk and make effective use of the new protective measures”.
I am remembering discussions with Ministers in 2012, 2016, 2019 and 2022, when we tried to do the same for non-service stalking arrangements. Every single time we have not put the detail in the Bill it has gone wrong further down the process and has had to come back to Parliament to be corrected because, unfortunately, stalking, which is itself a very unpleasant crime, can quite often lead to murder. Therefore, some of these things that I am proposing are very much to protect the victim.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I regret that I did not sign the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. They have my full support. We have worked together for many years on the issue of stalking, together with the noble Lord who sits in the Chair. I believe that many of the areas in which we worked on stalking in civilian life are pertinent to this Bill because they translate into what is happening in the Armed Forces. Amendment 21 is particularly important. I look forward to hearing the response from my noble friend the Minister, but if the noble Baroness does not think that the response is adequate and wishes to take this forward again on Report, I will certainly be there to support her.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I simply endorse everything my noble friend Lady Brinton has said. I do not think there is anything I need to add.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has offered us a very thoughtful exposition of why further action is required to strengthen the service justice system, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, made an important contribution in support of that. I wholeheartedly concur with the rationale behind the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Last year, I brought this issue to the attention of the House during our debates on the then Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, as I am sure noble Lords will recall. During the progress of that Bill, I was particularly keen to give the new commissioner the power to investigate whistleblowing concerns, particularly relating to sexual misconduct. Although my specific proposal did not materialise, we did get a government commitment to a whistleblowing and defence review, for which I am very grateful to both the department and the Minister personally. That really important piece of work has now been concluded—I must thank the Minister for sharing it with me prior to the finalisation of the draft report, which greatly encouraged me. I certainly look forward to its publication in due course. The Minister might be able to share with the Chamber whether we have a date for publication of that report. I say at the outset that the noble Baroness and I are on the same page in ensuring that cases such as that of Jaysley Beck never happen again.
The Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey found that 13% of women in our forces had been subject to sexual harassment in the previous 12 months alone. That is profoundly disappointing and deeply discouraging and worrying. The MoD’s own sexualised behaviours survey published only recently found that a third of servicewomen reported unwanted physical touching and one in 10 reported sexual assault. That is not the environment in which we want our servicewomen to be serving. Against that backdrop, I understand entirely why the noble Baroness has brought forward this framework, and I have considerable sympathy with what she is trying to achieve. A service stalking protection notice, mirroring the existing domestic abuse framework, has a certain logic to it, and the training and continuity amendments address real and identifiable gaps.
That said, I pose the question of whether a new tier of civil order is in itself the most effective mechanism available to us. My concern is that protection notices and protection orders, however carefully drafted, are only as good as the mechanisms available to monitor and enforce. There is a risk that we spend time creating new civil orders while the more fundamental question of whether service police have the resources, the trained investigators and the forensic support to catch these individuals, secure convictions and, where appropriate, see them imprisoned goes unanswered. Let me make clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I do not say this to dismiss the amendment; she raises a very important issue. I say it because the Minister owes the House a clear account of where the Government’s priorities lie. In conclusion, can the Minister outline what the Government are doing against that backdrop of evidence from surveys to better protect women in the Armed Forces from stalking and similar abuse? I look forward to his substantive response to very important amendments.
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.
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.
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.
Baroness Brinton
“Domestic abuse and summary hearings for assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm(1) A commanding officer may not hear summarily a charge of assault or occasioning actual bodily harm where the alleged conduct amounts to, or is alleged to amount to, domestic abuse.(2) In any case to which subsection (1) applies, the allegation must be referred to a service police force for investigation or the Director of Service Prosecutions for consideration of prosecution before the Court Martial or such other court as has jurisdiction.(3) In this section, “domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove the power of a commanding officer to hear an allegation of ABH when there is a domestic abuse element to the allegation.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group and, while they are not related to stalking, the principles behind tabling them are not dissimilar. They specify more detail than I think the Minister is comfortable with, but each states very clearly where the boundaries are on a number of issues.
Amendment 24 seeks to remove the power of a commanding officer to hear an allegation of assault or assault occasioning actual bodily harm when there is a domestic abuse element in the allegation. The amendment says that, in those circumstances, the case must be referred to a service police force for investigation or to the Director of Service Prosecutions for consideration of prosecution before that court martial or other such court has jurisdiction.
This whole area around the role of the commanding officer, who will have a very different knowledge of individuals, not just those who report to them but also perhaps their families who are involved in this case, is a sensitive one. We have to compare this with the position of the service police or prosecutors, who will not have that personal knowledge of all the individuals. It is obvious that any more serious crime that was committed would not be permitted to be heard by the commanding officer—and yet, a crime involving assault or ABH and domestic abuse can at present be heard summarily by the commanding officer.
The reason for concern is that the domestic abuse guidance for those involved in investigating DA and associated crimes are that all those involved should have specialist training to understand how domestic abuse, assault and ABH need to be identified when often victims say that those in authority in the past have diminished the seriousness because it was domestic or the perpetrator has managed to hide it very well. But assault and ABH are not minor crimes: committed on a domestic partner, they are very serious.
The role of the commanding officer in hearing cases at this level may be understandable if it is a fight between two servicemen, so I understand why there is some provision there, although there are many who now question whether this should be the responsibility of the commanding officer at all. But my amendment specifically draws out assault and ABH in a domestic abuse setting and says that that must be dealt with by the service criminal justice specialists.
There is a general principle here. The Centre for Military Justice and many individual victims and campaigners find it unreasonable that there is still a role for the commanding officer in these cases at all.
I think it was the Minister who referred to Gunner Jaysley Beck: an appalling case. She was sexually assaulted by a warrant officer more than twice her age and then sexually harassed for months by her line manager, who was almost 10 years her senior. The inquest found that the Army’s failure to deal with her report of sexual assault appropriately, and the pressure of relentless sexual harassment she had endured, contributed to her death by suicide on 15 December 2021.
Before and after the inquest, the family, with support from the Centre for Military Justice, campaigned for greater independence in the handling of serious service complaints for service personnel who have suffered serious sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying in the military. On 18 March 2025, the Government announced that they were taking responsibility for the handling of serious cases such as these away from any single service itself. That is good. However, I am afraid that some anomalies remain, such as the issues in my amendment relating to ABH and domestic abuse.
Amendment 25 ensures that the services victims’ code must always apply to victims of sexual offences. It also ensures that service personnel whose cases are being taken forward in the criminal justice system will receive an equivalent right to service-provided victim services as those whose cases are taken forward in the services justice system. I laid this amendment to prevent service personnel and their victims falling through the cracks between the criminal justice system’s victims’ code, the services victims’ code and all the other things that might pertain to their case.
Amendment 26 relates to
“Production orders: notice to the subject of the material”.
It sets out in some detail how an application is made, then handed or served to the individual. It also sets out that the judge advocate must be satisfied that all the requirements have been complied with, with some exceptions noted where it would involve risk of harm or exceptional other circumstances. This is not dissimilar to the requirements for the civil police arrangements under powers of stop, search, seizure and retention. I believe that this amendment would both strengthen the process of a production order and prevent any abuse of such an order.
All three amendments are highly specific and may seem rather niche, but they aim to do one thing: to clarify and improve the service justice system for all those who come into contact with it or who administer it. I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I have been listening very carefully to the noble Baroness; it is obviously a matter of great importance. I have a question to which she might be able to give an answer when she winds up on this debate. Amendment 24 includes the phrase:
“or is alleged to amount to”.
Am I right in thinking that, under this amendment, it would be entirely for the alleged victim to make the allegation that it involves domestic abuse, and that would be enough to trigger the provisions outlined in the amendment?
Secondly, I would like to ask whether this amendment is being tabled in the light of any specific examples that the noble Baroness knows of, which might assist the Committee in understanding and supporting the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support, in particular, Amendments 24 and 25. That is not to say that we on these Benches are not giving our full support to my noble friend Lady Brinton for Amendment 26, but I think the point of Amendment 24, taking the chain of command out of anything to do with domestic abuse and ABH, is very important. I very strongly want us, if the Committee does not want to press the Minister to accept the amendment as phrased, to find a way of amending the legislation such that it can be taken into consideration, so that an allegation of domestic abuse would not go to the commanding officer. If this amendment does not work, please can the Minister come back with something that the Government feel is appropriate?
On Amendment 25, as with others, my noble friend Lady Brinton has picked up the danger of people falling between service justice and civilian justice. If we need to amend the legislation then that is something we should be doing. Clearly, we do not want individuals slipping between the two.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, in a similar vein to the previous group, I think I am pretty well on a similar page to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, particularly on Amendment 25, which seeks to ensure that the service victims’ code cannot be restricted to exclude victims of sexual offences or domestic abuse.
The amendment seems to me to close what looks like an unintentional gap. A servicewoman whose case is prosecuted in the civilian courts should not receive a lesser standard of service-provided support than one whose case proceeds through the service justice system. That seems to me a matter of basic fairness. I hope that the Minister will consider the merits of this amendment or at least explain clearly why, and in what circumstances, the Government believe that such an exclusion could ever be justified.
Amendment 24, I suggest, requires greater caution. I infer from the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that she recognises that this has to be approached with care. The amendment would remove a commanding officer’s power to hear summarily any charge of assault or actual bodily harm where the conduct amounts to domestic abuse, requiring referral instead to the service police or the Director of Service Prosecutions.
I do not dismiss the intention behind the amendment. There is a real and understandable concern that summary hearings may not be the right forum for allegations of this seriousness and that commanding officers, however well-intentioned, may not always be best placed to handle matters with the particular dynamics that domestic abuse involves. The reason why we must proceed with great care here is that the amendment touches upon the authority of the chain of command—something that is and must remain absolutely central to service discipline.
It is that authority which underpins the cohesion and ultimately the ability of our Armed Forces to fight and prevail when called upon. Any change that narrows a commanding officer’s jurisdiction, even for good reason, has consequences that ripple outwards into how units are led and how discipline is maintained. Those consequences deserve to be understood before any legislation is enacted.
I am not saying I oppose this outright. It may well be that this is precisely the direction that service personnel themselves want to see. I would not be surprised if many, particularly among victims, support exactly this change. But we do not yet know that with confidence and I am uncomfortable about pursuing so significant a shift in the chain of command’s jurisdiction on the basis of good intentions alone. What is needed is careful, structured consideration by the Ministry of Defence, drawing on the views of senior officers who carry responsibility for discipline across the force and, just as importantly, of the commanding officers at unit level who would actually exercise or lose this power. I ask the Minister to commit to precisely that engagement and to report back to this House on its findings before a change of this magnitude is made.
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.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of the Lord Bishop of Norwich, seek to remove the requirement that an offence must be a “serious offence” for a Provost Marshal to be the appropriate authority and instead allow the Provost Marshal to be an appropriate authority in all service offences.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, in moving Amendment 27, I will speak also to Amendments 28 to 34 in my name; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for her support. I declare an interest, both for this series of amendments and for my contributions in Committee earlier today, as the father of a soldier. The amendments I am proposing are all interlinked and aim to give service police the same authority to authorise and/or request pre-charge custody as is given to commanding officers in all offences. I am grateful to the Minister for his work on the Bill and for the generosity of his time in speaking to me over the weekend about the amendments in my name.
The Bill initiates the change to give service police power to authorise custody in some circumstances. This is a very welcome change and a step in the right direction in making service police investigations truly independent of the chain of command. However, in my view, it does not go far enough by failing to give service police power to authorise custody in all circumstances. The current wording of the Bill allows service police to authorise custody only for specific offences while allowing the commanding officer to authorise custody in all circumstances.
The Bill creates the definition of “serious offence” in Clause 16(3), which sets out the offences that service police can authorise custody for. However, this definition does not include key offences such as battery, harassment and stalking, as has already been mentioned, even in the case of domestic abuse. It does not include theft, even in high-value cases, nor the vast majority of military conduct offences. The definition of “serious offence” is different from “serious service offence”, which is defined in the Armed Forces (Powers of Stop and Search, Search, Seizure and Retention) Order 2009. This definition is used by service police to authorise searches upon arrest. It gives a far simpler definition of offences to include those offences and specific military conduct offences that are indictable. These differences will create additional complexity and bureaucracy for service police acting in very dynamic arrest situations and increase the risk of authorisations for custody and/or searches being made incorrectly when the definitions are so similar.
The provision to allow service police to authorise custody for serious offences is a partial step to give service police greater parity with their civilian counterparts. It is noted that the authority will likely be delegated only to OF-2s—Royal Navy lieutenants, Army captains or RAF flight lieutenants—within the service police. The civilian rank to authorise custody is a sergeant for all offences, a rank and responsibility level significantly lower than that of an OF-2. The provision also gives the service police authority to authorise custody and reduces the following risks about availability, sufficient understanding and impartiality, which are frequently experienced. I will briefly go through each of those.
First, on availability, it is a regular occurrence that commanding officers or their delegated representatives are not contactable by telephone at night and at weekends. This means that service police have to physically attend commanding officers’ houses to gain custody authorisation. When some service police shifts have only three personnel covering a huge regional area—there are five regions covering the entirety of the UK—this can delay other vital investigative actions, such as victim engagement and contact, recovery of forensic evidence and/or the conducting of searches.
Having sufficient understanding is the second point. At the moment there is an issue of some commanding officers and their delegated officers not having sufficient training in their powers. This has led to authorisations of custody being delayed as they seek further advice and, on rare occasions, custody not being authorised without significant pressure from RMP senior officers explaining the obstruction that will be caused to an investigation by not authorising custody. The intent of the Bill to allow service police OF-2s and higher to authorise custody will mean that custody will be authorised by personnel specifically trained to deal with these circumstances.
Finally, there is impartiality. An additional issue is the conflict of interest posed by allowing commanding officers or their delegated representatives to have sole decision-making on authorising custody. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, spoke eloquently and movingly about this area on the previous group. While most officers within the Armed Forces can appropriately be entirely impartial, there have been occasions when clear conflicts of interest have arisen. There is a significant reputational risk to the Armed Forces in this current arrangement, I suggest. Giving additional powers of authority to service police will negate the risks of conflicts of interest by ensuring that an independent service police officer can authorise custody in all circumstances.
I assure the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that the proposed amendments standing in my name do not remove the ability of a commanding officer to authorise custody. None of these amendments removes their jurisdiction to conduct a summary hearing. None of these amendments changes the current situation of the case eventually being referred to the CO to consider a charge. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I rise to give my verbal support to the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate, which I have co-signed. I did so precisely because I think there are areas that need to be further explored. In particular, the points that he raised so eloquently need to be considered. To what extent are commanding officers or their delegated officers going to be available at precisely the sort of time when there might be a need for considering custody? It might well be the time that commanding officers are not available. It would be much more sensible to have a single approach where we have police who have the training and who understand what the requirements are.
There is also the issue of impartiality, which came up in the previous group of amendments. Although I understand the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about taking commanding officers out of the equation, there might at times also be a case for a degree of objectivity. These amendments seem to be straightforward, logical and arguably desirable, so I now expect the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, to explain to us why they do not quite think this is the case.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I wish to make it clear that I tabled the Clause 16 stand part notice not because I oppose the changes the Government are making but because I seek some clarifications on the intended effects and operation of the changes being made. I am particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for his engagement with my noble friend Lord Minto on this matter. He offered an insightful explanation of the effects of Clause 16 and the intention behind his amendments, which I will comment on in due course. I also recognise the pressure that has built since the Etherton review for greater independence in the handling of service justice matters, but Clause 16 makes a significant change to how pre-charge detention operates.
As I understand it, Clause 16 amends Sections 98 and 99 of the 2006 Act so that the authorisation and review of custody without charge—currently a function of the commanding officer—is transferred to a newly defined “appropriate authority”. The commanding officer will no longer be the person to whom an arrest and its grounds must be reported, nor the person who orders release once the grounds for detention fall away. In cases involving serious offences, the Bill goes further, requiring matters to be reported beyond the commanding officer altogether. I press the Minister on what this means in practice.
Custody decisions sit close to the heart of a commanding officer’s responsibility for the people under his or her command. A commanding officer who no longer authorises, or is even routinely informed of, the custody of a member of the unit loses a degree of visibility over discipline and welfare that has traditionally gone hand in hand with command. I am not arguing that visibility must always trump independence. There may be good reasons, particularly in sensitive cases, for distancing these decisions from the chain of command. But what happens in operations, for example, where a commanding officer’s swift decision-making may be necessary? What assessment has been made of the effect on unit cohesion and discipline where a commanding officer is no longer the first port of call?
Service justice depends on decisions being made promptly by somebody with the standing and the proximity to make them properly. If the appropriate authority is going to be some distance removed from the unit, either in rank or in geography, the Government need to explain how that gap will be bridged without compromising either the rights of the individual in custody or the operational chain of command’s ability to function. I hope the Minister can set out clearly what triggered these changes and why they are necessary. Very importantly, what alternatives were considered? Equally importantly, what consultation took place with commanding officers themselves before this approach was settled upon?
Having said that, I understand that there are instances where commanding officers have been too close to the matters in hand and have therefore not appropriately dealt with the accusations. The right reverend Prelate has argued that the provost marshal should have the ability to be an appropriate authority in all service offences, not only in cases where a serious offence has been committed. I have considerable sympathy with that view. If we are to make the change the Government propose—although I have some reservations, I do not oppose it outright—it is certainly sensible to extend the involvement of the provost marshal. I shall await with interest the Minister’s comments on the arguments advanced by the right reverend Prelate, and on the potentially enhanced role of the provost marshal.
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.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for agreeing to look further at the availability of commanding officers. We should remember that, very often, it is their delegated person being dealt with. They can frequently not have had their required training in this area, which means that it is actually the Military Police advising the delegated person to make the decision to tell the Military Police. There are some things to explore there within the Ministry of Defence and I am grateful that the noble Lord has agreed to look at that further.
The key thing here is speed and simplicity. Both are needed in the custody process so that there is justice for all and decisions are made in a timely way, so that the due process can happen. I am grateful to the other speakers—to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for her support and to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her very considered reflections and challenge. I look forward to seeing how this progresses with the Minister’s response and I reserve the right to bring this back on Report, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Goldie
“(iii) a retired holder of such a rank.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, we are getting into the home straight, so I will try to accelerate the pace. The effect of Amendment 35, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Minto, would be to add retired holders of a qualifying rank to those eligible to sit as members of a court martial. The problem this amendment addresses is a simple one of numbers: court martial panels must be drawn from officers of sufficient seniority and, crucially, sufficient distance from the defendant to ensure impartiality. Where the defendant is of relatively junior rank, that pool is large enough, but where the defendant is a senior officer, the pool of serving officers senior enough and unconnected enough to sit in judgment shrinks dramatically.
The Committee will recall that, when the service justice system last had to try an officer of very senior rank, the court administration unit struggled to assemble a panel at all, precisely because every available serving officer of sufficient seniority had some prior connection to the defendant, whether through shared courses, shared postings or simply the small world that senior rank inevitably creates. It was only the defendant’s departure from the service by the time of trial that allowed the difficulty to be resolved through the use of civilians, a workaround unavailable had he still been serving. This is an example that the Minister himself used to defend the Government’s changes to the court martial through the Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment) Rules 2024.
When this amendment was debated in the other place, the Minister responded at some length on a related but distinct point concerning the automatic qualification of former warrant officers who receive a commission. That is a fair point, so far as it goes, but it does not address the underlying difficulty my honourable friends identified, which was the shortage of eligible serving officers when the defendant is senior. I do not believe that concern has yet been answered, and I hope the Minister will use this opportunity to address the point.
The other matter raised in Committee in the other place by the then Minister, Al Carns, was that there was no capacity issue for the courts martial, but that was not the experience of my honourable friends, who undertook a visit to Portsmouth as part of their work on the Committee, nor the recollection of the Liberal Democrat Member of the Committee. While capacity in the service justice system might not be the most severe problem in the world at the moment, what is to say it will not become so? So why not safeguard against that possibility by allowing retired officers to also partake in the court martial? This is a fairly straightforward and perfectly well-intended proposal and I hope the Minister might be able to look on it with some favour. I beg to move.
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?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
In that case, I am grateful to the Minister and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Goldie
“Removal of presumption of suspended sentence orders(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In section 200 (suspended sentence orders), omit subsections (1)(aa) and (1)(ba).(3) Omit section 200ZB.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the presumption of a suspended sentence order from the service justice system.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 37 is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Minto. This issue has caused deep disquiet on these Benches for many months. We have opposed the Government’s introduction of a presumption of suspended sentence orders for sentences of over 12 months on numerous occasions. We opposed this presumption when it was introduced in the Sentencing Act and we opposed it again when the Government resisted our attempts during the passage of the Crime and Policing Bill to carve out exceptions for repeat and dangerous offenders.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower warned this House at the time that, under this presumption, a stalker could breach a protection order or a suspended sentence order and still never see the inside of a prison cell. My noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie pressed similarly and rightly for sexual offenders and domestic abusers to be excluded from a presumption that treats a 12-month threshold as an almost automatic bar to custody. The Government and the Liberal Democrats resisted both attempts. We believe that events will prove these warnings correct and we do not resile from them now. Our objection to this presumption has never been confined to any one category of offence. It is a broader objection that Parliament should not instruct judges as a starting proposition to look away from custody before they have even considered the facts before them.
The evidence on breach itself gives us little comfort. Where a suspended sentence order is actually breached, whether by reoffending or by failing to comply with its requirements, research from the Sentencing Academy shows that only around half result in the sentence being activated in full or in part. In practice, that means an offender can breach the very order that was meant to hold a custodial sentence hanging over their heads and still avoid serving it. Given that theft offences, including shoplifting and offences of violence, make up a substantial share of those receiving suspended sentences, this presumption risks something close to the effect of decriminalisation of persistent minor theft. An offender can be convicted, be sentenced, breach the terms without sentence, and still walk away.
It is our view that the presumption generally is a folly, but it is equally a folly for the presumption to exist in the service justice system. Indeed, I would go further. The case against it is, if anything, stronger in a service context. Good order and discipline within the Armed Forces depend on offences being met with a proportionate and, where necessary, custodial response, determined by the court on the facts of the case, not nudged towards suspension by a statutory thumb on the scales. A commanding officer’s confidence in the system and the confidence of the wider service rest on knowing that serious or persistent offending will be met with a sentence that reflects it.
This amendment would simply restore to the service courts the same sentencing discretion that existed before this presumption was imported wholesale from the civilian system. Given all we have discussed today regarding sexual abuse, stalking and the general treatment of female members of the Armed Forces, I think it is a dereliction of duty to allow this presumption to stand. I beg to move.
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.