Lords Chamber

Wednesday 2nd September 2026

(began 2 hours, 15 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:07
15:08
15:08
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I'm sure the noble Lord, my >> I'm sure the noble Lord, my noble friend, will understand. I won't comment on individual cases. However, following the However, following the recommendations of the Rycroft review, the government's introducing a complete ban on crypto asset donations of all value. Until such point that Parliament and the Electoral Commissioner satisfied that there is sufficient regulation in place to ensure confidence and transparency in donations being made in this way, and the ban has a retrospective effect.

From the date of its announcement on the 25th of March this year to prevent malign actors circumventing it. And with this policy, we're taking decisive action to defend the legitimacy and integrity of our democratic system from foreign interference. And I hope all politicians will take seriously that the rules apply to everybody.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Successful investigations require the right powers to be available. Yet both the National Crime Agency and the Met Police Crime Agency and the Met Police have warned that they can't use their full suite of powers because the maximum sentences for many political offences are too low and don't trigger them. Both the Rycroft Review and the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy have highlighted this loophole. So could the noble Lady, the Minister, reassure us that the government will be using the representation of the people Bill to table amendments to close this loophole, so the full power of law enforcement can be used against politicians who might be or might

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not be, breaking the law. Yeah. Well, we want to see all the loopholes around this issue closed, loopholes around this issue closed, and we are taking very strong action and clear action. We've accepted all of Philip Rycroft's recommendations, and we're taking forward a comprehensive package of reforms to strengthen those reforms to strengthen those safeguards against foreign political interference in influence and interference in our politics. and interference in our politics. And I look forward to debating with members of your Lordships House.

This bill, we start on the 14th of September.
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
None Portrait Oral questions: Annual undiagnosed maternal PTSD cases according to British Journal of General Practice study Baroness Nargund (Labour)
-

Oral Question Baroness Nargund. >> Oral Question Baroness Nargund. >> My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:51
15:52
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Portrait Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this first group of amendments addresses the scope of the Armed Forces Covenant and I will speak to amendments one, two, three and four all in my name. And I very much thank the noble Lady, Lady Smith of Newnham, for her support. They all relate to page two of the Bill, and all after the word Forces online 13, 16, 1921, seek to insert the words and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. This is a group of very modest amendments, but which correct an anomaly in the Bill as a whole, and give clarity and certainty to the the RFA who are widely acknowledged by us all as a vital part of the Royal Navy and the UK's national security and defence.

In his winding up on the debate on the Second Reading of this bill, the noble Lord. 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 are covered in this way in one part of the bill, but not in another. Are the government really saying RFA personnel are recognised as part of the armed forces community when it suits, but yet they fall outside the statutory legal duties applied to that community for members of the Regular and Reserve Forces.

Can the Minister therefore explain why the RFA are included in the Commission's powers, but are excluded from the rest of the Armed Forces Covenant? The Minister is well aware that I've been focussed on the status of the RFA for some time. It is my belief they are 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 fleet owned by the Ministry of Defence and rather than accounting for the risks and sacrifice they take as seafarers supporting military operations, the government seems to view RFA personnel as just another type of civil servant.

This is to fundamentally misunderstand their role and function. Let us not forget members of the RFA work to the same standards 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 and at this time of constrained resources, they are frequently tasked with roles that would normally be given to warships. My Lords, they are not civil servants. I noted that during the recess, Veterans Minister Calvin Bailey visited RFA, Tidespring and Mount's Bay, where improving welfare and morale of the crew and supporting their families was high on his agenda, the Minister was quoted as saying the RFA had slipped from public consciousness, despite quietly underpinning operations, as he described it, like a big Swiss army knife and like other branches of the armed forces, the RFA have experienced considerable recruitment and retention challenges recently, and in order to fulfil their remit, the RFA was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

having to move personnel between vessels, stretching the workforce dangerously thin and Leading to questions as to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Leading to questions as to whether ships could be crewed effectively and safely. Commodore Sam Shattock, head of service, has Sam Shattock, head of service, has sought to address this. He has had to reduce the operating fleet but to reduce the operating fleet but also operating fleet for now. But also he has reviewed the training also he has reviewed the training and career framework to streamline progression and ensure personnel are developed and deployed more efficiently. And I am pleased to note that recruitment is increasing and applications have reached their highest level in five years.

And I am heartened also to hear that the new Armed Forces Commissioner has already met with Commodore Shattock, and that she is fully aware of the unique position of the RFA on assuming office. She has stated, and I quote, 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 previously acknowledged 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 two? 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 only talking about an additional 1700 serving RFA members, plus veterans and families. It's an increase of less than 1.5%. My Lords, the RFA population would welcome recognition as beneficiaries under the Armed Forces Covenant, a covenant not founded on status but on military service.

Service such as that provided in areas of conflict and crisis by members of the RFA. My amendments give these men and women the clarity and recognition they deserve. Defence Minister Luke Pollard recently told the Portsmouth News. And again, I quote, we've got the opportunity to reset the relationship with the seafarers within the RFA and it means we can start valuing the process of valuing the RFA more. I feel they have been undervalued in the past. My Lords, the government can start the process of valuing the RFA more right here by accepting my amendments.

And 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 as to why not. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause. Two, page two. Line 13 at the end. Insert and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Line 13 at the end. Insert and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Thank you, my Lords, for your forbearance and exercise of mutual courtesies going on here between myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. 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 that the previous government undertook in the Armed Forces Act of 2021. And I may say to the noble Lord the Minister, although I was somewhat diffident as a Minister about this expansion, now that this government has seen fit to provide it, I am 100% in their and want it to to
15:59
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
work as well as possible. And my amendments in this group are amendments in this group are intended to strengthen that legal duty. Now, as drafted, the Bill extends the covenant legal duty to extends the covenant legal duty to four persons. The new section 343, four persons. The new section 343, as a subsection four, specifies that those persons are a national authority, a local authority, an education body, and a health body. Now, new section three, four, three a, z B, subsection two sets out the definition of national authority as being a 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, and a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland Department. Now, so far this all seems quite reasonable, but it appears to me that this definition applies to only a limited subset of public bodies. The Ministers of the Crown Act 1975, defines the Minister of the Crown as a holder of an office in Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and includes the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Defence Council.

Therefore, the Covenant Legal Duty will apply to individual Ministers and to the government departments that the League, as well as departments of the devolved administrations. But this definition does not include all categories of public bodies, specifically those bodies that are legally distinct and operationally independent from central government departments such as. NBS. A phrase you'll be hearing me talking about in subsequent debates at committee. Publicly owned companies, the courts and non-ministerial departments. Now, the reason I do not believe these bodies are captured by the definition the government have used in the bill is as follows.

Take a publicly owned company, such as a new nationalised railway operator, Great British Railways. Now GBR is to be wholly owned by the Crown. But as per clause two of the Railways Bill, it is not to be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown or enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown and further service as a member of staff of GBR is not service in the civil service of the state and the Secretary of State. The Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers are not to be regarded as shadow directors, so this company is a separate legal persona incorporated under company law is explicitly not a Minister of the Crown and is not a government department.

And yet it exercises transport functions on behalf of the Department for transport, which does fall under the scope of the covenant as both a specified person for the DfT and as a specified matter in relation to transport. And it seems to me that GBR is precisely the sort of body to which the covenant legal duty should the covenant legal duty should apply. And what about other arms length bodies? Well, the Cabinet Office's Public Bodies Handbook, part one with which I'm sure the noble Lord, the Minister, is intimately acquainted.

Entitled Classification of Public Bodies Guidance for departments, states that a non-departmental public body has its own separate legal personality outside of the Crown, and they are headed by a chief executive and not a Minister of the Crown. And this is a similar position to non-ministerial departments. So all this means that key public functions which directly relate to specified matters in clause two, will not be included within the scope of the covenant. Now, by my estimation, these could include HMRC, the National Crime Agency, the Care Quality Commission, Prison and Probation, Probation Service and Homes England to name a few.

And it also means, bizarrely, that the government would not seem to apply to the new Defence Housing Service, even although the entire purpose of that new body is to improve the standard of living for service families. That doesn't square with the government's belief that personal taxation and and criminal issues are matters to which the Covenant Legal Duty should apply. But to exclude HMRC, the courts and the Prison and Probation Service from being within school. Now, it is my contention that if the government wishes to put the Armed Forces Covenant fully into law as their election manifesto commits them too.

Then they must expand their definition of a national authority to include all public bodies exercising public functions relating to the matters specified in subsection five. And that is precisely what my amendments five, eight, nine, ten, and 11 intend to achieve. Amendments five, eight and nine replace the term national authority with public authority to introduce this wider application. Amendment ten states that public authority is to include include publicly owned companies, non-departmental public bodies, and any other person certain of whose functions are of a public nature.

Mirroring the definition of public authority in section six of the Human Rights Act 1998, amendment 11 then defines non-departmental public body and public owned company, borrowing the definition of the former from the Freedom of Information Act of 2000. Now, the overall overall impact of these amendments is to expand the application of the covenant to all public authorities, not just those falling under the direct authority of a Minister of the Crown. And I think it would be useful if the noble law of the Minister could tell the House why the government opted for the language within the bill, rather than looking to similar existing acts with existing definitions for for their legislative purpose.

Now, as I've said, the Human Rights Act of 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 both apply to the wider public sector, and as such, those acts have a broader definition than the definition of national authority in the bill. And I would also be grateful if he could clarify exactly what bodies the Ministry of Defence believe would be subject to the covenant if the Bill were kept as it is, because if the government does acknowledge that key public bodies will be excluded from the legal duty, that I hope they will be willing to engage with me before report and come up with an appropriate government amendment to rectify this.

This omission. If not, I have to indicate I may be minded to push these amendments to a division.
16:06
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I gave way to the noble Lady Baroness Goldie precisely because she had her name first on a set of the amendments in this group, and I'm delighted that this group, and I'm delighted that I did so, because in the previous Parliament, when she sat on the Parliament, when she sat on the government benches, and the noble Lord Coaker, now sitting as the government Minister, sat on the opposition benches, and I still sat in this corner, I kept exhorting the government to expand the Armed Forces Covenant, not just in the way that the previous government sought to do, but to bring it within the purview of the government and to make it a duty on the government.

So at Second Reading, I welcomed the provisions of this Bill. I am delighted that the previously diffident Minister, now sitting on the opposition benches, speaking for His Majesty's loyal opposition, now sees how important it is to expand the Armed Forces Covenant. And I think the amendments that are brought forward by the noble Lady Baroness Goldie and the noble Lord, the Earl of Minto, are actually very valuable. Quite whether we need the level of detail of amendments or how we go about those, I think needs to be thought about.

And I'm sure the noble Lord, the Minister will have all sorts of reasons why the specific amendments might not be the best way of doing it, but I would very much hope that, in his response, the Minister might be able to explain whether the noble Lady Baroness Goldie is right that currently HMRC or the proposed Housing Defence Service as. Sorry, Defence Housing Service, don't come under the requirements to be under a duty for the Armed Forces Covenant because if they aren't under that duty, then certainly at Report stage I would be very happy to work with the noble Lady Baroness Goldie to bring forward amendments, because clearly we want to make sure that the duty is on government and public authorities more generally.

So I very much welcome the thrust of that suite of amendments. I also co-signed the amendments in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie, and very much for the reasons that she articulated the role of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is actually crucial in our defence. RAF Lyme Bay is or has been in the Middle East responding to a crisis. It serves our security and defence very significantly. And as the noble Lady pointed out, those who are 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 disagrees with that idea, could the noble Lord, the Minister, explain why and suggest ways in which civilians who are serving on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary can be ensured that they are not suffering any detriment, which is, of course, exactly what the Armed Forces Covenant is intended to tantamount.
16:10
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-
I welcome this opportunity to >> I welcome this opportunity to discuss the scope of the Armed Forces Covenant, and I thank the Forces Covenant, and I thank the noble Baroness for the speeches that they've made. I have to say that I found what they say convincing, although I look forward to the response from my noble friend, the Minister. I suspect 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 two, with or without the amendment, might make a difference, and I suspect it will come as no surprise to the House 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've been a paid consultant to the Forces Pension Society, and I also thank the society for for providing me with a briefing on the matters I'm 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 and significant not just as some general principle, but as a practice applying to practical situations. Now, a way of. By way of background, the Armed Forces Pension Scheme provides a world class pension, and it's 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 service people'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 they have received, because those pensions were calculated incorrectly at some point in the past. The issue has received considerable coverage in the BBC and the times, the Telegraph, the express and the I newspapers.

Now, in explaining the problem, please bear with me because the the scheme's administrative arrangements are little complicated. Defence Business services are responsible for the scheme through veterans UK and they have contracted in turn Sopra Steria to deliver the pensions. Sopra had in turn sub is that sub subcontracted equality as their paymaster and the system is overseen by the Armed Forces Pension Board, supporting the Secretary of State for defence as the scheme manager. Now there are clear doubts about how Defence Business Services, veterans UK SoC posterior and liquidity should be held to account.

There are problems, but I want. What I want to highlight today is the disappointing pattern of overpayments in areas such as pension sharing on divorce, early departure payments, guaranteed minimum pensions and national insurance modifications. There are somewhat somewhere between 1 and 2000 members who have received such overpayments, which indicates a lack of rigour in calculation, inadequate training, a lack of oversight and paucity of quality assurance. Let me give the committee two examples. I will not name the individuals involved, but the circumstances illustrate the problem.

One is the 70 year old, 72 year old veteran who served in the Army for 31 years, reaching the rank of Warrant Officer, class one, and who faces having to repay a pension overpayment of £37,500. This arose from four separate errors in the calculation of his errors in the calculation of his pension. The second example is a 70 year old former RAF flight lieutenant who was overpaid £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 in his. He, not the administrator, who is liable for repayment. It's worth noting that there are many cases with higher overpayment payments, but these cases illustrate the complex nature of the problems faced by members. Now, defence business services have no contractual way to recover overpayments from Sopra Steria or Equiniti. The latter are in turn having to follow Treasury policy. That overpayment of public service pensions should be recovered, thereby visiting the errors made by others on the individual veteran pensioners.

It's also worth noting that demands for recovery have lacked the detailed calculations to assure veterans the new calculations are correct. Indeed, veterans have been told verbally that, quote, we don't provide calculations, end quote. In response to one written complaint, a veteran was told to submit a Freedom of Information application to ascertain how his own pension had been calculated. The consequence of all this is that government has lost the confidence of much of the veteran community through a deficient and poorly executed contract.

Clearly, the covenant is not being fulfilled. So can my noble friend the Minister, in his reply, tell us that he is seized with the significance of the problems faced by these veterans, and given assurance that the Armed Forces Covenant does apply to the operation of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. Whoever is responsible and these are people suffering the problems they face will not have to bear the burden. Will they consider writing off overpayments with. A pensioner has acted in good faith and the error lies with the administration and will.

He asked Defence Business Services to ensure that future contracts make proper provision for recovering losses from contractors, where those contractors are responsible for the pension miscalculations.
16:18
16:19
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I just start with a quite a profound comment. And if your Lordships wouldn't mind. Today we mark 20 years since RAF Nimrod Aircraft XV 230 was lost during a routine operational flight in Afghanistan. This was the single biggest, biggest single loss of life of British service personnel since the Falklands War. And I know 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.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, on a on a slightly lighter note, can we just get out lighter note, can we just get out of the way here? One sobering fact. The noble Baroness Ford Baroness The noble Baroness Ford Baroness May right to point this out. So let's get this out in the open and out of the way. Baroness Goldie has out of the way. Baroness Goldie has been on the road to Damascus, seen the lights, and changed her mind on the lights, and changed her mind on a number of issues.

I have to say I've been on the same road, but in the opposite direction. And therefore I've come to different conclusions. That is the last time I'm going to mention that, because there are a number of such examples as we go through as we go through the bill. But the serious point that I wanted to to just to make is to say, first of all, a number of of the contributions that have been made, people have made suggestions about what? About this, what about that? I will reflect, obviously, on all of the various comments that are made.

I think Baroness Goldie asked about the possibility of a meeting to take further some of the comments you made. I'm perfectly happy to to to do that. Let me just also deal just slightly out of order. But what Lord Davis, in a very important contribution, supported by a Lord Grade and I see from others around the chamber of that. It is a very difficult and important issue. So what I suggest we do, because it not only involves who has responsibility for what, whether it falls within the covenant or not.

It involves a lot of different people, a lot of different organisations, and a lot of different 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 Lord Craig, Lord Davis and who others who want to to to attend to discuss where we precisely are with this issue so we can take that forward. There was such a huge number in the important and contribution that my noble friend made.

I think that is the best way forward for us with respect to that, because whether it's part of the covenant or not, there are a huge number of other points that my noble friend made. So I think that would be that. And that will have been noted and will take that forward. So I'm very pleased, my Lords, to begin the consideration of this Armed Forces Bill, and I'm grateful to and looking forward to the contributions of, particularly Baroness Goldie with the Earl of Minto, but obviously Baroness Smith and many others as well.

And I'm grateful as well for the amendments. I know this general support for the bill, but I also know that nothing is perfect and there's always clarifications that need to be made. And there's also the possibilities of of taking things forward and trying to improve that. And that's always been my the way that I try to take things forward. And I will continue to do so. Can I, first of all, deal with the amendments from the noble Baroness, who we've sailed together on many warships and and and I've met the RFA RFA cruise.

She will know. So I thank her for her contribution. And I acknowledge the concerns that she's raised about Royal Fleet Auxiliary personnel. The RFA, for short, is a unique asset. We all agree with that to defence 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. These amendments would extend the covenant principles, as the noble Baroness outlined 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.

We do not. The government does not support that extension. The Armed Forces Covenant Legal Duty specifically designed to address the disadvantage arising from the new unique obligations and circumstances of service in the Armed Forces. RFA personnel make a huge and important contribution to support defence activity, including, as a noble Baroness pointed out on operations. But they are civilian seafarers employed on civilian terms and conditions and for all civilians, participation in or support to military operations does not in itself create the same obligations or unique challenges as membership.

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. The bill does, however, and again the Baroness, the noble Baroness, pointed this out appropriately recognises the distinct position of RFA personnel elsewhere in clause 31, which brings them within the remit of of the Armed Forces Commissioner, providing an independent route for concerns about welfare, working conditions and systemic issues to be investigated.

And I would just refer, since this is committee to refer noble Lords to the to the bill itself, because it obviously also refers refers to schedule four, which lays out in more detail in schedule four from clause 431. Some of the additional general functions that would be required. So it is more extensive in terms of the welfare provisions investigating thematic issues that may arise, promoting the welfare of RFA members. And I think, very importantly, improving the public's understanding of the welfare issues that RFA members face.

So, as I say, schedule four adds to clause 31 in a way which I think contributes and answers maybe some of the points the noble Baroness has put forward in her amendments. The provision, however, fundamentally does not alter their civilian status or justify extending the covenant duty designed specifically to address disadvantage arising from service in the armed forces. This does not, however, mean, as I say, that the RFA personnel are overlooked in the spirit of the covenant, organisations who have signed the Armed Forces Covenant pledged are encouraged to consider the needs of other groups within the wider Armed Forces community where individual circumstances meet it, and that obviously will include members of the RFA, but that is distinct from extending the legal duty itself, which remains focussed on disadvantage arising arising from service in the armed forces.

However, the government remain committed to ensure the RFA personnel receive appropriate support, but do not believe that extending the covenant legal duty is necessary nor consistent with its statutory purpose. Moving to the other amendments in the group moved by the the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie and supported by Baroness Smith in her comments and Earl of 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 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. 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 the covenant considerations are embedded throughout the wider system. I would just say to the noble Baroness, in direct answer to her point about HMRC would not be covered by the by the by the covenant expanding the duty, however, to all public bodies. And I just point this out as well in the noble Baroness pointed out a couple of organisations she felt would be appropriate to be covered by the covenant, 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.

I mean, you just open up, there are bodies you can point out and say, well, why isn't that? But there are also other bodies. We say, really? And so, as I say, you know, it's a sort of way of considering all of that. So it would increase administrative administrative requirements without necessarily delivering a benefit to service personnel, veterans, their families and the bereaved. The government believes that the targeted approach set out in the bill strikes the right balance between improving covenant delivery and ensuring obligations are focussed where they can have the greatest effect.

I would point out, just as a reassurance, but no, I'm sure people have noticed 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's included within the bill before your Lordships today. So, as I say, that is the government's view, and I hope it provides some of the necessary assurances to the Committee, and I would ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments with the offer again, of saying, of course, we can continue to discuss these matters.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this debate, which seems to me to be one about fairness and about anomalies in this bill, and I thank the Minister this bill, and I thank the Minister for his reply. I make no apology for his reply. I make no apology for highlighting the unique position of the RFA, which I feel the Minister acknowledged in his
16:30
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Portrait Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Conservative)
-
-
the Minister acknowledged in his reply. You know, 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, which are civilians, until they are deployed as reservists. And, you know, it is profoundly unfair to me that the men and women of the RFA who wear a uniform, who are deployed alongside our armed forces but are outside the covenant's protections, and yet they're included in clause 31 and schedule four for pay and conditions.

And and as the Minister pointed out, it it it leads to ambiguity, and it cannot be the government's intention to create this ambiguity. I feel my modest. My amendments are a modest change, but they represent a statement of intent. And it seems to me that Defence Minister, after Defence Minister is lining up to want to value the RFA more and to, you know, give a statement of intent. So the Minister has been offering meetings between now and report.

I hope he will consider the position of the RFA within this bill and consider how together we might clarify this intent, and I would look forward to further discussions. And I reserve the right to bring it back at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report if necessary. Yeah. Of course, if the noble Baroness is saying it would be helpful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have a further discussion. Of course. I appreciate that very much. And with that, I beg leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with that, I beg leave to withdraw. Is it your. Lordship pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment two Baroness Fraser not Amendment two Baroness Fraser not moved. Amendment three Baroness Fraser not moved. Amendment four Baroness Fraser not moved. Fine. Baroness Goudie a Goldi. Sorry, Goldi. Beg your pardon. Not moved. Amendment six in clause two, amendment six. Lord Harlech.
16:32
Lord Harlech Portrait Lord Harlech (Conservative)
-
-
I declare my. >> Interest as a serving officer in the Army Reserve. In moving amendment six. I shall also speak to amendment seven, which stands in to amendment seven, which stands in my name in the same group. But before I focus on the amendments in before I focus on the amendments in detail, I would like to briefly preface the intent behind all of the amendments in my name in the bill, and the government whips can rest assured I'm 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. To still muster the strength of almost 73000. My Lords, we can all agree we're a long way from that now. So all of 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. So the two amendments in this group have a single purpose between them.

Clause two 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. So amendment six makes them visible. Amendment seven gives the duty a specific task. Amendment six would require bodies subject to the clause two 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.

So I anticipate that the noble Lord, the Minister, will tell me this already happens. The registration form for a general general practice does carry a question about Armed forces service, but the question is optional. It is framed in the past tense about having served, and it is asked once at the point of registration. So consider what that means for a reservist reserve. 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 under-utilised. The framework is in place. Yet throughout my years in the reserves, I've never been queried about my military status when scheduling a medical or dental appointment, an experience I'm 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's potentially never heard of it. In order to claim something they cannot prove they're entitled to. So most people don't bother and I don't blame them. So I wish to address the inevitable criticism head on. Subsection four ensures that the decision to respond remains entirely voluntary, stipulating that a declination shall not prejudice an individual's access to or quality of care. While the service person 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. So amendment seven turns to what the duty should actually deliver. It would require health bodies to have due regard to a reservists need to attain and maintain the standards of medical and dental fitness required for call out and recall.

So this bill expands the liability to serve recall to the age of 65, a lower threshold for mobilisation, an opt out model. Every one of these provisions assumes that the individual is medically and dentally fit to deploy the recall powers over people who cannot pass a medical grading is simply relabelling, not enhanced capability. Dental fitness is the sharpest illustration. 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 and it is one the state has created.

By asking the service person to be ready in the first place. Reservists routinely pay privately to stay deployable. That, my Lords, is a hidden tax on service. Subsection three provides that nothing in the clause requires a health body to provide any assessment or treatment otherwise than in accordance with clinical need. The clause by its own as between patients of equivalent clinical priority. It's 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 surprise survives precisely because it is bounded. Subsection four requires the Defence Council to publish those standards, because nobody can have due regard to a standard it can't see. So I would ask the noble Lord, the Minister, two questions what is the Department assessment of the proportion of trained reservists who are currently medically or dentally non-deployable and will the government publish those standards irrespective of what happens to this amendment? Neither of these amendments costs any money.

Together, they're the difference between a covenant, that covenant that is declared and a covenant that is delivered. I beg to move.
16:38
16:40
16:41
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. I too am pleased to offer 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 six addresses what could become a gap in the application of the covenant. Now it's all very well and good placing this new legal duty and select public bodies. But that duty means little. If those bodies cannot identify who among their community are.

They belong to the armed forces, and 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. Now, I understand that this, in fact, is something a number of hospital trusts have started to do when patients attend their A and E departments by identifying early on whether a patient is a serving member of the armed forces or a veteran.

It allows clinicians to develop tailored care. An amendment seven 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. Now, this bill extends liability for call Out 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. So there is nothing in the current drafting which asks health bodies to have any regard whatsoever to that reality.

And my noble friend's amendment remedies this. Now the provision has effect only where patients are already of equivalent clinical priority, at which point a reservist mobilisation requirements may be properly weighed. So I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech for raising these two important issues about the potential operation of the covenant once the legal duty is established, and I very much hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will give the due consideration which I think these amendments merit.
16:44
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, first of all, can I thank the noble Lord Lord Harlech and in the same way, just let me and in the same way, just let me start by thanking him and recognising again the service that that he gives as. As an active member of the reservists captain, I think so I congratulate I'm not sure that's a promotion that's just happened or I've just missed out. But anyway, it's congratulations for that. The second thing, can I also declare an interest that my son in law is also an active reservist? So I'm well aware of many of the issues quite forcefully put at different times.

But I think the serious point is just to declare that as an interest for my part. And and that may occur at various points through the through the bill. So I ask people to take note of that. I was just looking for the relevant point in the in the extension of the covenant in clause two. I just wanted to just before I make the formal remarks, goes to Lord Craig and Lord Davis's point. Also the point, and I'll make it formally in the remarks.

But if. Clause two, the Armed Forces. Covenant duty to have due regard to the covenant, and it lists out in a way that we're all supporting the specified persons and the specified matters. And so there's a huge extension of all of those to cover many of the the points that noble Lords are making, the specified persons, for example, to have due regard to the covenant are a health authority, a health body, you know. So in that sense, I know the amendment is seeking to put in primary legislation specifics, but the government.

And I'll argue that we're we're trying to do that through clause two, the extension of the covenant to certain national bodies, extending that and also then extending it to considerable other matters. So the specified persons are just say to the noble Lord Lord Harlech are a health body into the noble Baroness Baroness May, and to Baroness Fraser the specified matters. And there's a list of them there. And if we go to d our health and social care.

So the. All I'm saying is that the the the bill itself lays out some of the requirements for a significant extension of both the bodies, the persons rather, and the specified areas to have due regard to the covenant. And I'll just go back that in. And of course, that would then apply to pensions in terms of having due regard to the covenant for people who are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

administering that, as in answer to Lord Davis and Lord Grade in the previous amendments, sorry, the noble Baroness Freeman. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. For giving way. Could he just clarify, because the definition of clarify, because the definition of health body refers to NHS England and integrated care boards, does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and integrated care boards, does that include dental services? Just to put that on the record? Well, my my assumption would be that it includes includes NHS services. And so, you know, I you know I mean does it include NHS or NHS? The assumption would be that my assumption would be that it that it does. But but the serious point that I'm making to to them is that on the. I would argue that. Page two and the extension to the national bodies and the.

And the covering matters start to try to deal with some of the various points that the noble Lord has quite rightly made. So I thank the noble Lord Lord Harlech for his views. Amendment six 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, and we are continuing to encourage improvements in that area because it is important that as far as possible, we do that, but we don't believe it's appropriate to place a statutory requirements on these bodies to ask and record an individual's armed forces status 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 duties, such as government Ministers, make decisions about the armed forces community in general, rather than about specific individuals. It therefore be impractical and unnecessary to require these bodies
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page