(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.