Armed Forces Bill

Committee (2nd Day)

16:19:00

Scottish l egislative c onsent granted, Northern Ireland and Welsh l egislative c onsent sought . Relevant document: 7th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee .

Amendment 38

Moved by

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

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)My Lords, government Amendments 38 and 39 in my name are needed to make improvements to the Bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Viscount Stansgate (Lab)My Lords, briefly, this is a very sensible amendment and I support it. In the world in which we now live, and with the way in which we communicate with one another, are there people in our Armed Forces already thinking ahead to different, more urgent ways of being in contact; for example, via WhatsApp? Email may not be the only way we can use modern technology to achieve the ends set out in Amendment 38.

Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that these government amendments are limited and make perfect sense. Sending notices by email makes sense. I would be concerned about formal communications being sent necessarily by forms of social media, but, equally, it would be sensible for His Majesty’s Government to keep open the opportunities of using whatever modes of communication are relevant at the time.

The Earl of Minto (Con)My Lords, I do not have too much to say on this group of two government amendments, so I will keep it brief. I understand entirely why the Government wish to allow call-out notices to be sent by email. The Minister has given us an excellent explanation of their rationale, and we on these Benches concur. There are, however, two points which I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify. The drafting of the amendment says:

“A notice under this section may also be served”.

This could be taken to mean “instead of” or “as well as”. My point is that it must mean “as well as”. I would not be comfortable with call-out notices being sent out only by email. What if the email ends up in a junk or spam folder, the recipient misses the email, or perhaps they do not even check their email—there are probably some here who do not do that? If the call-out notice is sent only by email, there exists a relatively high possibility that it might be missed. This could of course have some quite serious ramifications. I hope the Minister can confirm that call-out notices will continue to be sent by post as well as by email. If that is the case, I have no issue.

The second point relates to the first. New subsection (6A) specifies which email will be used to send a call-out notice, that being

“the last known email address used by that person as a means of communicating with them, or … an email address by means of which there are reasonable grounds to believe that an email sent to that address will come to the attention of the person”.

What precisely does “used” mean in this context? Does it mean an address which the individual has provided to the MoD? Does it mean an address to which the MoD has previously sent communications? Does the department need evidence that the person has received or responded to communications at that address, and who makes a judgment that an email address is the last known one? Further, what are those reasonable grounds? Does this imply trying to send the email to a friend or relative, and if so, how will the third party be chosen? If this policy is to have the desired effect, information collection and recordkeeping must be paramount.

I understand that the Reserve Forces (Provision of Information by Persons Liable to be Recalled) Regulations 1997 expressly state that there is a legal obligation for those who are subject to recall to keep the MoD up to date with their residential or postal address. This seems essential. Those regulations do not currently require those liable to recall to keep the MoD updated about any changes to their email address. Obviously, that is because the legislation does not yet enable email addresses to be used for callout. Can the Minister confirm that, with this change to the process, the Government will update the 1997 regulations and any other relevant policies?

Lord Coaker (Lab)My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for their questions about this simple change. Of course, as with everything as we go through this Bill, I will look into all the various points that have been made.

My understanding with respect to email is that the amendment provides legal certainty by establishing that notices are deemed to have been delivered, mirroring—which is the wording—the existing approach used for the postal service. Many of the questions which the noble Earl has quite rightly asked about email and what happens in these circumstances are exactly the same sort of questions that can be asked about the postal service. There are established procedures and practices in place to deal with that. It is an important point. It mirrors the existing approach used for the postal service; it simply gives an alternative and modern way of doing it.

I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that it is the sort of legal certainty that we are looking for, again mirroring the postal service, which would not be available with some of the other methods and channels of communication that might be used.

To go back to what the noble Earl, Lord Minto, said, we need to communicate through a reliable and auditable channel so that we can follow it through and make sure that it has been delivered to whom it is intended for. Again, with respect to letters sent through the postal service, are we certain that this is the address for the person who we think lives there? Are we certain that they have got it? There is a trail by which we can follow that through. That is exactly the same process as will be followed with email. It provides us with the opportunity to modernise the current process and improve the speed and effectiveness of delivery. It provides us with a measured and proportionate approach. It introduces a well-established form of electronic communication while retaining the existing postal option where necessary—I make that point to the noble Earl.

As technology and communication methods continue to evolve, future Armed Forces Bills will provide opportunities to consider whether further changes are appropriate. For now, as far as the Government are concerned, email strikes the right balance between modernisation, legal clarity and ensuring that reservists can be reached quickly in support of defence readiness, mobilisation and national resilience. I again thank noble Lords for their contributions.

The Earl of Minto (Con)Can I just confirm that we are talking about something in addition to, rather than instead of?

Lord Coaker (Lab)It is whichever is the most appropriate to use.

Amendment 38 agreed.

Schedule 5Call out and recall for service: transitional classes

Amendment 39

Moved by

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

Amendment 39 agreed.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed.

Clause 37 agreed.

Clause 38Reserve Forces and Cadets Association

Debate on whether Clause 38 should stand part of the Bill.

The Earl of Minto (Con)My Lords, I rise to oppose the question that Clause 38 and Schedule 6 stand part of the Bill. These provisions would abolish the 13 reserve forces and cadets associations and the Council of Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations and replace them with a single, new, national, non-departmental public body.

I recognise that the Sullivan review identified genuine weaknesses in the governance of the RFCAs, but the vast majority of those recommendations have already been rectified by the previous Government. What is proposed here is not a solution. Rather, I would suggest, it is more likely than not to exacerbate the remaining problems.

Furthermore, I am aware that this proposition has been in the works in the Ministry of Defence for quite some time. My noble friend Lady Goldie was made aware of these plans surfacing in 2020, during her tenure in the department, and she was always sceptical of the idea. She was particularly concerned about the voluntary ethos of the associations being usurped by the bureaucracy of a quango. Interestingly, the proposal did not feature in the Armed Forces Bill 2021, so there was nothing to object to at that time.

16:30:00

I am also of the view that this reorganisation will destroy the voluntary character of the associations. The RFCAs are not and never have been ordinary arm’s-length bodies of Whitehall. They were established in their modern form under the Reserve Forces Act 1996, but their lineage runs back to the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907 and, further still, to the county associations that Haldane created to bind the volunteer soldier to his own community. Their governance has always rested on people who give their time freely, including reservists, cadet force adult volunteers, employers, local authority representatives, members of the regular services and, importantly, the lord-lieutenancy. Voluntarism is at the very epicentre of the RFCAs; it is why local businesses release employees for an annual camp, why head teachers make school halls available for cadet units, and why ex-regulars, up and down the country, sacrifice their evenings and weekends for the benefit of the nation.

Turn that structure into a single national quango directed by central government diktat and staffed by salaried employees, and the incentive to volunteer and its enjoyment wither. Volunteers give their time to an institution that they recognise, trust and is rooted in their own county. They absolutely do not give it in the same way to a branch office of the national quango. The Minister may say that the new body will retain the strength of the membership. I gently observe that such stated intentions are not guarantees written into statute and that, once the Bill abolishes the associations as they are presently constituted, the retention of any voluntary ethos becomes increasingly and progressively less likely.

Secondly, this proposal will sever the historic and constitutional links between the lord-lieutenant and the cadet forces and the Reserve Forces in each county. Currently, each RFCA is bound, county by county, across the whole nation to the office of the lord-lieutenant, who, by long custom, presides over or patronises the association in his or her area. The lord-lieutenant is the sovereign’s representative in the county, the office having been created by King Henry VIII. Through that office, the cadet forces and the Reserve Forces of these islands are connected directly to the Crown itself. A cadet parading at a county event, the reservist inspected by the lord-lieutenant and a cap badge being presented at a passing-out parade with a lieutenancy in attendance—this is the living thread that ties a 15 year-old cadet in Kent, or the Borders for that matter, to centuries of continuous military tradition and to the Crown under which that tradition sits.

Strip out the county associations and replace them with a single national body—headquartered, inevitably, in London, or maybe Manchester—and you cut the geographic and ceremonial link between the lieutenancy and the cadet forces and the Reserve Forces that has, in various forms, existed for almost 500 years. Once that link is gone, we will not get it back. If that happens, it will be yet another example of something good, traditional and historic being destroyed for no other reason than the administrative convenience of the Civil Service.

Thirdly—I put this to the Committee as a matter of principle, rather than applying it only to this Bill—non-departmental public bodies bring with them a well-documented set of accountability problems. Such bodies are close enough to government to be tasked and funded by a sponsoring department, yet distant enough that direct ministerial accountability to this House and the other place is diminished. The Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have repeatedly reported on the difficulties of holding NDPBs to account for the money they spend and the decisions they take.

A single national RFCA successor body will inherit precisely these familiar problems, which makes the Government’s decision all the more perplexing, given that these problems do not currently exist. I ask the Minister directly: why are the Government doing this? What specific measurable improvement will this restructuring make to the delivery of the cadet forces on the ground? What of the impact on the number of adult volunteers, the condition of the facilities and recruitment into the reserves? The Government’s Explanatory Notes speak of addressing

“financial, legal, safeguarding and estate management risks”,

and of placing responsibilities on “a clearer statutory footing”. Those are understandable aims, but none of them requires the abolition of the county-rooted voluntary associations and the severance of the link to the lieutenancy.

I will be candid about what I suspect is the real motive, although I invite the Minister to correct me if I am wrong. This is not at its heart about cadets and reservists; I suggest that it is more about the administrative convenience of the Civil Service, which institutionally does not like anything that seems irrationally messy, historic or not quite uniform. This may make life easier for officials in Whitehall, but it will make life much harder for the volunteers who, for well over a century, have made the reserve and cadet forces of this country work so well. It will also inevitably cost a lot more than currently expended.

Lord Craig of Radley (CB)My Lords, I strongly support the purpose of opposing Clause 38 standing part. The PAC’s 43rd report of 2024-25 heavily criticised the MoD for inadequacies in its financial oversight of the RFCAs. The report said:

“The Department’s arrangements for monitoring and reporting on the RFCAs’ financial performance are inadequate”

and they

“fall below the standard we expect”.

I have studied this report. It is quite a shocker. The PAC even said that there was uncertainty over who was responsible when problems arise. I could go on, but I will spare officials their blushes. I hope they are preparing the progress reports that the PAC demanded, covering these shortfalls and failings.

The PAC specifically acknowledged that the Reserve Forces and cadets are increasingly important to UK defence, as is stressed in the SDR. But to take these shortcomings as specific reasons for changes, not just to financial control but to the management, structure and leadership of the RFCAs, is simply an overreaction. The drafters of this aspect of the Bill seem to ignore history or have little feeling for the long tradition of the Armed Forces’ loyalty and direct connection with the Crown—a tradition that goes back centuries, as mentioned, to Henry VIII and beyond. Such history is binding for the Armed Forces. It should never, even inadvertently, be disparaged or discarded.

Let us recall what Dr Sullivan’s review recommended. He sought to retain the regional volunteer networks, employer engagement and community links that make RFCAs so valuable, while strengthening the strategic direction, financial resilience and oversight. His broader message was to ensure that RFCAs remain a modern, effective and trusted partner for defence, while expanding their contribution to reserves, cadets, employers, veterans and the volunteer estate. What, then, are their particular strengths? I will me pick briefly on two.

First, the RFCAs’ unique voluntary nature, apart from their nil personnel cost, is the essence of the regional and collective support that they bring to the reserves and cadets. Their local, intimate knowledge of employers and of the attractions and enthusiasms of their locality are such a foundational success of the cadet concept that inspires young of different ages, sexes and backgrounds to join up and get involved. Their national coverage is a key defence requirement. All this should be valued and sustained, not badly revamped or even discarded.

There does not appear to be strong evidence of widespread problems in recruiting RFCA volunteers—particularly cadet force adult volunteers, where some regions have reported growth. The direct relationship between lords-lieutenant, personally chosen and appointed by the sovereign, and the cadets in their counties symbolises the expectation of the reserves’ and cadets’ loyalty to their monarch, who is their commander-in-chief. Why discard this without even consulting the lords-lieutenant or His Majesty the King? I subscribe to that old-fashioned notion: “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”

Are the identified MoD failures in financial supervision to be laid entirely at the feet of the RFCA structures? The National Audit Office, in commenting on the financial weaknesses, suggested that arrangements other than a full-blown NDPB would be acceptable. The MoD’s own internal record, following consideration of Dr Sullivan’s report, seemed to indicate that the NDPB approach had been overtaken by the SDR and the key efforts to enhance the reserves’ and cadets’ contribution to overall defence needs. I strongly recommend that the Minister takes this back to his department, checks that the present financial oversight has been improved following the PAC criticisms and gives credit where credit is due to the volunteer strengths of the present structures, as well as to the importance of the symbolic relationship with the lord-lieutenant and the reserves’ and cadets’ loyalty to the Crown.

The Bill is mistaken to degrade or throw away such key elements of a long-established volunteer structure. To throw it away in hasty pursuit of progress, modernisation, accountability and transparency—or any other overworked nostrum of management speak—is pure madness. Of course, the MoD should heed the PAC’s criticism of its lack of proper financial management and ensure that the MoD’s accounting officer has regained the financial oversight expected by the PAC, but the MoD’s financial failings are no reason to discard the tried-and-tested experience that makes the reserves and cadets, with their supporting volunteer associations, of increasing value to both defence and society at large.

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble and gallant Lord. I rise to support my noble friends and speak in opposition to Clause 38 standing part of the Bill.

I am always keen to champion improvements in governance. In the case of the Reserve Forces and cadets’ associations, there is a perfectly reasonable case, as highlighted by the National Audit Office, for bringing greater consistency, accountability and financial assurance to these organisations. My concern is that, in achieving that objective, Clause 38 risks losing something that is particularly valuable in Scotland: the strong regional relationship between defence and the communities it serves.

Scotland currently has two RFCAshighland and lowland. As my noble friend Lord Minto said in his opening speech, they are not simply administrative offices of the Ministry of Defence; they are embedded in the communities in which they operate. They work with reservists, cadets, employers, schools, local authorities and civic organisations. The Lowland RFCA alone maintains more than 130 reserve and cadet centres across Scotland, and supports engagement with employers and communities across a very large, diverse geographical area. This local knowledge and connection was highlighted by Dr Sullivan’s report. He identified—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, referred to this—the

“wide breadth of expertise and community links”

as key strengths of the RFCAs. The Government’s proposal would replace these existing 13 regional associations with a single, UK-wide statutory body. Regional councils will be created, but they will be subordinate to the national body. Many of the important questions about their membership, functions and geographical responsibilities will be left to regulations of the new board. So my concern is not simply structural; it is about accountability and voice.

16:45:00

As I have often said in this House, Scotland is not just another region of England. Defence may well be reserved, but many of the institutions and relationships through which the reserve and cadet forces operate are not: education, local government, skills, employers and communities, for example, are all part of a devolved and distinctly Scottish eco-structure. With the changes, as currently proposed, how can we have any confidence that a UK-wide NDPB will not inadvertently become a London-centred organisation in which Scottish interests are represented only through administrative delegation?

The Bill does not, as I understand it, guarantee Scottish representation on the national board; nor does it guarantee the continuing role, powers or membership of Scottish regional councils in primary legislation. The strength of the RFCAs lies precisely in their ability to connect defence with civil society—something that is a very current issue in these uncertain times, as we seek to deliver the recommendations of the SDR and to meet our NATO commitments.

The historic reason for having regional associations was not bureaucracy but fostering local connections. This remains just as important today. Indeed, the Commons committee recognised the importance of retaining regional representation and local connections, so I urge the Government to think carefully about whether the measures in Clause 38 protect these. Does the proposed NDPB deliver a properly governed national body that retains genuinely empowered regional structures? In Scotland, that should mean meaningful and guaranteed representation; a clear role for both highland and lowland; proper engagement with Scottish civic and public institutions; and sufficient delegated authority to ensure that decisions affecting Scottish reservists, cadets, employers and the reserve estate are informed by people who understand Scotland. Until the Minister can demonstrate that this is the case, important questions remain unanswered. Therefore, I support opposing the question that Clause 38 stand part of the Bill.

Lord Stirrup (CB)My Lords, let me start by saying that I agree with everything that has been said so far. I have put my name to some amendments in subsequent groupings that seek to ameliorate some of the worst aspects of Schedule 6, where I think the Government have got it badly wrong. I will seek to develop those arguments further when we come to those amendments.

Let me pose a question to the Minister. My understanding, like that of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, is that this move is largely driven by a desire to centralise much stronger financial control. If such central financial control is necessary for financial efficiency and propriety, how on earth will the Government carry out their agenda of decentralisation more widely across the country? Since this is a Government who seek to promote devolution, decentralisation and much greater local control, how on earth can this particular part of the Armed Forces Bill be consonant with that policy? They simply cannot have it both ways. I wonder whether the Minister, when he responds, could address that point.

Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)My Lords, it is a pleasure and honour to follow the several noble Lords, including two noble and gallant Lords, who have already spoken; of course, they have tremendous expertise. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, because she made a point that is very important for the more general argument and not just about Scotland: the reserves are not a reserved matter. That says something about how it all operates and how local it is.

I have the honour, as a Sussex man, of being a member of the Sussex Club. We have an absolute rule that we have no speeches ever but, at our annual dinners twice a year, as well as the loyal toast, of course, we have two other toasts. One says, “Prosperity to the county of Sussex”. The other is to the forces of the Crown.

The link between those two toasts says it all. This is partly why we do not have speeches. This is what we are talking about here: this is why it matters, and why it is rooted. We must remember that the origins of all our armies, unlike the origins of the Royal Navy, are not as standing armies but as regiments raised. That is how the loyalty of the people has always been bound in. It is quite a serious historical, emotional and cultural matter.

However, we should not rest our argument only on that point, central though it is. It could be argued that for some reason, these arrangements are out of date. We would then need to think about whether they would be more efficiently done if they are centralised. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, said that centralised non-departmental bodies are a majorly difficult feature of modern British government. It is all to do with the problem of answerability. What comes into rhetoric a great deal in modern government is that we need “an independent body” to do something or other. That sounds lovely, because we all want independence, but what does that independence mean? It means a person with a bureaucratic background being appointed by bureaucrats. There is almost no answerability to the public more widely, or even to Parliament. Therefore, I would be suspicious of that.

Following on from what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, this is relevant now because the Government have inherited this measure from their officials, but it is not consonant with their own policies. The so-called “Manchesterism” from the Prime Minister is, in a way, a modern and more urban version of the thing we all are praising in relation to the reserves in the counties. It is the idea that local loyalty matters, that local people understand these questions better and that power should be devolved. This measure is going in absolutely the wrong direction.

This matters particularly because this Government are trying to shift all of that. Also, we must not forget the wider picture. We live in a dramatically more dangerous world than we have done for a very long time. The loyalty we are talking about needs to be constantly cultivated. People need to understand why their service matters. This will make it harder for them to understand, at a time when we want them to volunteer.

Lord Swire (Con)I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Moore, thinks there is some intellectual coherence in the Government’s approach to regionalisation, given that in the last 24 hours, they have abandoned large swathes of it, including in my part of the world. However, I understand and take on board what he says.

I do not want to make a political point—having just made a political point. I strongly agree with the noble Lord in suspecting that this has the hands of officials all over it. Knowing the Minister as I do, I am not wholly convinced that this has his support. Of course, he will have to support it, as a government proposal, but I think he will get the arguments against it as well as anyone else would.

I am always nervous about any form of military reorganisation when it comes to recruitment. I bow to more distinguished military figures in this Chamber than I was, and it is very dangerous to speak about military experience, given how long ago, in my case, it was. However, I have witnessed over the years—and in the other place was a critic of—the move to change how we recruit our Armed Forces, not least through the use of Capita, which I always thought had disaster written all over it, in capitals. Indeed, that was a view shared at one point by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. I am pleased that the Government are transitioning to the Armed Forces recruitment programme, which will come into force next year. We can only hope and pray that it will do us better service than did the Capita project.

But, of course, what we lost during all that was the whole issue of recruiting regiments from their localities, which has been enormously important over the years, not least because it engenders comradeship among those who join together from different parts of the world when they serve abroad. We have seen that throughout history. I agree that to try to centralise everything goes against the Government’s idea of localism. I can quite understand some officials sitting in the MoD on a quiet Friday afternoon thinking, “We must bring all this together. We cannot have all these independent organisations. It is much easier to have one”. But I think it would be a great mistake.

In an article in today’s Telegraph , the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, Louise Sandher-Jones, talked about the mobilisation of some of the 95,000 retired people who have served in the Armed Forces for an exercise next year. I know they have raised the age at which veterans can be mobilised from 55 to 65—unfortunately, that excludes me by a year or two, although I hope I might have some use somewhere along the line if they are going to do that—but my point is that, if we are talking about a mass mobilisation, it goes back to the debate we had on an earlier clause about how to contact people. We are talking about contacting people who have not been in contact for decades. They live all over the country. What better way of connecting with those people and fostering some sense of purpose and community than by doing it through the existing structure? The whole way that we do our military, to use rather bad English, is going through a transition, with much more concentration on our Reserve Forces and mobilising them in the case of an emergency. I therefore urge extreme caution to the Government, and to stop tinkering with this at the present time. Of course, the RFCAs are not above criticism—I understand a lot of improvements have already been made—but it is senseless, and the timing is wrong, to follow what the Government are proposing to place in their wake.

Viscount Stansgate (Lab)I begin by apologising to my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard. I fear that what I am about to say may not be the most welcome contribution to this debate. I do not know half as much about this as the many noble and gallant Lords and other Members in the Chamber, but I do want to say this.

Last week, I went to an RAF base for an event—I declare an interest because my son-in-law is the station commander—and I was very struck by the extent to which it celebrated the local connection between the base and the community. There were representatives of local organisations and schools and others there, in addition to the lord-lieutenant, with whom I had a friendly word, and I got a sense of what lies behind the debate we are having today.

All I would say to my noble friend is that it is possible that we might lose something valuable by proceeding with this clause. But I am very grateful and interested to hear what he says in reply to this debate. I have an open mind, but I think that some valid points have been made.

Lord De Mauley (Con)My Lords, I am chairman of the current Council of the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations, and I am extremely grateful to my noble friends for tabling these clause stand part notices. Since the Haldane reforms of the early-20th century, most recently renewed in the Reserve Forces Act 1996, to which my noble friend Lord Minto referred, many of the functions supporting the reserves and cadets have until now been provided by autonomous regional organisations known as the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations. Thirteen in number, with a wide membership across the UK, they are made up of former reservists, regulars and cadets—employers, politicians and representatives of universities and local government—all of whom wish actively to support the reserves and cadets from the communities in the regions.

These 13 regional RFCAs are being abolished by the Bill. Each of these RFCAs is run by an executive, overseen by a board, which is elected by the members and, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, said, wholly unremunerated. Each board holds the executive to account for delivering against service level agreements covering estate management, support to cadet units, and carrying out employer and community engagement on behalf of the reserves, cadets and, indeed, defence generally, including running the employer recognition scheme. The unremunerated board is to be done away with by the Bill. The county lords-lieutenant are appointed as the RFCAs’ presidents and vice-presidents. The Bill removes the involvement of the lords-lieutenant.

17:00:00

According to the Defence Council’s RFCA regulations, appointments of members of boards are already made in accordance with Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments guidance. Procedures for this are specified in regulations and incorporated in each RFCA scheme of association, with senior appointments, such as regional chairs, approved by the Defence Council.

The 13 boards are each represented on a regulated national board, which has financial authority, delegated from the MoD through its chief executive, to deliver five principal service level agreements with the MoD, the Royal Navy, the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. This is scrutinised by a sponsor board comprising the MoD’s Reserve Forces and cadets branch, the service level agreements holders, the chair of the RFCA board, MoD financial teams and others as required.

The RFCAs’ national board consists of the chairs of the 13 regional RFCAs, with a paid national chief executive and other non-executive members, plus representatives from the services. The body is responsible for a budget of about £120 million, mostly spent in small sums across several thousand reserve centres and cadet huts. This estate is spread from the remotest location in the Scottish Highlands and Islands to cities across the UK. The membership and association boards have the expertise and connections in these vastly differing locations that are vital to effective allocation of funds, cadet development and reserve support all around the UK. This professionally led but volunteer-based federated structure is familiar to anyone who has volunteered in a local political party, a parish, a sporting association or a charity. The membership is to be abolished by the Bill.

Recognising the RFCAs’ local roots, the strategic defence review commented, in relation to the critical importance of the need for defence to reconnect with society, that the RFCAs

“will be a valuable organisation in delivering this engagement”.

This is, of course, an exemplar of what the Prime Minister is trying to achieve, as, indeed, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said.

In 2019, the MoD instituted a review into the RFCAs, known as the Sullivan review, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. The vast majority of the recommendations in the Sullivan report have been implemented, but the previous Government did not implement the one to convert the RFCAs into an NDPB. This is now revived in Clause 38 and Schedule 6 of the Armed Forces Bill, which intends to convert the 13 RFCAs into a single national RFCA NDPB. This will make sweeping changes to the status quo, centralising decision-making and removing from statute the entire nationwide volunteer membership and the involvement of the lords-lieutenant.

As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, the National Audit Office, in a March 2025 report, specifically contemplated a structure other than that being pursued. In its report on its investigation into the MoD’s oversight of the reserve forces and cadets associations, the NAO concluded:

“The MoD must mitigate the remaining legal and financial risks identified in the Sullivan review, whether that is by creating a new NDPB or further strengthening the current model, to support the evolving role of the Reserve Forces. In doing this the MoD will need to consider how best to retain the benefits of the RFCAs’ local identities and connections, while ensuring that the RFCAs provide cost-effective, high-quality infrastructure and support services”.

So the NAO specifically acknowledged that creating a new NDPB was not the only way of doing this, but that further strengthening of the current model was indeed an option. This has been completely ignored in the drafting of the Bill.

Furthermore, the NAO said that the MoD would need to consider how best to retain the benefits of the RFCAs’ local identities and connections. The route the MoD has opted to follow will, in fact, remove the benefits of the RFCAs’ local identities and connections, rather than building a bespoke organisation that retains the strength, and the local and national identity, of the current structure and addresses the risks identified.

A Cabinet Office memo dated 4 October 2007, when the Labour Party was in office, specifically stated:

“The Cabinet Office view is that … RFCAs occupy a unique position within the central Government sector and do not fall into any of the existing administrative classifications. In particular, they are not NDPBs”—

“not” is underlined in that memo. It continues:

“Crown status implies a closer relationship with central Government than is typical for NDPBs … some of the NDPB controls, such as those on appointments, would not be appropriate for … RFCAs”.

Furthermore, after a meeting with the MoD’s Permanent Secretary in September 2025, his post-meeting note stated:

“Sullivan should now be regarded as overtaken by events by SDR/NAO report”,

and:

“Concerns were raised about the NDPB approach risking national linkages, as is currently the case through the 13 associations”.

In removing all involvement of the voluntary membership, the changes proposed in respect of the RFCAs in the Armed Forces Bill, by amending the Reserve Forces Act 1996, fly in the face of Prime Minister Burnham’s stated aim to push power down to the regions of the UK. The Permanent Secretary’s position as accounting officer requires him to have oversight of the funds allocated to the RFCAs. This accountability and financial authority is already in place, vested through a letter of delegation through the RFCAs’ chief executive. None of the things being done through the Armed Forces Bill—such as replacing the current board with unelected so-called independent people selected by Ministers, on advice, through the OCPA process, with no special commitment to the Reserve Forces and cadets—will do anything at all to improve the Permanent Secretary’s oversight of the funds, but they will do considerable damage to a large body of people who can advocate for defence in the regions and nations of the UK. I therefore support my noble friend’s objection to the clause and the schedule standing part.

Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)I too support this amendment. I took part in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, in January 2020 when it appeared that the then Government were leaning towards adopting the recommendation that now appears from the Sullivan report. All the Back-Bench speakers on that occasion were against that course of action, with the possible exception of the Labour Front Bench, which did not commit itself one way or another. The only speaker who was cautiously in favour was the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who is normally a formidable advocate for the Government or any other cause. On this occasion, she acknowledged all the points that were made against the Government’s suggestion but nevertheless advanced some arguments in its favour. I wonder if her heart was really in it.

I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who we much respect, about the real advantages that will follow from this reorganisation—advantages which are supposed to compensate for the undoubted loss of the various links that have been so eloquently described around the Committee. In particular, I ask him to clarify whether there is any legal requirement to make this change. I suspect his notes will contain words such as “governance”, “accountability”, “assurance”, “transparency” and “public confidence”, but, stripping away the language, I need to be convinced that there is any actual legal requirement for a change of this sort.

I turn to the budget, which I think in the debate in 2020 was said to be £112 million. This is not a trivial sum, but when it is compared with the £333 billion-odd we spend on welfare and social security, it is. Is it felt that there has been some financial failure generally on the part of the organisations, apart from the changes which have been implemented from the Sullivan report? Is it considered better to have paid rather than volunteer participants in the organisation? How much will this increase expenditure? As has been said a number of times, how does this fit in with the devolution agenda? At the moment, although I do not in any way challenge the sincerity of the civil servants who have no doubt advised the Government that the change is for the better, I think the Committee needs persuading that the RFCAs’ unique characteristics are worth sacrificing on the altar of tidying up or centralisation.

Lord Dannatt (CB)My Lords, I intend to speak to further amendments in this general area later today, and I do not wish to repeat the sensible arguments that noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords have already made as far as this matter is concerned. However, it seems to me that, with this fundamental series of changes, we are taking a pretty large sledgehammer to crack a nut. That nut is the Sullivan report of 2019, which itself has been largely attended to and many of the changes already made—so the sledgehammer is being applied to the wrong nut.

My greatest concern is that if these measures were to be implemented, the local character of our reserve and cadet forces would be changed beyond recognition, and the volunteering ethos on which they currently depend would itself go. Many noble Lords will know that since Covid many of our volunteering organisations have struggled to recruit further volunteers. I believe we would be putting a stake through the heart of our reserve forces and cadets associations, and their local character and volunteering ethos, if these measures were to go through.

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Non-Afl)My Lords, this is one of those moments when it would be very easy to remain firmly in my seat. I declare my interest as Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Reserves and Cadets), and I therefore find myself something of a piggy in the middle of this debate, working as I do for the Government in that role. I have sought advice about speaking in this debate, and I do so strictly in a personal capacity. I am slightly worried about the very binary nature of this debate, and I sense that there are things that could perhaps be done to reassure the House. I should also declare specifically that, if this non-departmental public body is created, I will be the Ministry of Defence representative on that body, albeit ex officio, unpaid and with no voting rights.

None the less, this is not a competition for who can be the greatest advocate for the RFCAs. I am certainly in among them, and they have done tremendous work for many years. We must, as the Sullivan, PAC and NAO reports say, do everything we can to maintain that goodness. It cannot be an attack on them. In many ways, I am frustrated that we are focusing on the organisation right now, at the most crucial time, as Article 3 becomes ever more important than homeland defence. Rather than focusing on what future role the RFCAs can play in the defence of our realm and, through their local links, in generating wider awareness in society as to how much more could be done and the vital role that they can play, we are instead getting ourselves wrapped around our handles slightly through a technical change in their approach.

I do not see this as simply wiping away the regional nature of the RFCAs. There are absolutely technical matters that need to be resolved over representation. I understand the calls for voting rights, which will be discussed later, and indeed whether or not members should be paid, and that can all be discussed in detail. However, I recognise that there are elements in the Bill that pose questions which have yet to be answered.

As piggy in the middle and, I hope, someone who can draw the House together, I fully recognise the need now to implement the SDR recommendations to increase the size of the reserves by 20% when financial conditions allow. When it comes to cadets, a key element that our RFCAs deliver but which none the less has not really been mentioned much in this debate is the vital role of continuing to expand the cadets. These are all things that I see RFCAs doing and continuing to be enabled to do in future at a regional level. However, we have to recognise that in successive reports there have been criticisms over governance, recommendations for legal change and challenges about the relationship between those two—criticisms as much of the Ministry of Defence as of the RFCAs, let us be clear about that—particularly when it comes to financial matters.

I think there is a strong argument, but what I have not heard in this debate is what the proposed suggestions are—if we do not go down the NDPB route—for strengthening that financial relationship. It is public money, at the end of the day. What are the suggestions for changing the legal relationship between the MoD and RFCAs? I have not heard alternative suggestions, but perhaps we can explore that in the future.

17:15:00

If I may say so, as a bridge—looking to the Minister and other Members of the House—one potentially sensible way to move forward is that there are things that can be done in secondary legislation. Perhaps the Minister can respond to this. I understand that there has been some consultation with RFCAs which may put some of these fears to one side and address them. Rather than this binary approach, we should be trying to find how your Lordships’ House can come together in a pragmatic, sensible way to address the issues of governance. I for one feel—I am sorry that this is not a unified view in your Lordships’ House—that an NDPB is perhaps one way forward. Maybe not in a purist sense, but we would be able to accommodate the specific needs of the regional nature of the RFCAs within that NDPB, while using secondary legislation to reassure your Lordships that some of these issues can be addressed.

Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)My Lords, I thought I was going to rise from these Benches and be able to say, “I agree with all the noble and noble and gallant Lords who have spoken so far in this debate”, because there appeared to be uniformity across the Committee. We are used to that on defence matters. Last week, on the first day in Committee, there were discussions outside the Chamber, where some of the doorkeepers were saying, “We might have to get taxis this evening”, and I said, “Are you sure we’re not going to finish by 10 pm?” They looked at me and said, “Really? Do you think so?” But, of course, with something like military precision, we finished all our groups by 9.55 pm, and people kept saying afterwards, “Of course, it was military precision. What else did you expect?”

However, it was not military precision that meant that we dealt with business expeditiously on day one in Committee. It was that, by and large, the proposals and amendments that we were debating were areas where we were probing. Broadly, we were supportive of what His Majesty’s Government were proposing. As so often on defence matters, His Majesty’s Official Opposition, the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Cross Benches were supportive of what the Government were trying to do, but this evening we have stand part debates, on Clause 38 and Schedule 6, where the House is virtually united in suggesting that the Government really need to think again.

If I were speaking from the Back Benches, I would simply ask the Governmentwhy? Why is Clause 38 needed? But as I am speaking from the Front Bench, I feel it appropriate to outline that, on these Benches, we very much share the concerns raised, particularly about losing the local connection. I have heard mutterings from behind me saying, “I agree with Lord de Mauley”, and concerns have certainly been raised across the Chamber. In particular, early on in the debate, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, rightly pointed out the importance of the reserves but also the local connection. There is the fact that the PAC had acknowledged that reserves and cadets are increasingly important for the defence of our realm, and that the SDR also highlighted this.

The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, was really the only dissenting voice, and even he said he wanted to be a bridge. I think he was speaking as a non-affiliated Peer, but apparently from the Conservative Benches, so I am not quite sure. He is the only noble Lord so far who has suggested that Clause 38 may be the right way forward. But he reminded the House that the SDR talked about wanting to increase the number of reserves by 20%—when resources allow, in brackets.

Surely we should not wait until resources allow; we should work with the structures that we have, through the reserve forces and cadets associations, and think of ways to ensure that we strengthen and enhance local connection and local resilience. As a country, we have not yet engaged in the national conversation that the SDR said we needed. How better to do that than to work with local people and local Reserve Forces, and particularly the cadets? The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, rightly pointed out that we have not said much about the cadets. Surely that is an area where we need to think about strengthening—again, strengthening the local connection—and ensuring that we have a pipeline to recruitment, as well as resilience and a sense that we are beginning the national conversation.

I will conclude with a statement from Portsmouth City Council—not my local area; unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, I have not talked about my area, partly because, as a Liverpudlian, I feel that the north-west is getting quite a lot of coverage thanks to the new Prime Minister. Portsmouth City Council, in line with its geographical position and the extent of its naval commitments, has a very strong commitment to the Armed Forces covenant and the South East Reserves Forces’ and Cadets’ Association, and it made an official contribution to the call for evidence in Committee in the other place. In particular, the council reminded us—as some noble Lords have done today—that this is not just about the individual RFCAs but about working with local employers. If we accept Clause 38, there is a real danger that we lose not just the history, which is important, but significant aspects of current practice that work well and that could and should be enhanced.

Lord Coaker (Lab)My Lords, it is a great privilege and pleasure to make the case for Clause 38 in your Lordships’ Committee.

I want to clarify something for the noble Earl, Lord Mintothe service of notice for callout will be by both post and email. I meant that by my previous remark, but I realise I did not make it clear, for which I apologise to the noble Earl and the Committee—I thought I had said it, but clearly I did not; I found out through a variety of means that I had not done so.

I will start by saying something else. Lots of people have made a lot of important points. As everybody in this Committee knows, I will consider them and how we take them forward. I cannot walk on water on these things and persuade everybody that I can do everything, but I hope your Lordships know that I will try to do as much as I can to take account of the various important points that have been made. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that it is not a legal requirement; it is the recommendation of various reports that the Government seek to implement.

As your Lordships know, I like to make some informal remarks before I make formal remarks. Before I make the formal remarks, let me say for the sake of clarity that nobody in this Committee doubts the importance of the reserves, the cadets and the organisation, and the work of the lord-lieutenants and charities involved. Many of your Lordships do far more than even I do as a Minister to support those local organisations —the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, is one of the best examples. Nobody seeks to undermine that or do anything that would somehow not ensure that it could carry on.

I was with the noble Lord, Lord Elliott—he was in his place a moment ago—in Enniskillen just on Saturday. The RAF show there that I went to support, with the reserves, the lord-lieutenants and the cadets, was phenomenal. It was absolutely phenomenal to see the work going on there. Nobody seeks to undermine or hinder that. This Saturday coming, I am going to Grantham for the reserves passout that is taking place there, because of its significance and importance. It does not matter whether it is the reserves; it does not matter whether it is the cadets. Ministerially, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, no doubt; the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Craig, through their long and distinguished careers, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, through his, and many others—all of us have committed ourselves to pursue that purpose which is crucial to our nation. Whether it is Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the regions of England, it is crucial and fundamental to us that we do that. Each of the three reports which I will mention emphasise that. However, alongside that—the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, is right, and I will reference it, that the PAC did say either/or—each of those reports said the current framework needs to be revised and looked at.

My view of this is that the national body creates strategic oversight for a structure that would allow the regional councils to be stronger and more purposeful in what they are doing, with the financial oversight and clarity that a strategic body would give them. That is how devolution works. You do not just let the mayors of the country do exactly what they want. A national strategic framework policy is set which allows those local bodies and local government to function—and to function effectively. That is what this seeks to do.

Again, before I make the formal remarks, let me reference what is on the face of the Bill. Yes, it is the establishment of the new body, the new RFCA, but also—I have to put my glasses on; it slows the rhetoric—on page 136, and then on to page 137, the Bill puts into primary legislation regional councils and how those are set up. It states—I will just say this for the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser:

“The RFCA must establish a committee for each area of the United Kingdom as may be specified in regulations”.

That would include Scotland, Wales and all those things. That is laid out there. It then goes on to the various regulations that can be made. We will deal with the various amendments about membership, about whether people are paid or unpaid, and other matters, but all those things will be dealt with in regulations. I realise that the debate then becomes about whether it should be primary or secondary legislation, but it is on the face of the Bill that they will be dealt with by regulations. I will make my formal remarks. Those regulations are in draft form at the moment. I will share those draft regulations with Members of the Committee before Report. Noble Lords can look at them and decide whether they answer some of the points that they would make, so that we will not have a situation, which sometimes happens with Governments, where draft regulations are just presented and you either vote for them or not, without any ability for people to properly scrutinise them and agree them or not.

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)Were the devolved nations assured of a seat on the national board?

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

17:30:00

I cannot satisfy everybody with those remarks, and all I am saying is that I am laying out the alternative. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, will disagree with what I have just said, and there is nothing I can do about that. I fundamentally respect the point he will make about that. It may be that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and others in the Chamber will say, “The Minister is totally wrong. He is destroying and undermining the regional bodies”. What I am saying is that the alternative view is to say we will set up a strong co-ordinated body at a national level which will take on board certain functions and then, within that, the regional framework, which is absolutely fundamental for both the reserves and cadets, will be established to deliver in what the Government regard as a more powerful and effective way.

This debate goes to the crux of what we are arguing about. As I say, many people have spent more years than I have in developing the reserve forces and cadets associations. They have spent their lives on it, and no one wishes to detract from that. It is important to say that, because noble Lords here have made speech after speech saying that what the Government are proposing is wrong, and it is important that I articulate the Government’s point of view, which is different but tries not to be disrespectful to the positions people hold.

Clause 38 creates a new public body to deliver vital support to the reserve forces and cadets association. The Government fully recognise, as I have said, the valuable contribution that the RFCAs have made over many decades. Through their support to the Reserve Forces, the cadet movement, employers and local communities, they provide an important link between defence and society. In an increasingly uncertain security environment, the RFCAs will have an important role in supporting defence’s contribution to national resilience. Through their links with reservists, employers, local authorities and communities across the United Kingdom, they help strengthen the relationships and structures that underpin defence’s ability to respond to crises and support the protection of our critical national infrastructure. In these dangerous times, these functions are more important than ever, as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, will recognise.

The RFCAs play a vital role not only for our Reserve Forces but also for our cadets, who are at the heart of defence’s engagement with young people. The Government believe that Clause 38 is necessary to ensure that these important functions can continue within a governance framework that meets modern public sector expectations. The case for reform has been identified in a series of independent reviews. The 2019 Sullivan review concluded that the existing structure should be regularised and streamlined by bringing the Council of Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations and the 13 RFCAs together in a single executive, non-departmental public body. That review envisaged implementation through primary legislation and identified a stronger governance framework as the best means of securing the long-term future of the organisation.

More recently, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned, the National Audit Office investigation into MoD oversight of the RFCAs found that legal and financial risks remained within the current arrangements and concluded that the department must address those risks, whether, as the noble Lord pointed out, through creating a new NDPB or by further strengthening the current arrangements. I accept that point the noble Lord rightly made. He will not agree, but the Government have made the decision to do that through the creation of an NDPB. However, he was quite right, and I hope he accepts that I have recognised that he was factually correct in what he was saying.

The Public Accounts Committee went further, noting weaknesses in the current arrangements and recommending that the department report on progress towards establishing an NDPB. The committee recognised that the department will need to manage the limitations of the present structure until an NDPB is established. Therefore, Clause 38 establishes a single national reserve forces and cadets association as an NDPB. The reform is concerned with governance and accountability. It will provide a clear line of accountability, strengthen governance and financial oversight and ensure consistency in the administration of public funds and assets.

Importantly, the Government are not seeking to remove the local knowledge, regional expertise or volunteer contributions that have long been central to the success of the RFCAs. Regional engagement and delivery will remain at the heart of the organisations’ work, and mechanisms are included within the new structure to preserve that strong regional representation. Clause 38 also enables the orderly transfer of staff, property rights and liabilities, ensuring continuity of service and support to reservists, cadets and defence more broadly. The Government’s view is that removing Clause 38 would prevent these reforms being implemented and would leave in place arrangements that successive independent reviews, Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have all concluded require significant reform or mitigation. It would also delay the creation of a governance structure better suited to supporting defence resilience and national preparedness in an increasingly challenging security environment.

A number of the amendments we will discuss in other groups relate to this part of the Bill. These amendments seek to include in the Bill details that will be set out in secondary legislation. To repeat what I said earlier, in that spirit, I want to make it clear at the outset that I am happy to share a copy of the draft regulations with your Lordships’ House ahead of Report. The Ministry of Defence has already shared these draft regulations with a number of bodies, such as some of the RFCAs, and I hope this will assist noble Lords in scrutinising the practical effects of these measures and provide further reassurance on how the provisions are intended to operate in practice.

With that, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I will reflect on those points and on how—although I think consensus might be difficult—we may address through the draft regulations some of the different points made in this debate, but also in the further groups we will discuss going forward.

The Earl of Minto (Con)My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister—who, as we all know, has huge respect across this House—for his reply, with his customary passion and belief in the position he takes, and to all noble Lords from all sides of the Committee, even the non-affiliated ones, who have so strongly contributed, with great consideration. There are clearly very strongly held views, contained within a lot of understanding, whether from noble and gallant Lords or people with relationships with the forces, the cadets and the reservists, either directly or through family ties. It just goes to show how important this is and how it is absolutely right and proper that we have a clear understanding of exactly what is being proposed here.

I fear I remain unpersuaded—I am sure the Minister will not be surprised. He told us, in effect, that the new body will be designed to preserve the spirit of the membership and the voluntary ethos. I do not deny that, but it is a question of how that will be carried out. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Government’s intention; what I doubt is that this spirit can survive the destruction of the structure that has, for over a century, created the conditions in which that spirit has been developed and flourished. There is no doubt that it has flourished, as anybody who has been to a county show or has seen recruiters out and about will know. The Minister has not told us how that ethos is to be guaranteed, rather than merely hoped for; nor, with respect, have the Government yet told this Committee what specific operational improvements to the cadet and Reserve Forces this reorganisation will deliver.

The Government seem to be more concerned with consistency and ensuring a clearer statutory footing. This is all bureaucratic language emanating from Whitehall and does not really reflect the wishes of those who are involved in these organisations. I remain of the view—I think that the tone in the Committee will probably support this view in the main—that I set out at the beginning of the group. This change serves the convenience of the centre rather more than it serves the volunteers, the cadets or the communities that the RFCAs have bound to our Armed Forces since before the first county associations were formed. I do not think that it is sufficient reason to abolish 13 historic, voluntary, county-based bodies and the links to the lieutenancy that they carry.

That is why I, along with my noble friend Lord De Mauley, oppose this reform. It is a solution in search of a problem. It is an attempt to fix something that is not broken and it destroys the very features of the voluntary spirit, the county identity and the link to the lieutenancy and the Crown that make the Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations the valuable and universally respected organisations that they are. However, we are in Committee and I have made my point. I will reflect carefully on what the Minister has said, but I give notice that, absent a considerably fuller response from the Government on the questions that I have put, I intend to return to the matter on Report and, if necessary, to test the opinion of the House. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw my opposition to the Question that Clause 38 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 agreed.

Amendment 40

Moved by

40: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause— “Employer policies on the employment of members of the reserve forces(1) An employer to which this section applies must prepare, maintain and publish a policy on the employment of members of the reserve forces.(2) The policy must make provision about—(a) time off for reserve forces training, including any entitlement under section 50A of the Employment Rights Act 1996;(b) the treatment of a period of permanent service under a call-out order or a recall order for the purposes of pay, pension, seniority and continuity of employment;(c) reinstatement under the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985;(d) the post responsible for the operation of the policy;(e) how an employee may make a request, or raise a complaint, under it.(3) The employer must make the policy accessible to every employee and, where it maintains a website, publish it there.(4) The employer must review the policy at least once every three years.(5) This section applies to an employer that employed, on average, 50 or more persons in the United Kingdom during the preceding financial year.(6) The Secretary of State must issue guidance for the purposes of this section, which must include a model policy, and the employer must have regard to it.(7) The Secretary of State must, each calendar year, lay before Parliament a report on compliance with this section.(8) A failure to comply with this section does not give rise to any liability in civil proceedings.(9) In this section “member of the reserve forces” has the meaning given by section 1 of RFA 1996.”Member's explanatory statement This new clause would require employers with 50 or more employees to publish and maintain a policy on the employment of reservists. It carries no sanction and no civil liability. It puts on a statutory basis an existing requirement of Silver and Gold employers under the Defence Employer Recognition Scheme.

Lord Harlech (Con)My Lords, it is a new day in Committee, so I declare my interest as a serving officer in the Army Reserve once again. In moving Amendment 40, I shall also speak to Amendments 41, 45, 69 and 70. I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Penn and Lord De Mauley for adding their names in support of my amendments. Let me also preface my amendments by reiterating my intent behind all of them, as I did on the first day in Committee. They are all aimed at improving the lived experience of reservists in order to boost recruiting and retention and therefore to enhance the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces.

I begin by welcoming the Government’s Amendment 38, which allows call-out notices to be served by email. It is sensible and I support it. But it also illustrates the point behind this group. We are getting steadily better at calling reservists up, but we have said almost nothing about the civilian conditions that determine whether they are still serving and able to be serving reservists when we call. I think that there is common ground across your Lordships’ House on that objective. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, has amendments for consideration later today that approach the same problem from a different direction.

The Select Committee on this Bill in the other place put the point plainly. It welcomed the changes to recall liability and then noted that the measures focus on the strategic reserve and do not in themselves achieve the strategic defence review’s ambition, which in my humble opinion is too modest anyway, of an increase of 20% to make a larger active reserve. That growth will be produced by the conditions in which people serve—and those conditions are set at the reservist’s desk on a Monday morning rather than in the drill hall.

Amendment 40 would therefore require employers with 50 or more employees to publish and maintain a policy of employment of reservists. There is no sanction. There is no civil liability. The Secretary of State supplies a model policy and, under Amendment 69, this would not commence for 12 months. This is already the required standard of silver and gold employers under the defence employer recognition scheme. The difficulty with a voluntary scheme is that it reaches the converted. The employers who need a policy have never heard of it. There are roughly 38,000 medium-sized businesses in this country and that is where a great many reservists work but where there is no human resources function to absorb the question when it arises.

A reservist in a firm with no policy negotiates from nothing. Every request for time away is a personal favour rather than an entitlement, granted or refused according to the temperament of whoever is in the chair—and when that person moves on, the answer changes. A written policy would end the line manager lottery. Subsection (2)(b) requires the policy to address what happens to pay, pension, seniority and continuity of employment during mobilisation. Most reservists have no idea what happens to any of those things, because nobody has ever written it down. That is a remarkable thing to discover at the point of deployment.

My main effort is Amendment 41, which is at the heart of this group. Most reservists fund their own training out of their annual leave. They spend their holiday entitlement on annual camp and have to spread the remainder among family commitments, personal holiday and the incidentals that real life throws in their path. That is the position we are in today and I do not think that it is defensible. This amendment would give 10 working days of unpaid leave a year for annual continuous training or for promotion courses. It would become applicable only after the employee had completed 26 weeks with the civilian employer. It requires 28 days’ written notice and a certificate from the commanding officer. It excludes employers with fewer than 10 employees, it confers no right to be paid and it counts against any contractual entitlement that the employer already offers.

Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 already gives unpaid time off for public duties to magistrates, to local councillors, to school governors and to members of health bodies. Parliament has decided that sitting on a planning committee merits protected time off, but it has not yet decided that training for the defence of the realm does. I think that that is a very difficult proposition to explain to a reserve soldier. Ten days is already the gold standard under the defence employer recognition scheme, and the Civil Service has offered paid leave of this kind for well over a decade. It is a fair question why what the Government expect of themselves as an employer is too much to expect of anybody else.

Let us look at our Five Eyes counterparts. Australia’s Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001 requires employers to release reservists for training—not just for mobilisation, but for training. Our own 1985 Act protects mobilisation only. The current gap is legislative, not cultural. Let me anticipate the objections, including those on my own Front Bench. The first is that this is a burden on employers. It is unpaid, it is capped at 10 days, it requires four weeks’ notice, it excludes the smallest firms and, under Amendment 70, it would not commence for a year. If that is an unacceptable burden, we should be honest and say that we are not really serious about the whole force.

The second objection is that an absolute right is too rigid and employers must be able to refuse. A refusable right is precisely the position that reservists have now and it is exactly why they use annual leave instead. The notice period and the annual cap are what protect the employer, and they are real protections. The third objection is that this is a day one right. It is not. It arises only after the reservist has completed 26 weeks of employment with the civilian employer—the same qualifying period that this House insisted on for unfair dismissal.

Let me turn to something that has happened since these amendments were tabled. Last Friday, the BBC and the Times reported that the Army has been instructed to halt non-essential training exercises and that collective training for United Kingdom-based units has been suspended for most of this year on budgetary grounds. The Army has not denied it. It says that it is prioritising the activity that contributes most directly to readiness. I understand why it would say that, but this bears directly on the amendments before your Lordships.

A reservist books their annual continuous training months ahead, clears it with their employer and, very often, pays for it out of their own annual leave. If the exercise is then cancelled, they do not get that leave back, and the employer who has released them draws their own conclusions about how seriously the department takes its own training. Every cancellation of that kind spends employer good will that took years to accumulate. I therefore ask the Minister three things. First, will reserve collective training and the annual continuous training period fall within the scope of the current pause? Secondly, what has been cancelled or curtailed for the reserves so far this financial year? Thirdly, £4.7 billion of the £15 billion in the defence investment plan remains to be confirmed at the Budget on 28 October. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether reserve pay and training will be protected within that settlement, as well as undertaking to write to members of the Committee once the position is known. I put that in support of these amendments, rather than against the Government. If money is tight, the measures that cost the Exchequer nothing become more, not less, important; everything in this group is of that kind.

Amendment 45 is the mechanism that makes Amendment 40 matter. It would require the national procurement policy statement to address how contracting authorities take account of a supplier’s arrangements for employing reservists. These authorities must already have regard to that statement under the Procurement Act 2023, so this would create no new machinery and no new liability. There is one fact here that the Committee ought to have: the current statement disapplies the social value priority for the Ministry of Defence in relation to defence and security contracts. So the one department whose suppliers most obviously employ reservists is the department least required to weight it; I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how that came about.

Amendments 69 and 70 are consequential. They would provide the 12-month commencement period for the two duties.

The Bill asks reservists to be available later in life, at shorter notice and on lower thresholds. Attendance at annual continuous training is the single biggest determinant of a reserve unit’s readiness. Promotion courses generate the non-commissioned officers, without whom mobilisation at scale is not possible, whatever powers the Bill confers. These are modest amendments and would cost the Exchequer nothing. I beg to move.

Lord Swire (Con)My Lords, before we move on—because I suspect that this is not going to detain us too long—I would like to tease out from the Government Front Bench a couple of things.

As I said in my earlier remarks, we are going through something of a sea-change, rather too late in the day, in how we look at our reserves, our responsiveness and our state of alert in this country. In that respect, we understand that it is easier for larger companies to let people go for training because they have more people, but it is the smaller companies on which we should spend a little bit more time in thinking how we can better assist them. With that in mind, in both cases—those of larger and smaller companies—what are we doing to promote the idea that it is a good thing for them to release their employees to take part in some activities involving the military? Are we actively doing that?

Secondly, on people being released from other duties, it suddenly struck me that it seems rather ridiculous that people in the reserves are not exempt from jury service; I think I am right in that. This means that, particularly if you are a small employer, you might have to let somebody go for not only their reserve training but jury service. That takes a huge whack out of somebody’s time. However we monitor these things, it is almost impossible to ensure that, ultimately, people are not being penalised in their careers for taking time off. I would like to know what the Government are doing to monitor this on an ongoing basis in order to make sure that people who are actively involved in the reserves are not being penalised further down the line.

There seems to be something of a disconnect in our thinking here. On the one hand, as I said earlier, there is talk of mobilising many more veterans—something like 69,000—in an exercise next year, just at the same time as we are telling our Reserve Forces that they cannot have money for training and equipment. What is the Government’s thinking on that? If we are going to mobilise these people, is it going to be a paper exercise or are we actually going to invite them to turn up? Are they going to be given equipment? What is the current thinking here—or is it just a catchy headline?

We have debated the whole issue of preparedness in this country and will continue to do so going forward, for obvious reasons—of that I am absolutely sure. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, mentioned a number of issues, with which I concur. I am broadly supportive of many of the amendments that he has tabled and which we are debating this afternoon, some of which are probably probing. He talked about Australia and the difference in its approach to these matters, as compared to ours. We have lessons to learn from Australia, but why do we not also take into account what they have been doing so successfully in Switzerland for decades now, whereby almost anyone of working age and beyond is required to do service in the reserves at weekends? It is a very bonding exercise. You can be somebody’s boss in the week and that person can be your radio operator at the weekend. It engenders in a country a sense of purpose, unity and preparedness, which is what this must all be about.

Lord Empey (UUP)My Lords, I will make just a brief point. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, mentioned the training issues. I have raised these with the Minister and will come back to them.

In dealing with the employment issues, we have discussed people being released, but, having had the responsibility for fair employment matters, what about somebody being employed if an employer happens to know that that person is a reservist? The employer could say, “I don’t want to employ that man or woman because they will be a nuisance to me and I will have to let them go on release”; that would be one step before you get to the point of being an actual employee. The question is: is a person to be discriminated against on the basis of being a reservist by a future employer who happens to know that that person is a reservist, whether their picture appears in the local paper, through word of mouth or whatever? There is an issue there to be addressed.

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)My Lords, to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, we are going to come on to the issue of protections for employees in the next group. At the moment, I wish to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Harlech on the need to have certainty for employers. I declare my interest as an employer in a small charity, Cerebral Palsy Scotland, and as the mother of a serving reservist. She is about to go on her captain’s course—tomorrow, I think—so she has been negotiating time off with her employer.

To me, this group of amendments goes to the heart of something that bothers me every time we talk about reservists and employers. The MoD always seems to look at this from its point of view. We get things such as the defence employer recognition scheme, demonstrating to us, “Look at all of these wonderful companies that have signed up”. That is fine if you are a silver or a gold large company, but there are not enough of them. The question asked by my noble friend Lord Swire about what we are doing to highlight the benefits of employing reservists to employers was well made; it is something that we do not do well enough.

18:00:00

These amendments would take the existing requirements of the silver and gold employers and offer them to a wider group of people. The example of public duty is a good one. At Cerebral Palsy Scotland, we were finding ourselves completely hammered by jury call-ups. Clinicians, who make appointments six weeks in advance, were being called up for jury service—which, in Scotland, is even more likely to happen because there are 15 people on a jury rather than 12. We decided that we needed a public duties policy. It was because of my daughter and the need for such a policy that we had to consider how we would be treat reservists as a small employer. I am glad to say that we have a policy that enables us to lay out what we would do about time off and all the rest of it. These amendments lay it down and, importantly, would give that certainty for the vast range of employers. Anecdotally, I see that the current active reserves are made up disproportionately of people from organisations in the public sector—civil servants, teachers—

Lord Harlech (Con)And the self-employed.

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)Yes, and the self-employed. That is because they do not have to ask for time off or negotiate with their bosses for training days. I would argue that not only does such uncertainty put people off being in and remaining in the reserves but it leads to the number of service days that active reservists can commit to. I was just trying to look it up, but I think I am right in saying that the number of service days that active reservists have served has decreased year on year. I think that measures such as this would improve that. Anything we can do to support employers to support our reservists would get my vote.

Lord De Mauley (Con)My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Harlech’s Amendments 40, 41 and 45, to which I have put my name.

In an era when the Secretary-General of NATO tells us that we could be at war within three to five years, while I hesitate to make life more difficult for employers, I think we have little option but to require those things which the amendments demand of them. This goes to the point made by my noble friends Lord Swire and Lady Fraser that we need to do better by employers too. As a quid pro quo, we should arrange matters so that reservist training adds more value in the civilian workplace, so that the time employers allow reservists for military training is used more efficiently.

Defence qualifications which produce skills that are significantly useful in the civilian workplace often have limited civilian recognition because no thought has been given to matching acquired skills to recognised civilian standards. Similarly, relevant civilian qualifications frequently do not transfer into the defence system, purely because no thought has been given to it, so time is wasted teaching people material they already know.

Too often, the Army assumes a baseline level of zero knowledge rather than assessing existing competence. Qualified civilian paramedics who become reservists with the intention of becoming combat medical technicians are required to complete entry-level medical technician training, which they have already done in their civilian workplaces, rather than focusing on the military application of the skills they already possess. A more intelligent approach that is pragmatic and less risk-averse is required.

Employers also need to know that reservists’ time is used well, yet the brutal truth is that a lot of training is done in a way that wastes time. Mandatory annual training consumes a disproportionate amount of the limited time available. For example, fire safety, manual handling, data protection, and similar packages are repeated every year, regardless of experience or previous completion. Rather than asking how reservists can fit into systems designed for the Regular Army, we should ask how these systems can be redesigned to maximise the value generated within the limited time that reservists—and their employers—are able to give.

Courses across the board are often shaped to fill a fortnight, rather than designed pragmatically around the time actually required to achieve competence, wasting significant amounts of the time reservists commit and creating an impression of pointless bureaucracy. This approach values conformity over efficiency. It is not helped by the fact that the system seems reluctant to open some training facilities out of hours, and to ask regular training staff to work late and at weekends, which is time reservists really need to be used to be more efficient.

Reserve training doctrine usually mirrors that of the Regular Army, with an expectation that trade training should encompass everything required to operate a capability before an individual is considered employable. Is this the right approach for the reserves? In many professions, individuals are taught the minimum required to operate safely before building competence and experience on the job. I am convinced that if employers considered that the time reservists gave up for military training was well used, and that much of the training and military experience was valuable in the workplace, they would be more comfortable employing reservists. At the same time, it would make being a reservist vastly more satisfying.

Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)My Lords, the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, bring together a range of important issues. Clearly, we need to think about the impact on employers of reserves going on their training.

At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham—who, sadly, cannot participate in Committee because she is now a Government Whip—spoke compellingly about the importance of reservists’ contribution in local government. She had seen the benefits of working with reservists and how that could contribute back into the workplace.

To pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, there are ways in which we ought to be able to find synergies where the Armed Forces should look much more carefully at what skills the reserves are bringing to them, not simply having ticked off 10 days of repeat training. Perhaps there should be a day of repeat training and then working with the skills. Equally, there is a need to explain to employers the value of the training, because small and medium-sized enterprises might not be aware of the benefits that can accrue from employing reservists.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, said, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, will be raised in the next group. These amendments would appear to be desirable, certainly from the perspective of those in the reserves—I hope, for both recruitment and retention —but also potentially beneficial to employers, for exactly the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, gave; that is, it is not simply a question of saying, “Please give us your time”, but one of giving clarity about the expectations. We almost need a template of what is required so that a small employer would be able to work out very quickly what was needed and individual reserves would not have to reinvent the wheel every time.

From these Benches, we support the amendments and hope that His Majesty’s Government might at least be able to listen. If they cannot accept the amendments as drafted, perhaps they might find a way of bringing amendments in lieu that would deal with some of these questions.

The Earl of Minto (Con)My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 40, 41 and 45, tabled in the name of my noble friends Lord Harlech, Lord De Mauley and Lady Penn. My noble friend Lord Harlech has long been a doughty and most effective champion of our Reserve Forces. These Benches share his conviction that the reserves are indispensable to our national defence and deserve every reasonable support we can muster.

However, I am afraid that I must express some reservations about the amendments in this group and in the next. This is a genuine and very difficult balancing act. On the one side sits our duty to reservists and to employers, who already, at times, go beyond the call in supporting them. On the other sits our duty to the small and medium-sized businesses that make up the overwhelming majority of Britain’s employers and that are, right now, facing a cumulative weight of obligation that these amendments risk compounding rather than ameliorating. Some 5.5 million businesses operate in this country, over 99% of which are small or medium-sized enterprises. Firms of the kind caught by the 50-employee threshold —or the 10-employee threshold in Amendment 41—are frequently the very smallest operations; they might be a family firm, a local manufacturer or a handful of tradesmen incorporated together. For a business of 10 employees, losing one member of staff for 10 working days a year for training could produce real strain on its workforce, potentially pushing back deadlines and damaging its ability to compete for contracts against larger rivals that can afford such absences more easily. It could also—this is quite dangerous—influence the willingness of employees and fellow workers to be generous with their attitude towards service. That is very important.

This cannot be considered in isolation from the wider climate in which small businesses currently operate. Businesses have had to suffer two years of this Government that have made their lives considerably harder, with the increases in employer national insurance contributions and the national living wage under the Employment Rights Act. That is the context in which we judge these amendments. We are not saying that reservists do not deserve support—indeed, quite the opposite—but we believe that the existing defence employer recognition scheme, built on voluntary best practice among gold and silver employers, achieves much of what these clauses seek without imposing statutory duties that might deter smaller firms from hiring reservists at all, the very outcome we all wish to avoid. I hope my noble friend will reflect on these concerns in the spirit in which they are offered, and I look forward to continuing this conversation as the Bill progresses.

Lord Coaker (Lab)My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I should have declared an interest at the beginning: my son-in-law is currently mobilised as an active reservist. I apologise; I should have made that statement before.

The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and I have had a number of conversations, both inside and outside the Chamber. I thank him for bringing forward the amendments. I will write to him on the three questions he asked. For clarity, I will copy that to everyone who is currently in the Chamber and place a copy in the Library. I hope that is satisfactory for the noble Lord.

The noble Lord will know that the Armed Forces are not exempt from jury service. If a reservist is mobilised, they can apply for a deferral in the normal way.

We can all agree that the Reserve Forces are critical to defence, and every day reservists balance civilian careers, family commitments and military service, giving their time to train and remain ready to serve when called on. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I will of course consider all her various points; I always do that. I cannot answer them now to the satisfaction that everybody would wish, but I will consider them.

The noble Earl, Lord Minto, made an important pointall the way through, there is a balancing act between trying to recognise the important demands that employers of all sizes have on their businesses and, at the same time, doing all we can to promote the reserves and reservists. We have to ensure that we meet both those demands and find a way that balances all that. I agree with the noble Earl. That is not in opposition to what the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has set out in his Amendments 40 and 41; rather, we have to ask what the correct balance is.

Defence relies on the commitment of our reservists. Their skills, experience and willingness to step forward in the service of the nation make them an indispensable part of our Armed Forces. We are deeply grateful for their dedication and for the support of their employers. The noble Lord, Lord Swire, recognised that in his comments. Of course we need to try to encourage more people to become reservists—and we will do that. I am not sure about the Swiss example; I am not an expert on Switzerland but it gets near to requiring people to do certain things. As the noble Lord will know, this Government and previous Governments have always taken the view that our reservists go through a voluntary route. We seek to encourage people to participate and to act in the service of their nation voluntarily. That is the right approach for us to continue with.

18:15:00

However, I want to be clear that the Government support the objectives underlying the amendments. Defence already works closely with employers through our defence relationship management team, the Armed Forces covenant and—as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out—the defence employer recognition scheme, which seeks to recognise employers of all sizes and is an important way forward. These arrangements encourage employers to adopt reserve-friendly policies and to provide appropriate time off for training. Many employers do so voluntarily.

The amendments would represent a significant move away from the current partnership-based approach. Amendment 40 would impose new policy, publication and review requirements on employers, while requiring the Government to establish supporting guidance and compliance reporting arrangements. Although the amendment does not provide for sanctions or civil liability, it would nevertheless create administrative burdens for employers. There is also a risk that moving from a voluntary framework to a statutory one could discourage some employers from engaging with defence and employing veterans, undermining the collaborative approach that has helped secure employer support for reservists to date. An important point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, on the collaboration between businesses of all sizes and veterans.

Amendment 41 would go further by creating a new statutory employment right. It would require employers to accommodate up to 10 days of additional absence for qualifying reserve training, irrespective of their existing policies or particular operational circumstances. Therefore, both amendments could create additional workforce, administrative and operational pressures for employers. Those impacts may be particularly significant where employers rely on specialist skills or shift patterns, or need to maintain business continuity.

Reservists already benefit from a range of statutory protections under the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. For example, the Reserve Forces (Call-out and Recall) (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2005, made under the Reserve Forces Act 1996, help ensure that reservists are not financially disadvantaged when mobilised. Alongside that statutory framework, our voluntary arrangements allow defence to recognise and build on good practice, while sustaining the positive relationships with employers on which reserve service depends. Defence will continue to encourage employers to adopt supportive policies and provide time off for reserve training. However, we consider that this is best achieved through engagement, recognition and partnership. That was another point that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, made well. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we keep the legislation that governs our Reserve Forces under regular review. If we believe that further change is required to improve the readiness of the Reserve Forces, we will look to include it in future legislation.

Although we are clear that employers who support our reservists deserve recognition and encouragement, Amendment 45 risks turning public procurement into an indirect test of an employers’ internal HR policies, even where those policies have no connection to the goods and services being procured. That would be a significant and ineffective extension of procurement policy. The Procurement Act 2023 is designed to deliver a simple, transparent and effective procurement system. We believe that the amendment would cut across that objective by adding another mandatory policy consideration for contracting authorities to interpret and apply.

It would also risk penalising otherwise capable suppliers, particularly smaller businesses, that may strongly support the Armed Forces community but do not yet have formal written policies, enhanced leave arrangements or defence recognition status. That would not necessarily help reservists, and it could deter suppliers from bidding for public contracts or add further administrative burdens.

The Government already have tools for this purpose. Reservists are supported through employment protections, the defence relationship management team, the Armed Forces covenant and employer recognition schemes. These routes are designed to promote genuine, practical and voluntary support from employers, rather than impose a procurement requirement that may be remote from the contract being let.

We understand the purpose of and the intent behind the amendments. We can deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in the next group. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, and I assure him that I will, of course, consider the various points that have been made.

Lord Harlech (Con)My Lords, let me start with the good. I am grateful for the support of my noble friends. My noble friends Lord Swire, Lord De Mauley and Lady Fraser all made very strong points. I am a bit disappointed by the rather gloomy view of my Front Bench of what reserve service offers to an employer. I will have to pick up this discussion outside the Chamber and try to persuade my noble friends otherwise. I cannot understand why the Government are not going for it. I am trying to generate mass for the reserve and to give them this.

I leave the Committee with this—of course, I will give way.

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Non-Afl)Since my noble friend is a bit gloomy, I would like to cheer him up slightly. The answer to the question, “What does the reserve service give to employers?” is, “Actually, quite a lot”. To answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, one of the things that defence is doing in a common skills framework is trying to ensure that, for the skills you learn in defence, both civilian qualifications will be recognised and the skills you get in defence can be transferred to civilian qualifications. Rather than having two parallel systems, there is an equal recognition so that there is mutual benefit for both employers and defence when it comes to training.

Lord Harlech (Con)I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention and for setting out this equivalence of the defence skills passport, which is much needed and long overdue and will be incredibly helpful. We must get better at explaining to employers the value of employing reservists and why it is good that they go to train. They will maybe go to do a course in leadership and management. They will come back upskilled, happy and motivated, and they will spread their good will and new skills throughout the rest of the civilian employer.

I just leave the Committee with thishow can it be that our Five Eyes counterparts do what I am suggesting and more—much more in some cases—and we do not? Do we think that that is the right or wrong way around? It is to be continued. With that, I beg leave to withdraw—for now.

Amendment 40 withdrawn.

Amendment 41 not moved.

Amendment 42

Moved by

42: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause— “Refusal of employment on grounds of membership of the reserve forces(1) It is unlawful to refuse a person employment because that person is, has been, or proposes to become a member of the reserve forces, or is or may become liable to be called out or recalled for service.(2) A person is refused employment if the prospective employer—(a) refuses or deliberately omits to entertain or process an application or enquiry,(b) causes the person to withdraw or cease to pursue an application,(c) refuses or deliberately omits to offer employment,(d) makes an offer on terms which no reasonable employer wishing to fill the post would offer, and which is not accepted, or(e) withdraws an offer, or causes the person not to accept it.(3) It is unlawful for an employment agency to refuse a person any of its services for a reason falling within subsection (1).(4) A person refused employment or services in contravention of this section may complain to an employment tribunal within six months of the conduct complained of, or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable where it was not reasonably practicable to complain in time. (5) Where the tribunal finds the complaint well founded it must make a declaration to that effect, and may award compensation, including compensation for injury to feelings, of such amount as it considers just and equitable, and may recommend action to obviate or reduce the adverse effect of the conduct complained of.(6) Where the complainant proves facts from which the tribunal could conclude, in the absence of any other explanation, that this section was contravened, the tribunal must uphold the complaint unless the respondent shows that the conduct was in no sense whatsoever on a ground falling within subsection (1).(7) In this section “member of the reserve forces” has the meaning given by section 1 of RFA 1996 and “employment agency” has the meaning given by section 13(2) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973.”Member’s explanatory statement This new clause would make it unlawful to refuse a person employment because they are, or may become, a reservist, with a remedy in the employment tribunal. Existing protection is confined to dismissal, so a job applicant has none. The clause follows the model used for trade union membership in Part III of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Lord Harlech (Con)My Lords, we have already started to discuss some of the themes here; the noble Lord, Lord Empey, raised some of them. On Amendments 42 to 44, I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Penn and Lord De Mauley for their support. The group addresses what I believe is the largest single gap in the law protecting reservists.

We protect the reservist who is already in the job, and almost nobody else. Section 17 of the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 makes it a criminal offence to dismiss a reservist because of call-out liability. Section 48 of the Defence Reform Act 2014 removes the qualifying period for unfair dismissal where the reason is connected with reserve membership. Both are about dismissal. Neither touches a candidate sitting an interview. I add that where an employer is convicted under Section 17, compensation is capped by Section 18 at five weeks’ pay. That is the entire financial consequence of criminally dismissing a reservist.

Amendment 42 would make it unlawful to refuse a person employment because they have been or may become a reservist, with a remedy in the employment tribunal. Our closest ally covers this expressly. American law protects applicants as well as employees and reaches past, current and future military obligations. This House has already accepted the principle at home: Part III of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 makes it unlawful to refuse a person employment on the grounds of trade union membership. It is difficult to explain to a reservist why union membership merits statutory protection at the point of hiring and service to the Crown does not.

This matters because of what it causes. The reason reservists conceal their service from employers is the belief—frequently, a correct belief—that declaring it will cost them the job. That belief is entirely rational, because there is no remedy if they are right. The consequence is that the whole architecture of employer support rests on people hiding the very thing it exists to support. That is not a stable foundation for the whole force, and it is not a recruiting proposition either.

I expect to be told that there is no evidence of a problem. The absence of evidence is a function of the absence of a remedy. Nobody records a refusal that they have no means of challenging. I also expect to be told that subsection (6) of the proposed new clause, on the shifting burden of proof, is too onerous, but it is the standard provision used throughout discrimination law and well understood by tribunals, and it is narrower than the American test. Without it, the clause would be decorative, because no employer writes down that they declined a candidate over their reserve service.

Amendment 43 deals with what happens afterwards. Between the 1985 Act and unfair dismissal lies everything that actually occurs in practice: being passed over for promotion, taken off the client list, given the shift pattern which clashes with drill nights, or quietly moved sideways after a mobilisation. The employer who does not want reservists does not dismiss them. Dismissal is legally risky and commercially untidy. They simply make staying unattractive, and, at present, that is entirely lawful. American protection reaches promotion, retention and any benefit of employment. Ours reaches nothing until the individual is sacked.

This is settled machinery. It mirrors the detriment provisions already in Part V of the Employment Rights Act, which protects whistleblowers, health and safety representatives, and pension trustees. It falls hardest on those the reserve can least replace: the medical, legal, cyber and engineering specialists that the Regular Forces cannot recruit and could not afford to grow.

Amendment 44 concerns the reservists nobody has legislated for at all. A substantial proportion are self-employed, run small businesses or are partners in professional firms, and not one of the protections in the Bill or in existing law reaches them. For that person, the cost of annual camp is not leave; it is a fortnight of lost revenue with the overheads still running. Australia’s protections expressly reach partnerships, and its employer support payment scheme covers the self-employed. Canada operates something comparable. We pay the reservists a daily rate and give the employer a certificate. Again, to my own Front Bench, I suggest that this is very pro self-employed businesses and business owners.

Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause is deliberately a duty to review and not a spending power, so it creates no charge on public funds. I ask the Government to examine the question and report, not yet to fund the scheme. If the answer is that we cannot afford what Australia and Canada do, this House is entitled to be told the figure.

I recognise that these are not government amendments and that the Minister may have concerns about the drafting. If the principle is accepted, I am entirely content for the drafting to be the Government’s, and I would welcome a conversation with him and with colleagues from all sides of the House before Report. I beg to move.

Baroness Penn (Con)My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Harlech in Amendments 42 and 43. He has again brought before the Committee sensible, pragmatic amendments that surely must be addressed if we want reservists to continue to play a growing role in our Armed Forces. Refusal of employment, denial of promotion or withdrawal on the grounds of reserve service must be unacceptable. We are relying on reservists to balance the demands of their military service and their employment, and we must be able to say to them that they will be properly protected if their service unfairly threatens their livelihoods.

The Minister said in response to the previous group that reservists already benefit from employment protections. These amendments identify two gaps in those protections that I cannot see a reason not to fill. The Minister may, as my noble friend has anticipated, find objections to the drafting or in other areas, but it would be interesting to hear whether the Government accept the principle that these gaps exist in the employment protections for reservists. We might also hear the challenge about providing employment protection on or prior to appointment, but I think my noble friend has found a very good precedent in trade union legislation, which has solved this issue in other cases. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

18:30:00

Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)My Lords, on this occasion I am going to split my remarks into separate comments, on Amendments 42 and 43. The principle has been very clearly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. As the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, pointed out, that he has found a precedent in trade union legislation is very helpful. That people should somehow face detriment or constructive dismissal, but not direct dismissal, because of serving as a reservist is clearly something we, as a society, a Parliament and a Government, should try to avoid. If anything, we need to be finding ways to make it easier for people to be reservists, and easier for companies to understand the benefits of their being reservists.

I have some questions about the practicality of Amendment 44. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said, “Well, our friends and colleagues in Canada and Australia do something similar.” But if the self-employed reservist is a plumber and somebody says, “I really need your services. I have an urgent problem: there is a flood”, and the reservist is deployed or doing training, they cannot say, “Well, I’ll come back in a few months’ time and deal with your overflowing drains.” I am slightly puzzled by what the proposed new clause on refusal of employment on the grounds of membership of the service means in stating that

“it is unlawful to subject a member of the reserve forces to a detriment”.

I am just not quite sure how that would work in practice.

Although I can see that it is desirable to find ways to make it easier for self-employed people to serve in the reserves, equally, there needs to be a way of ensuring that they can be replaced in their work function, or that they can find a replacement themselves. It is not the same as somebody working for an employer, as the employer would be expected to find a temporary stop-gap. That is what we would be looking for.

The Earl of Minto (Con)My Lords, I am again most grateful to my noble friends Lord Harlech, Lady Penn and Lord De Mauley for these amendments. As with my response to the last group, I completely share my noble friends’ desire to support the reserves wherever possible. I am absolutely not gloomy about the reserves at all; rather the opposite. I know that reserve training adds depth to any participant and, indeed, to any organisation that they might be part of. Unfortunately, I have concerns about these amendments. Between them, they would create new tribunal-enforceable duties on refusal of employment, extend protection against detriment short of dismissal, and place fresh obligations on businesses dealing with the self-employed and with partnerships. Taken together, that is a substantial new compliance burden to place on employers, many of them small businesses, at a time when they are already absorbing a great deal of regulatory change, as I have already established. I think it right to pause before adding further to that already pretty hefty burden.

Amendment 42 raises a further difficulty. It would make it unlawful to refuse employment to somebody who merely proposes to become a reservist. In practice, how is an employer to know that at the point of hiring? Unless a candidate volunteers information, there is no reliable way for an employer to be aware of an intention that exists only in someone’s plans, which makes the obligation very hard to comply with and harder still to enforce fairly. It is fundamentally my view that the commercial requirements of businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, must be our primary consideration. I hope my noble friends will reflect on these practical concerns, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Lord Coaker (Lab)I again thank everyone who has participated in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, asked if we can have a conversation before Report; of course we can. We understand the intention behind the amendments: to further build on the protections offered to our reservists in current primary legislation. However, the Government do not believe that the new clauses are proportionate; they risk creating unintended consequences for employers, reservists and the wider labour market.

As mentioned earlier, reservists already benefit from a range of statutory protections. They allow reservists to claim compensation where their military pay is lower than civilian earnings, subject to a cap, and provide support for reasonable additional costs arising from mobilisation, such as childcare or other domestic expenses. This recognises the significant commitment that reservists make in serving our Armed Forces. The Armed Forces covenant further ensures that service personnel are not disadvantaged by virtue of their military service. The Government’s approach is to foster a positive partnership between defence and employers, rather than to create new categories of employment litigation.

Membership of the Reserve Forces is a voluntary commitment that may involve specific and foreseeable periods of absence from employment due to training or mobilisations. The amendments could introduce broad new causes of action in employment tribunals. As the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out, the provisions are drafted in particularly wide terms, extending not only to actual reservists but also to persons who propose to become a reservist or who may become liable for future service. That would inevitably create significant evidential difficulties for employers. In particular, recruitment decisions often involve a range of legitimate factors, and it may be challenging to later demonstrate conclusively that reserve service played no part in a decision.

These amendments may therefore have the unintended consequence of discouraging employers from discussing reserve commitments openly with applicants and employees. The Government’s objective is to encourage transparent and constructive dialogue between employers and reservists. A statutory requirement may undermine that objective and weaken the collaborative relationship that currently exists between defence and employers through, as I say, the Armed Forces covenant and the defence relationship management programme. We remain committed to supporting reservists and promoting reserve services among employers. However, the amendments would create a disproportionate and potentially burdensome new legal requirement and introduce unnecessary uncertainty into recruitment and employment without compelling evidence of necessity.

I turn to Amendment 44. The Government recognise that reservists who run their own businesses, work as contractors or practise in partnership can face particular challenges in balancing civilian livelihoods with military service—again, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, made. Their commitment is highly valued, and defence will continue to support them through a combination of legislation, financial assistance, employer engagement and practical guidance.

Although the Government fully support the objective of ensuring that reservists are not treated unfairly because of their service, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary or proportionate. It would extend protections into a wide range of commercial contracts and partnership arrangements. Decisions about contracting, allocation of work or business partnerships are often based on legitimate commercial factors. The amendment could make such routine decisions vulnerable to legal challenge where current or potential reserve service is alleged to have played a role. That would represent a significant and far-reaching change to the law in this area, and the Government are not persuaded that the case for such a change has been made in the context of this Bill.

Existing protections and support mechanisms are already in place through various pieces of legislation. Financial assistance may also be available under Part VIII of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 when a reservist is mobilised or undertakes relevant reserve force activities. Support is available to reservists and employers, including self-employed employers and business partnerships. This can include provision for loss of earnings, replacement costs and additional business costs arising from mobilisation.

The Government’s approach is therefore to maintain a balanced framework; I think that starts to answer the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, made about trying to have a balanced framework and a balanced approach to some the competing demands. There is statutory protection where it is required, financial assistance where service creates identifiable costs, and strong engagement with employers and business through Defence Relationship Management. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, about ensuring that everyone is aware of the skill reservists bring back to industry; that is an important point. There is also the Armed Forces covenant and the employer recognition scheme.

That partnership-based approach has built substantial and growing employer support for reservists without placing legal burdens on businesses. In 2016, under 1,000 businesses and organisations were signed up to the Armed Forces covenant. Today, we have over 15,200 organisations signed up. That is a significant thing that all of us across the Committee can be proud of, although there is still much more to be done.

The review requirement in the amendment is unnecessary. Defence already keeps reservist and employer support under regular consideration, including financial assistance arrangements for mobilisation and wider measures to improve reserve utilisation, readiness and employer support.

Again, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that the Government will continue to consider whether existing schemes remain appropriate, but we do not believe that a statutory review tied to overseas comparisons is the right mechanism. International models can help, but arrangements in Australia and Canada operate within different reserve structures, employment markets, legal frameworks and funding systems. For those reasons, although we understand the intent, and I am perfectly happy, as always, to have a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, we do not believe that these amendments are necessary. With that, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

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

Amendment 42 withdrawn.

Amendments 43 to 45 not moved.

18:45:00

Schedule 6Reserve Forces and Cadets Association

Amendment 46

Moved by

46: Schedule 6, page 133, line 17, at end insert— “(aa) the chairs of the regional councils;”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would allow for regional chairs to sit on the RFCA board.

Lord De Mauley (Con)My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 46, 47 and 49 in my name. To understand the importance of these amendments, one needs to appreciate the significance of the nationwide membership of the RFCAs. The 2019 Sullivan report on the RFCAs, which recommended conversion to an NDPB, itself provides an explanation at paragraph 2.2.2, where it says:

“A key strength of the RFCAs is their extensive volunteer membership (numbering around 8000), bringing with it a wide breadth of expertise and community links—without which the RFCAs would unlikely have access to the information and knowledge needed to discharge the duties … Their position as the link between Defence and the wider public, continuity of staff and expertise, and tri-Service drive enables the RFCAs to deliver across all functions, particularly community and employer engagement (the latter proven by the success on the Armed Force Covenant and Employer Recognition Scheme work strands). This is particularly valuable in cases where local knowledge and understanding may be limited in MoD customers”.

What is proposed in the Armed Forces Bill is the removal of all the regional chairs from the central board—the new decision-making arm of the RFCA. If the Armed Forces Bill proceeds as drafted, the members who currently elect those chairs will be completely disenfranchised, with the consequence of a loss of defence’s connection with society and the advocates and supporters of the reserves and cadets across the UK. The members have made it very clear that this will be sufficiently significant that it will lead to a reduction in the membership to a negligible number. Is that really what the Government want, when they state in the strategic defence review their ambitions to increase the size of the reverses, to increase the number of cadet and to create a completely new homeland and critical national infrastructure defence force, and that a whole-of-society approach to defence is essential?

In discussions with the MoD over the last 12 months, matters had developed to a point at which the MoD had agreed in writing, confirmed by a Government Minister at the RFCAs’ annual conference, that regional chairs would indeed sit as full members on the national board in order to protect the societal links and work done by the engaged and experience membership. Stepping back from that commitment, as the Bill does, is already being taken very badly by the membership.

I do not blame the Minister; I do not believe that the implications of what is proposed have been explained to him. They cannot have been, because if they had he would not be proceeding with this. This is about something more important even than the Permanent Secretary’s perception of how he will improve his oversight of what, in the context of the MoD’s overall budget, is a relatively small amount of funding that the RFCAs receive and use on maintenance of the volunteer estate. It is about the country’s ability to defend itself in time of war, because the effect of Section 38 and Schedule 6 will do irreparable damage to the Government’s ability to defend the country through the use and expansion of the Reserve Forces, of which the RFCAs are a demonstrable key enabler.

This will also have a damaging effect on the Government’s aim of growing the cadet forces, in which, again, local RFCAs are pivotal enablers. The Denny report, entitled The Impact and Value of School-Based Cadet Forces in the UK , identified that those with cadet service were statistically unlikely to be not in education, employment or training—something rather topical these days.

Turning to Amendment 49, I mentioned earlier what the Sullivan report says about a key strength of the RFCAs being their extensive volunteer membership. I will give a couple of examples of how the membership helps defence. My first example is that in the first decade of this century, the country was mobilising reservists in large numbers to go to Iraq and Afghanistan to bolster the Regular Army. The Regular Forces live on the patch: there are welfare officers, commanding officers and RSMs’ wives—a whole machine that is wheeled in action to look after the welfare of the families left behind. For the reservists, who are scattered over the area from which their unit recruits, which can be several counties or several cities, there is no such welfare machine. That is when the RFCAs’ membership comes into action, visiting and offering help and advice.

Reservists have the added complication of a civilian employer. An RFCA member who is an employer can visit them and explain what is happening and the legal position. I commanded a reserve regiment during the mobilisation of large numbers of reservists for Operation TELIC between 2003 and 2005. Without the support and influence of the RFCA, particularly with employers, the reserves would have responded less effectively. It allowed me to command and lead while employment matters could be successfully dealt with by the RFCAs. I know that other commanding officers had similar experiences. It was the RFCA that led on the work relating to employment that was subsequently woven into the Future Reserves 2020 White Paper.

My second example is that, being apolitical, the RFCAs have been extremely helpful in defence, especially in the devolved Administrations. In Scotland, when the Government announced the expansion of the cadet forces in schools, one of the nationalist papers printed a story suggesting that this was about training child soldiers. Its apolitical position allowed the RFCA, through its members and connections, to persuade the Government in Scotland that that was not a fair representation. They agreed, and the story died.

The SDR proposed increases in the size of the reserves and the cadets; the creation of a new homeland defence force; that defence should become a whole-of-nation responsibility; and that resilience in the civilian community needs to be improved. Therefore, it seems quite extraordinary that the RFCA’s membership, which could do so much to enable these things, should be abolished for no good reason.

Further, as was said earlier, this is directly against the new Prime Minister’s drive on the devolution of power and influence outwards. Whereas the Reserve Forces Act 1996 included in its Schedule 4 detail on the grass-roots membership, this is completely and deliberately removed by Clause 4(2)(b) in Part 3 of Schedule 6 to the Armed Forces Bill. There would henceforth be no reference at all to membership in primary legislation, for the first time since 1908. Thousands of volunteers across the UK would immediately be disfranchised and lost.

It has been suggested that the membership might be reinvented through secondary legislation; the Minister referred to this earlier. However, we all know that this is a poor way of doing it. It relegates the voluntary concept to a secondary level of importance and makes it much easier to amend, change and delete it. I beg to move.

Lord Stirrup (CB)My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, set out so clearly and cogently. I do not intend to repeat them all, as I agree with everything he said, but I want to make a couple of wider points centred on the requirement for a regional approach to our reserves and cadets.

There has been wide acknowledgment of the benefits that such an approach would bring. However, a couple of things have not been mentioned to the extent that they should be. First, there is the matter of footprint. The Reserve Forces and cadets allow us a military footprint across the United Kingdom that is no longer possible with our sadly depleted regular forces. This matters. It means that defence and defence issues can be represented locally by people who are local; the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, pointed out one example of where this has been an inestimable benefit in Scotland. That is one very important point.

My other point concerns the matter of identity. Within military organisations, identity matters—identity of the group. In the regulars, it is perhaps identification with your ship, your regiment or your squadron but, as far as regulars are concerned, it is identity with your locality. That is fundamental to it, and that identity is fundamental to the effectiveness of any military organisation. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, said that the Bill does not seek to destroy the regional aspect of the Reserve Forces. That may be true to an extent, but he knows as well as anyone here that the regional nature of the Reserve Forces is not just about the wiring diagram. It is about the authority that those regional forces have; that is absolutely fundamental.

In response to an earlier amendment, the Minister said that devolution is achieved through overarching strategic direction and that mayors cannot do what they like. Actually, though, that is the whole point: within certain limits, they can. The point of devolution is giving them authority along with responsibility. There is overarching strategic direction, although it will not necessarily work in the case of mayors because you could have a Conservative mayor and a Labour national Government; I am not quite sure how far the Conservative mayor would follow the national Government’s overarching strategic objectives, but we are not discussing that matter here today. So I accept that there is an overarching strategic directive, but it is strategic. It is not operational or tactical. Therefore, local authorities will have a great deal of freedom to decide things, but they will need the authority to carry through on those decisions. Authority goes along with funding in many instances, but with other things besides. That is one of the reasons why Schedule 6 is potentially so damaging for the Reserve Forces.

This speaks to what we would term “mission command” in military parlance. You give overall direction on the broad objectives that you want to see achieved, but you leave a great deal of freedom open to your subordinate organisation—in this case, the regional forces—to decide how it is to be done. Yet they must have authority along with that responsibility. If mission command is to operate effectively, at a superior level, you need to listen to your subordinates’ concerns when they tell you that something simply will not work so you must come up with a different plan. At the moment, as the legislation is framed, the link between the subordinate and superior formations will be, at best, neutered and, at worst, cut off completely.

Amendments 46 and 47 seek to ensure that the RFCAs are properly represented at a senior level and that their voices can be heard. However, that plays both ways. If their voices are not heard, they will lack authority at the local level. If they lack authority at the local level, it will have an impact on recruiting and retention, with lower morale and lower effectiveness. Nobody in this Chamber wants to see that, I know.

Equally, Amendment 49 seeks to ensure that the RFCA’s wider membership is enshrined in primary legislation and that its breadth and diversity are retained so that, again, the wider community and regional links are retained and have credibility across that regional community.

As I said earlier in Committee, I have concerns about Schedule 6 overall. If we are to retain it, I plead with the Minister to take these issues away and correct those bits of it that will restore the authority and the voice of the local Reserve Forces and cadets, in particular through the RFCAs.

Earl Howe (Con)My Lords, I wish to intervene very briefly in support of my noble friend Lord De Mauley. I declare my interest as a former Defence Minister and as the Minister who was responsible for piloting the Reserve Forces Act 1996 through your Lordships’ House; I suspect that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is the only person present who might remember that, having directly witnessed it. I declare a further interest in that my wife, who is the lord-lieutenant of Buckinghamshire, is the president of the South East Reserves Forces’ and Cadets’ Association.

In mentioning my part in giving birth to the 1996 Act, I do not wish the Committee to suppose that I am opposed to changing it. I am not an old reactionary—at least, not in this regard—as I am the first to recognise that the world as it was in 1996 is not the world we are confronted with today. When it comes to the Government’s stated aim of placing greater emphasis on our Reserve Forces in creating a more lethal and integrated force model for defence, I am wholly in favour.

However, in acknowledging the deficiencies of the 1996 Act against that policy backdrop, we should not at the same time downplay its strengths. One of its major strengths, as other noble Lords have emphasised and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, so well described, is to acknowledge the importance of ensuring the buy-in of the civil community in the delivery of well-supported, well-motivated, administratively efficient reserves and cadet units.

19:00:00

That civil buy-in is achieved because local people know that their efforts and knowledge really matter—that through the structure of the RFCA their voice is heard at a higher level and that their knowledge, concerns and, indeed, achievements are being fed through to national decision-making. The RFCAs enable a sense of local ownership, and that matters, because what follows from it is a feeling of local empowerment. That is what many of us fear will be put at risk by centralising governance and decision-making through a new NDPB. If the Government agree that the contribution made by the volunteer membership is important, as the Minister says he does, we have to keep those volunteers enthused and motivated.

Volunteers are not paid employees; they can choose to walk away. Once people start feeling disempowered, put upon, taken for granted or that their voice is not being properly represented, there is a danger that they will start viewing the local association or local council as a mere talking shop. That way lies disaster.

With my own eyes, I have seen this very thing play out in a completely different context: that of a once-successful national charity whose volunteer membership delivers valued services in their local areas based on the county structure. For many years, the county bodies enjoyed a degree of operational autonomy as well as support from leading members of the community while remaining, of course, accountable to the centre. But following a review, the governance and finances of the charity were centralised, thereby relieving the counties of much of their autonomy and sense of ownership, all in the name of efficiency. The inevitable happened. The volunteers rapidly felt disempowered, poorly understood and poorly supported, and recruitment plummeted. A belated attempt by the centre to put the policy into reverse a few years later has as yet failed to undo the damage caused.

For me, the experience of that charity is a cautionary tale. It is for those reasons that I am very supportive of the amendments in this group. I hope that the Minister will listen sympathetically to what has been said in their favour.

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)My Lords, before my brief comments on this group of amendments, I want to pay tribute to the Minister for his attendance at the most westerly constituency of the United Kingdom last weekend in County Fermanagh, when he visited the two-day RAF recruitment event just outside Enniskillen. It was very successful. We had a huge number of interested organisations and a number of interested young people who clearly want to be part of the defence forces in the years to come, particularly the RAF. I thank the Minister for that.

There are reasons to support these amendments, two of which we in Northern Ireland are very cognisant of, just as they are in Scotland and Wales: regionalism and localism. If you do not have local support and those who represent you, you do not feel part of it. That is a huge issue for the reserve forces and cadets associations, because these are people who may join or may at least have sympathy for our forces in the years and generations to come. It is about encouragement and ensuring that they have representation. It is important that that regionalisation and localisation is there for them. It is there for them, not just for us, and if they do not feel part of it, they will not participate fully in that process. It comes down to a number of issues. The reserve forces and cadets associations are hugely important not just for the future of the services but for discipline, commitment, loyalty and colleague support. Those are excellent values to give to young people, which they can promote to their peers, friends and colleagues. This is not only about the amendments; it goes much wider. RFCAs offer huge organisational support for the community and individuals. I witness so many people who do not have that discipline or commitment to their families, or, indeed, their community, but it is instilled within the reserve forces and cadets associations.

I plead to the Minister and the Government to have a look at this. Maybe there are some tweaks and options to make this better, but please allow the people who are serving—reservists and those in the cadets associations—to feel part of things through that local support.

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)My Lords, I do not propose to repeat what we said in an earlier debate in Committee, but I thank my noble friend Lord De Mauley for these amendments. I want to focus on Amendment 48 and the importance of volunteering.

The Sullivan report identified that a key strength of the RFCAs was their extensive volunteer membership. In every other part of our communities, we are doing everything we can to support volunteers and volunteering, and in times of tight financial straits especially, we seek to appreciate the knowledge of volunteers. I am afraid my heart sinks when I think of replacing the volunteers who represent the voice of our local regions, nations and communities. They bring experience and institutional memory, and they do it because they want to—and we are going to replace that with board appointments made on ministerial advice.

I am sure many colleagues in this House have experience of public appointments. I currently sit on two public bodies as a board member, to which I am appointed by one Scottish Minister and one Westminster Minister. We are subject to the whims of that department. In one case, DCMS has apparently decided that public appointments should serve for only one term. I leave it to you as to how that supports institutional memory and succession planning in our public bodies. At Creative Scotland, on whose board I sit, we are currently four or five board members short, and the public appointment process is so slow that we are not able to get to the front of the queue to fill those vacancies. So the idea that the wonderful volunteers we currently have supporting our reserve forces and cadets associations are going to be replaced by some sort of NDPB board appointments fills me with horror: we will end up with the usual suspects, rather than experienced and committed volunteers who are allowed to speak impartially, freely and frankly.

Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)My Lords, I support these amendments, to which I have added my name. As the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have pointed out, if we cannot remove Clause 38 and Schedule 6 then amending Clause 38 might at least ameliorate some of the issues. This would very much enable us to retain the local connections and, in particular, as the noble and gallant Lord pointed out, the importance of a wide footprint.

We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, about the situation in Northern Ireland, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, about the situation in Scotland. Surely we should look for ways of ensuring that the voices of the nations and regions are all heard and not have a single centralised body that does not represent anybody. These amendments very much serve to ensure that the voices that we currently hear in the regional RFCAs can continue to play a role. In particular, Amendment 49 outlines key people who should be involved.

Will the Minister explain to the Committee whether he feels that Clause 38, as currently envisaged, and the idea of an NDPB really deal with the questions of representation? If not, and if he does not feel able to support the amendments as drafted, might he consider bringing back government amendments on these issues?

The Earl of Minto (Con)My Lords, I have already argued at some length that I do not believe that the Government’s proposed alterations to the characters of the reserve forces and cadets associations is sound policy. Much like my noble friend Lord De Mauley and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, my preference, therefore, would be for those provisions to be removed from the Bill entirely. However, if that is not to happen then the second-best outcome would be for the various amendments suggested by my noble friend to be adopted, as a minimum.

Amendments 46 and 47, which my noble friend Lady Goldie has signed, would require the chairs of the currently constituted regional councils to sit as members of the new RFCA body. Amendment 49 would ensure that the wider membership of the RFCAs is not overlooked in the creation of the new body by requiring the regional councils to appoint members who are representatives of all the various organisations that work through the RFCAs.

Currently, the 13 chairs are entitled to a seat on the national board and those chairs are in turn elected by their membership. This structure ensures that the members of each RFCA are represented at the national level. However, as drafted, the Bill will remove that representation. This does not seem sound. The salutary story told by my noble friend Lord Howe of decline where local accountability is removed was poignantly salient, particularly since the Bill also provides for the establishment of regional councils. So the Government believe that there should be regional committees to help oversee and run the new body, but they do not believe that those regional councils should have any representation at the national level. This is surely a contradictory and indefensible position.

The Bill also fails to recognise the vital contribution of the voluntary membership of the RFCAs. As my noble friend Lord De Mauley pointed out, the Sullivan report itself highlighted the vitality of the voluntary membership to the organisation as a whole. However, this does not feature in the Government’s proposals. It is not as if the Government are blind to this: the strategic defence review proposed increasing the size of the reserves and the cadets and the creation of a new homeland defence force. That is not to forget the proposed move to a whole-of-society approach to defence readiness. At a time when the Government are claiming that they recognise the value of expanding the reserves and the cadets, it seems extraordinary that the RFCAs’ membership, which could do so much to assist the Government in their stated aims, should be abolished without replacement.

My noble friend has my full support in these amendments. If the Government are determined to press ahead with these negotiations then I hope that the Minister will seriously consider at least accepting these amendments before Report.

19:15:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 46 withdrawn.

Amendment 47 not moved.

House resumed . Committee to begin again not before 8. 2 3 pm .