Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, in Clause 33, page 51, line 31, at end insert—

“(2B) This section does not apply to any person who was discharged from the regular services or the reserve forces for a medical reason relating to physical or mental health.”

This amendment makes former service personnel who have been discharged from the armed forces for a medical reason relating to physical or mental health exempt from being recalled to permanent service.

Amendment 20, in clause 33, page 52, line 1, leave out “65” and insert “67”.

This amendment increases the maximum age for service in the Reserve Forces from 65 to 67.

Amendment 21, in clause 33, page 52, line 10, leave out “65” and insert “67”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 20.

Amendment 22, in clause 33, page 54, line 6, leave out “12” and insert “18”.

This amendment would extend the duration of a recall order from 12 months to 18 months.

Amendment 23, in clause 33, page 54, line 43, at end insert—

“69C Prevention of recall for persons in reserved occupations

(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations to define certain categories of civilian work as reserved occupations.

(2) A ‘reserved occupation’ under subsection (1) is any category of civilian work which the Secretary of State deems as vital for defence purposes.

(3) Persons undertaking a reserved occupation may be exempted from a recall order under section 69A for which they would have otherwise been liable.”

This amendment would allow persons undertaking civilian work which the Secretary of State deems vital for defence purposes to be exempt from a recall order under section 69A.

Amendment 24, in clause 33, page 54, line 43, at end insert—

“69C Notice periods for recall

(1) Those reservists in Army Reserve Group A, or its equivalents, shall, following the coming into force of the Armed Forces Act 2026, have their standard notice reduced from readiness category R9 (180 days) to R8 (90 days)

(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘Army Reserve Group A’ has the meaning defined in the Reserve Land Forces Regulations 2026.”

This amendment would increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army Reserve Group A from 180 days to 90 days.

Clauses 33 to 35 stand part.

Schedule 5.

Clause 36 stand part.

Clause 32 amends the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable the Secretary of State to disapply aggregate service for members of the reserve forces when making a call-out order under sections 52 or 54 of the 1996 Act. Currently, the maximum duration of service under a call-out order under section 52—for national danger, great emergency or an attack on the United Kingdom— cannot usually exceed three years, and is usually 12 months for “warlike operations”. This maximum duration is calculated by combining the current service of a call-out order under sections 52 or 54 with any relevant service in aggregate. “Relevant service” means any permanent service within the six years or three years immediately preceding a reservist’s current service under a call-out order.

These clauses allow the Secretary of State to disapply those limits in extremis, allowing us to call out our reservists—this will apply mainly to the Volunteer Reserve—more often. They will thereby ensure that we have access to a full range of key skills, from cyber to logistics, in the event of a transition to conflict and war.

Clause 33 makes five important changes in relation to recall to service, and it goes further to try to simplify the process I talked about previously. First, this provision introduces recall liability for former volunteer reservists of other ranks. Currently, only former volunteer reservist officers and former regulars of any rank have recall liability.

Secondly, this provision will increase the age limit for recall for other ranks from 55 to 65. This will allow us to continue to access key trade groups, such as cyber and medical, where former members of the regulars are still using these skills in their civilian lives well beyond the age of 55.

Thirdly, the recall liability for Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel of other ranks will move from six years following discharge to 18 years; again, I am talking about the difference between terms. This will ensure consistency with the army and the RAF, and put everyone on an equal footing.

The fourth change, via proposed new section 69A of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, will provide an ability to recall certain individuals when warlike preparations are in progress. It will create a new power to make a recall order for this purpose. “Warlike preparations” means that we will be able to recall someone sooner than is the case presently, because the current threshold for being able to recall people—when there is a great danger, a national emergency or an attack on the United Kingdom—may be too late in a modern transition-to-war scenario. The relevant roles could include roles such as logistics preparations, planning and specialist capabilities. This measure brings those subject to recall in line with the call-out provisions of the Volunteer Reserve and ex-regular reserve.

The fifth change in clause 33 enables the disapplication of aggregate service under a recall order made under the existing section 68 and proposed new section 69A of the Reserve Forces Act, mirroring the approach taken by clause 32. Clause 34 makes consequential amendments following the changes made by clauses 32 and 33.

Clause 35 and schedule 5 introduce two new transitional classes to manage how the new liabilities apply to existing and former personnel. It is important to note that to ensure defence is able to access the right skills in its reserve, while also maintaining its commitments to those who have left, the MOD will introduce these measures via the following method. Unless individuals opt out, they will affect every member of the Regular Reserve and Volunteer Reserve who is in service when these provisions of the Bill come into force.

Around 17,000 people leave the regular and reserve forces every year—I said, 15,000 earlier, but this number includes the reserves—of which the vast Majority will now have some form of liability. Current ex-regular members of the reserve forces and those still subject to recall under part VII of the Reserve Forces Act—or those who will otherwise have recall liability solely as a result of these changes—will be able to opt in to the new system should they wish to do so. We are currently analysing how many people this might affect. That is an opt-in process if someone has left.

It should be noted that the fitness or medical criteria applied to these individuals will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. A large proportion of individuals in the Strategic Reserve are in their 30s or early 40s and therefore may well still be medically fit for a large number of roles. In addition, the changing nature of modern defence also means that there are valuable roles, such as cyber and operating uncrewed aerial systems, that do not require the same medical and fitness standards as roles such as infantry or aircrew. In reality, the provisions will enable defence to access more of the right people with the skills and experience it needs at times of need.

Does the Department have at least a working estimate of how many people it thinks will opt in to that liability, bearing in mind that they cannot be recalled otherwise? What is the planning assumption within the MOD?

We do not have an estimate of how many people will opt in, and I think that would be very difficult to gauge. First, a lot of those individuals already have a liability, because they may be on 18 years already—some will be on six or four years, and some will be officers. To gauge how many people are already in and how many people are going to opt in is very difficult. I would like to think that a lot will opt in, but if they do not, we already have the existing Strategic Reserve, which is at circa 95,000, and the number starts flowing as soon as the Bill comes into force, when everyone who leaves will have 18 years. The number of people who are serving who opt out will also be an interesting reflection, and something to analyse after the event.

Clause 36 corrects an anomaly in the existing legislation. Under section 96 of the Reserve Forces Act, failure to attend for service on call-out or recall is an offence of desertion or absence without leave. That is applicable to members of a reserve force as well as persons liable to recall. However, under section 98, there is no punishment for this offence for those with recall liability as there is for members of a reserve force. That produces an unintended anomaly: an offence is created without a penalty. The clause therefore removes that anomaly and ensures that legislation clearly sets out the possible consequences for an offence of failure to respond to a recall order.

To sum up, the measures will help to maximise the number of personnel available to defence and will modernise the Reserve Forces Act. The measures align with the direction provided by the strategic defence review by allowing for a whole of defence approach, re-energising the relationship with the Strategic Reserve, and increasing our readiness for war. I will speak to the amendments in this group in my closing remarks.

I will speak to amendments 20 to 24. As they have been grouped together in the largest individual group to be debated today, I will take them in turn, with a few brief remarks on each Amendment.

I begin by addressing amendment 20 and consequential amendment 21. The essence of the amendments is to further increase the maximum age of service in the reserve forces from 55 to 65, as currently proposed in the Bill, to a higher level of 67. That would mean having a maximum age limit in line with the normal male retirement age in civilian life. The Opposition appreciate the sense of increasing the maximum age for service in the armed forces from 55 to 65—for the record, that would include me, and I will opt in now.

In his evidence, the Minister provided some practical examples of highly skilled personnel, such as highly experienced medics or air traffic controllers, who do not necessarily need to be as physically fit as, say, a 21-year-old infantryman to make an important contribution to defence. The point of the amendments is to ask a simple question: if that argument holds good at 65, does it not still hold good at 67, the age at which most people can draw a state pension in civilian life if they are male? If someone is a skilled surgeon in the Royal Army Medical Corps at age 65, would they not be equally skilled just two years later? Would those two additional years in their mid-60s represent significant skill fade in their ability to give medical aid?

I hope the Minister can see why the Opposition have tabled these straightforward amendments to provoke a debate on the proposed age limit and the rationale for it. I look forward to hearing what he has to say on them.

The essence of Opposition amendment 22 is to expand from 12 to 18 months the maximum allowable period for a recall order under the Bill. The rationale is that history shows that in a national emergency, including a peer-on-peer conflict, the war is not always over by Christmas. It is therefore not inconceivable that people who are mobilised for reserve service for up to a year might find themselves required to fight on the frontline for longer.

In making this argument, I pray in aid the practical experience from Ukraine, where service personnel have been fighting on the frontline for years, some with relatively limited leave over the whole period. I visited Ukraine with UK Friends of Ukraine only a few weeks ago, and the Minister told the Committee on Tuesday that he had only recently returned from a trip to that country—again, time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted. It hardly needs saying, but I am sure that all Members and parties represented on the Committee will want to join me in expressing our determination to support the Ukrainians, for as long as it takes, in facing down Russia’s illegal and barbaric invasion of their country.

A point made very powerfully to our delegation during our visit to Odesa, Chornobyl and Kyiv was that many in the west believe or perceive that Ukraine’s war with Russia has been going on for four years, from the date of the so-called full-scale invasion in February 2022, but in fact the Ukrainians are keen to point out that the war really began in 2014, or arguably even earlier, with the Russian occupation of Crimea in the south of the country and the occupation of significant portions of the Donbas in the east. In other words, Ukraine has been at war with Russia not for four years, but for 12. To put that into context, it is longer than the first and second world wars combined.

It is immensely to the Ukrainians’ credit that they have continued to actively resist their larger and stronger neighbour to the east. The Ukrainians are fighting for western values of freedom and democracy, and they deserve our enduring support. Moreover, the Speaker of the Rada, who is a larger-than-life man in a whole range of respects, gave us a stark warning while we were there: “If we fall, you and your friends will be next.”

Given all that, and bearing in mind the duration of the first and second world wars and of other conflicts such as those in Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan, it might make sense to allow a recall order to last longer than a year should circumstances demand it at the time. We have tabled amendment 22 accordingly.

The essence of Opposition amendment 23 is to allow persons undertaking civilian work that the Secretary of State deems vital for defence purposes to be exempt from a recall order under proposed new section 69A of the Reserve Forces Act.

This is by no means a new idea. There is an old saying in politics that there is nothing new under the sun, and this is not new either. For instance, during the second world war, many people who were eligible for military service by virtue of their age were nevertheless exempted from call-up because they were working in so-called reserved occupations—in other words, a field of civilian endeavour that was considered vital to the war effort.

I declare something of a personal interest as, according to my family, my late father, Reginald Francois, was working in a reserved occupation, grinding lenses for RAF pilots in a factory, when he nevertheless voluntarily enlisted in the Royal Navy in 1943. It could be said that, for historical reasons, this issue is close to my heart. However, I have tabled the amendment to point out that a blanket call-up without such an exemption could have unintended consequences. For instance, if it took people working in vital defence industry companies away from those roles, such an action might prove a net disbenefit to any national defence effort, especially at a time of peer-on-peer war.

The amendment therefore seeks to establish—or re-establish, I should say—the concept of reserved occupations for the purposes of the Bill, and it states that it would be for the Secretary of State,

“to define certain categories of civilian work as reserved occupations” by regulation at the time.

There are already some categories of reservists, such as sponsored reserves, whose wartime role would be very similar to their civilian occupation, such as in medical or logistics roles, but there will be others. A highly experienced defence industry technician could be called up and put into a frontline infantry unit, where they would no doubt make a contribution, but their technical skills would be lost to their parent company. Given all that, we are interested to hear what thought, if any, the Government have given to this dilemma and to hear any proposed solutions that they might advocate.

Finally, Opposition amendment 24 would upgrade the readiness requirement for reservists in Army Reserve group A from a longer period of readiness at level R9, which is equivalent to 180 days, to a slightly more urgent readiness level of R8, which is equivalent to 90 days.

On the principle of no names, no pack drill, the amendment was suggested to me by serving members of the army Reserve who felt that, in a national emergency, 180 days would probably be too long to mobilise those within group A and that, from their experience, defence would be better served, including in providing a better deterrent, if we could halve that timeline by reducing their readiness to R8—in effect, to three months.

Given that the genesis of the amendment is in the reserves community, and given that this is an area in which the Minister rightly takes a strong personal interest, I am genuinely interested to hear his reaction to this suggestion from, as it were, the shop floor. Does he feel there is any way of practically implementing this proposal, either through this amendment or through alternative means that achieve the same aim?

I have spoken to each of our amendments in this group, so I will leave it there. I look forward to other contributions and to the Minister’s thoughtful and considered reply.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.

Amendment 1 would introduce an exemption from recall to former service personnel who have been discharged due to physical or mental health reasons, to ensure that, even as the Bill seeks to make it easier to recall reservists in times of urgent need, those with long-term injuries or other serious medical conditions can be automatically screened out. Currently, Clause 33 updates section 65 of the Reserve Forces Act to alter the terms under which a former serviceperson can be recalled to include reserves, specifying time periods in relation to re-enlistment and tidying up certain terminology.

We feel that section 65(2) should specify that, in addition to the recall provision not applying to anybody over 65 or beyond 18 years after discharge, the exclusion should recognise a medical exemption as standard procedure. That would apply to a medical discharge from either the regular or the reserve forces, closing off the possibility that an individual who might otherwise be medically exempted would be targeted for recall because of their previous service.

The mental health element is particularly significant, given the well-documented prevalence of conditions such as PTSD among veterans, at nearly double the rate of the adult population. This amendment would avoid doing harm to vulnerable individuals, as well as removing the need for the armed forces to go through the process of ruling someone not fit for service a second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Before I start, I should probably put it on record that I am on the RARO—Regular Army Reserve of Officers—list as a former Regular Army officer.

I joined my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford on the delegation to Ukraine, which was put together by UK Friends of Ukraine and during which we had some very interesting conversations, as he said, about the ability to mobilise reserve forces at a time of pressing threats.

I want to speak very briefly—I am sure other Members will be pleased that my contribution will be brief—on amendments 20 to 24. I will start with amendments 20 and 21, with Amendment 21 being consequential on amendment 20. These appear to be sensible technical amendments that would bring the Bill in line with the civilian world. In the light of the facts that the retirement age is likely to be pushed forward as people are living longer, that we need to have a more flexible and resilient reserve force, and that the nature of warfare has changed, with many more technical roles, it seems sensible to increase the age of liability to 67.

On amendment 22, my right hon. Friend set out very clearly the growing threats. It is a daily occurrence for us in this place to be talking about the increasing and ongoing threats facing us across the world. In those circumstances, it seems wise to extend the duration of a recall order from 12 months to 18 months. That does not mean it would have to go up to the 18-month point, but it would provide more flex and resilience in the system.

Amendment 23, again, reflects the realities of life. Many individuals who have served in uniform go into roles that are vital for our defence, albeit are no longer required still to wear the uniform of His Majesty. In those circumstances, to lose their skillset by automatically requiring them to be recalled from those reserved occupations seems counterproductive to the aims we should be seeking to achieve.

Finally, amendment 24 recognises the reality of the situation we live in. We need more flexibility to respond with agility and speed to changing circumstances. Therefore, halving the notice period for recall from 180 days to 90 would seem a sensible and prudent approach.

I promised Members that my contribution would be short this time, and I have delivered on that promise.

Given that my colleagues have very ably gone through amendments 21 to 24, I will just comment on Amendment 20 before handing over to the Minister.

Amendment 20 would increase the maximum age for service in the reserve forces from 65 to 67, which is important in bringing the reserves in line with the age of retirement, which now sits at 67. Parliament has decided that is the threshold at which the working life of a British citizen typically ends, and it makes no obvious sense to retire reservists two years before the age at which we expect the rest of the working population to stop. As the Minister and other colleagues have said, the knowledge of a cyber specialist, a military medic or a logistics officer does not expire on their 65th birthday.

We are legislating at a moment when the security environment is more dangerous than at any point since the cold war, if not world war two. War has broken out across the European continent, and there are wars in the middle east and across Africa. Technological change is speeding everything up, and climate change is increasing volatility. The threats that we face, whether hybrid, cyber or conventional, are growing in scale and sophistication. The Armed Forces Minister himself, in introducing the Bill’s Strategic Reserve measures, said:

“we live in a…fragile environment”,

and the United Kingdom needs

“to be able to recall experienced people faster and more effectively” should the country need to prepare for war. That is an honest assessment of where we are. If we accept that framing, as I think we should, the case for retaining every capable, willing and medically fit reservist for as long as possible follows directly from it. We should not be narrowing our pool of trained people by two years for no compelling reason.

The strategic defence review is explicit that we need to grow the reserves by 20%, but that ambition runs directly against the policy of letting experienced people go earlier than we need to. At a Royal United Services Institute event in December 2024, General Gary Munch described the current approach as “decommissioning” personnel—the same word that we use for retiring ships. He was making a pointed observation: we would not withdraw a capable platform from service simply because it has accumulated years, and we should apply the same logic to people. The amendment would not impose an obligation on anyone; it would remove an arbitrary ceiling. That is a proportionate ask.

I thank the hon. Members for North Devon and for Tunbridge Wells for tabling Amendment 1. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who serve, and of course we have an ongoing duty of care to those who have given service to their country but can no longer serve due to medical issues, especially if those issues were a result of their service. Statistics show that there were about 1,900 people medically discharged in financial year 2024-25—700 of those were for musculoskeletal issues, and 800 were for mental or behavioural issues.

Some of those individuals who have left—it could be for an Achilles injury, a break or a back problem—still wanted to serve, but they could not serve in their current role because of the medical requirements. That is not to say that they could not serve in another role at a later date when they had healed or recovered. Our current policies exclude those who have been discharged for a range of conditions from further service, but it would be wrong to exclude all personnel from further service permanently through a change in the law. Keeping these rules set out in policy and secondary legislation gives us a degree of flexibility. Should circumstances change and we require more of our ex-regulars—for example, in a war-like situation—we could give people who want to serve the opportunity to do so.

I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for North Devon about the effect that further service might have on those service personnel. I assure the Committee that any recall into service will be done on a case-by-case basis. We will consider the serviceperson’s service record, including their medical status. Indeed, there will also be regulars who left the service fully medically fit but who, in the intervening years, have unfortunately become unwell and therefore may not be able to undertake further employment with the armed services. Those cases would also have to be considered.

I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for his views on the Bill, and I acknowledge his concerns about the flexibility and readiness of our reserves. On amendments 20 and 21, we are increasing the age limit for recall liability to 65 for other ranks across all three services. That will enable defence to draw on the valuable skills and experience provided by former service personnel aged 55 and above. Recently retired non-officer personnel in the 55-plus age range who have knowledge, skills and experience from a full career provide a useful latent capability to draw upon when needed.

Although I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal to raise the age to 67, which will shortly become the state pension age, my view is that it would not be the most prudent way forward. Recall liability in the reserves is a significant responsibility, because it demands that individuals balance their civilian lives with readiness to serve their country at potentially short notice, reflecting a profound personal and civic duty.

Further increases to the liability from 65 to 67 would be an imposition, given that the measure already addresses the gap in capability. We estimate that the proposed increase in liability will affect only 1.1% of personnel between the ages of 55 and 65 who left the regular forces during the financial year 2024-25. There were no UK regular forces or other ranks personnel who left during that financial year between the ages of 65 and 67.

It is worth noting that some individuals, depending on their service, can still serve up to 67. Therefore, the amendment would not achieve its intended effect, as it concerns a relatively small group of individuals already accounted for within the measure. Indeed, it undermines the balance between the responsibilities defence places on our serving personnel and the operational demands we face.

The Minister just said that some categories of personnel could in certain circumstances continue to serve beyond 65 to 67, which is in line with the spirit of what the Opposition are proposing. Can he explain to the Committee who those people are?

Through continuation policies, and in some cases using over-age extension mechanisms, people can continue to serve, but changing 55 to 65 is about the liability, not necessarily the service, and capturing the most people in the liability process.

Turning to Amendment 22, while I recognise the right hon. Member’s proposal to extend the duration of a recall order from 12 to 18 months, I believe that this would not achieve the effect he desires. The changes in the Bill as drafted will allow us to extend the duration of a call-out order—we already have that power. The Bill’s provisions ensure that defence has the necessary powers to extend both call-out and recall periods up to two years when required, rendering any additional amendment to extend the period to 18 months in respect of recall unnecessary.

On amendment 23, section 73 of the Reserve Forces Act already provides powers of exemption to recall. The existing provision allows the Defence Council, by regulations, to exempt individuals from, or relax, recall liability. Working across Government, defence requires the flexibility to determine critical roles in a warlike scenario. As a result, additional codification in primary legislation would restrict defence’s ability to maintain the necessary flexibility to safeguard critical roles.

The Government are doing that in other ways. Last month, we launched the pan-defence skills framework, a whole-force initiative designed to strengthen defence capability through a unified, transparent focus on skills, which will allow us to identify and manage skills throughout the whole of defence. We recognise that our strength is not just in our equipment, but in the expertise of our people. We also maintain dialogue with our colleagues in other Government Departments, as well as the wider industry, to ensure that we understand the effect of any large-scale mobilisation on critical industries such as the NHS or the defence sector.

Amendment 24 aims to increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army Reserve group A from 180 days to 90 days. I take the point about getting the ground truth; I will take that away and see where we are from an internal perspective by speaking to the Department. I reassure the Committee that all Army readiness levels are subject to annual review and are set through the army operating order, which aligns with defence-directed commitments within the framework of the armed forces plan. To fulfil its obligations effectively, the Army must review and adjust readiness levels across all elements of its force, responding to the evolving demands of the nation.

It is essential that defence maintains the necessary flexibility to respond swiftly and appropriately to changing threat levels. Embedding such provisions in primary legislation would impose too rigid constraints, creating an obstacle rather than a suitable mechanism for setting and reviewing readiness levels. I am committed to taking the point away and having a look. I hope I have provided the necessary reassurance, and on those grounds, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

On a point of order, Mr Efford. We will not press amendments 20 to 23. I am grateful that the Minister agreed to take Amendment 24 away—we note that—but because the suggestion came from within the ranks, as it were, we will press it to a vote.