House of Commons

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 2 June 2026

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to help reduce energy bills in Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West constituency.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

The price cap increase announced last week as a result of the war in Iran was deeply concerning news for families in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Tackling the cost of living crisis is the Government’s top priority, which is why we have acted to take £150 of costs off bills in the coming years and expanded the warm home discount, and why we are accelerating the warm homes plan. We will do everything we can to help protect her constituents in the face of this fossil fuel price spike.

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

In the local elections, Reform told my constituents, who are worried about rising fuel bills, that drilling new wells in the North sea would bring down energy prices. Will the Secretary of State explain how long it would take for the oil to flow if we permitted drilling new wells tomorrow, who would benefit the most from that oil, and how that would bring down prices at the pumps or energy bills in Newcastle? Given that, I suspect, big oil companies would benefit the most, is he surprised that 70% of Reform’s funding comes from fuel investors?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and does so in her articulate way. The big choice that we in this House face is this: is the way out of a fossil fuel crisis to double down on fossil fuels, in a way that would make no difference to bills and prices, or is the answer to drive further and faster for clean energy, as this Government are doing? We have made our choice.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to help support the development of deep geothermal energy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for championing deep geothermal. This Government recognise the potential that deep geothermal represents, particularly as a source for heat networks. Our priority is building out heat network infrastructure, which can then connect to any heat source. The green heat network fund and contracts for difference offer opportunities for geothermal projects to demonstrate the potential to de-risk both heat and power.

[Dr Mullan]

Deep geothermal has great potential for left-behind communities in this country, and it is a first-class transition industry for our oil and gas workforce. I welcome the Minister’s comments and the positive engagement with the Minister in the other place, who is a huge champion of deep geothermal, but the message from industry is that that is not enough, and that the funds that the Minister mentions are not doing the job. A deep geothermal strategy, giving the Government’s vote of confidence in deep geothermal, could go a long way, and would not necessarily cost very much. Industry tells us that that in itself would drive growth. Will the Government consider a strategy for deep geothermal?

[Katie White]

I thank the hon. Gentleman once again for championing this issue. I know he has been calling for it, and I welcome the engagement. It was exciting to see the first deep geothermal project being opened in February, as a result of the contracts for difference, and more projects are coming online as a result. We are prioritising the heat network, but I would welcome more conversations with him to ensure that we are making all the right choices.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

West Fife has huge potential for geothermal. In particular, the Comrie colliery development, at a former mining site, is now being regenerated to create leisure facilities, housing and other mixed-use development. It has been exploring the possibility of using deep geothermal from the former mine. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this in more detail, and perhaps come to visit the site to see its huge potential?

[Katie White]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. The opportunity to visit sounds fabulous, and I look forward to it.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to ensure the clean energy transition supports people in work.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)]

Clean energy is a huge economic opportunity for every corner of the country. Our clean energy jobs plan highlighted 860,000 high-quality jobs across the whole of our nation by 2030—jobs that young people will not need to leave their home town for.

[Steve Witherden]

As we face the second fossil fuel shock in half a decade, it is right that the Government are scaling up clean, home-grown renewable energy through the energy independence Bill. However, clean energy jobs are not yet being created at the pace required to replace losses in oil and gas. How will the Government guarantee secure, well-paid jobs with strong trade union rights throughout the green transition?

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the vulnerability to oil price shocks—Wales has been identified as a particularly vulnerable area. Like me, he has paid close attention to the report by the former Member for Darlington, Alan Milburn, on the need to provide opportunities for young people; in fact, I believe he has invited Alan Milburn to a meeting of his all-party parliamentary group later this week. The clean energy industry is one of the industries that will provide good-quality jobs, and in the Department we are using grants and procurement to ensure that we have strong trade union engagement.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) is right: those jobs are not there yet, and we risk losing the incredible talent in our energy industry as my constituents move abroad to find jobs. My constituency has historically had some of the highest numbers of patents in the UK, so we have the innovators we need for the energy transition. How will the Minister and the Government ensure that this gap is filled and that people can find jobs to power that transition, rather than leaving us because there are no jobs just now?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Lady raises an important point about managing the transition, and that is certainly what this Government are doing. I just want to challenge the point about the number of jobs being created by the number being lost. I know that the Opposition are always keen to quote the research from Robert Gordon University, but it does point to more jobs being created than lost. Actually, the recent report from the Confederation of British Industry now says that 1.1 million jobs in our economy are now dependent on net zero. But clearly, we do need to support the transition—it will not happen on its own. That is why, through our North sea transition funding and the opportunities through our clean energy technical colleges, we are providing that opportunity for people.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

Twenty-five per cent of the manufacturing output of the east midlands is in the food and drink sector, but that sector feels left behind in the clean energy transition without support from Government programmes, such as the British industrial competitiveness scheme. What support can the Minister give to the food and drink sector to ensure that it continues to prosper in the east midlands and to create jobs in constituencies such as mine?

[Chris McDonald]

The Government and I recognise the importance of the food and drink sector. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the sector is not included in the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but our boiler upgrade scheme does apply to these industries. One thing that I am doing is looking at the role of third-party intermediaries. The Department intends to provide a regulatory role for Ofgem, and subject to parliamentary time, we should be bringing forward measures that will benefit the food and drink industry.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

This Government are not supporting workers in the oil and gas sector in north-east Scotland and Aberdeen; they are supporting workers in the oil and gas sectors of Norway, Qatar, America and even now Russia. The recent energy transition survey from the Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce showed that 37% of respondents had seen staff or colleagues move abroad. What will it take for this Government to see the damage they are doing and end their ban on new licences, end the energy profits levy, permit Rosebank and Jackdaw, and get Britain drilling again?

[Chris McDonald]

I have to say that caring for the transition of our oil and gas workers is not something on which the Opposition have a monopoly, because only the Government have taken any action. The previous party when in government oversaw a decline in the North sea and did nothing to support a transition. This Government are supporting the transition in the North sea. Through our tiebacks policy, we are ensuring that we can make the best use of the available resources, but by continuing to invest in our cheapest form of energy and by ensuring that the supply chains are here and that the skills remain here, we will create those opportunities for people to work in those areas of the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

The truth is there is no just transition. Everybody can see that except for the Government Front Bench. I spoke to a woman in Aberdeen just yesterday, born and raised in that city and raising her family there. She had worked in oil and gas and, actually, was proud to be playing her part in developing the energy technologies of the future. She was a lifelong Labour voter—no longer, because she has now been made redundant. Like so many others in that city, she is now looking overseas because of this Government. What does the Minister have to say to Aberdonians like her?

[Chris McDonald]

Clearly, on a personal level, I say to the hon. Member’s constituent that I fully understand the position she is in, having lived through such transitions myself. But the difference with this Government is that we are taking care to ensure that communities are supported—1.1 million jobs now in net zero, £105 billion of gross value added and £90 billion invested in clean energy industries since this Government came to power. We are building the British industry of the future and attracting investment to do that. We are creating the jobs of the future, while the Conservatives sat and oversaw a decline.

[Andrew Bowie]

We have been over this before: BP, Hunting, Harbour, Chevron, Well-Safe, Petrofac, Ithaca Energy and, just this morning, Xodus Group are all laying people off. Xodus specifically blamed the slowdown in the roll-out of renewables due to the decline in oil and gas in the North sea. The former Health Secretary the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), Tony Blair, academics, Scottish Renewables, the chair of GB Energy and apparently quite a number of the Cabinet agree with us on the Opposition side of the House and with the public that we must keep drilling in the North sea while we have a demand and while it is there. When will the Government listen to everyone else, end this ideological obsession, overturn this and get Britain drilling?

[Chris McDonald]

I think we have found something on which we can agree, which is that we need to invest in renewables further and faster. I look forward to those on the Opposition Front Bench supporting our clean power 2030 plan.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

4. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the progress of transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources.

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

With that new-found consensus on the clean power mission, I am happy to report to the House that we are making good progress towards our targets. We delivered the most successful renewables auction in history through allocation round 7, securing enough home-grown power for 11 million homes, as well as delivering a record-breaking 269,000 solar installations last year, the majority of which were on rooftop sites. By moving further and faster towards electrification, we are reducing our dependency on global fossil fuel markets and delivering energy security here at home.

[Vikki Slade]

Last month, alongside other Dorset MPs, I met with the Crown Estate to discuss the Dorset Clean Energy Super Cluster. While I welcome its recognition of the area as a medium-term opportunity, it is concerning that development is likely at least a decade away, despite Dorset’s significant potential for a range of green energy initiatives. Given that net zero industries are already delivering higher wages than average and 50% greater productivity than the UK average, does the Minister agree that it is both an environmental and economic missed opportunity to delay Dorset’s potential for so long, and will he commit to reviewing this personally and consider appointing a ministerial advocate for the south-west on energy security?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Member is right to champion her local community. I have met with those involved in the Dorset super cluster before, and I am happy to do so again, because we do see huge potential for the clean energy transition right across the country. As she rightly says, it is also about how we create good, well-paid jobs in every community, so I am very happy to meet her to discuss it further.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Progress? Not when it comes to Scotland’s jet fuel supply, because yesterday there were fuel shortages at Scottish airports, meaning lengthy delays. Those on the Front Bench will say it was because of a tanker driver shortage—a logistics issue—and they would be absolutely right to do so. However, the fact is that 2,822 supply chain jobs were lost because of the Grangemouth oil refinery closure, leading to transport problems like the one we saw yesterday. Jet fuel shortages will happen again; what are the Government going to do to stop that happening?

[Michael Shanks]

Well, it is a basic fact that the very short-term disruption at both Glasgow and Edinburgh airport was caused by driver disruption. That has now been resolved, and flights are carrying on as normal. There is not an issue with jet fuel in the UK at all; that is just a fact, and I am happy to put that on the record.

My hon. Friend is right to say that the failure of both the previous Conservative Government and the SNP Government to plan for what was well known—the closure of Grangemouth—has meant that we lost the opportunity to build on the industries that were there. However, we have committed £200 million, so that there is an industrial future at Grangemouth. We have announced the first projects from that, and there are many more to come.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

I have a very simple question. Everybody in this House knows we will need gas for decades to come, so for once, can the Minister give a straight answer? Which is better for the environment: going to a country 1,000 miles away, fracking the gas, freezing the gas, shipping it and reheating it, or just piping it in straight from the North sea?

[Michael Shanks]

The very simple answer is that we are continuing to use the North sea—no one is switching off what we are producing in the North sea—but the amount that we are able to extract from the North sea has been in long-term decline. The right hon. Lady knows that because she was the Secretary of State who talked a lot about the need for a transition in the North sea—she recognised then that the North sea has been in decline. We have been a net importer for more than 20 years, so this is not a short-term position. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), gave the game away a few minutes ago: the answer to this is how we build the industries that come in the future, alongside retaining oil and gas for many decades to come.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The UK is home to fantastic and innovative clean technology start-ups in the energy space. However, these businesses tell me that funding for start-up and, importantly, scale-up phases in this space is falling off a cliff. The net zero innovation portfolio, which awarded more than £1.3 billion in grants and crowded in £3 for every £1 in public spend, was abolished at the last spending review, and the clean tech innovation challenge has yet to get off the ground. Will the Minister explain what his Department is doing to support clean tech start-ups in this space?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Member is right to highlight the enormous potential. For a very long time, the UK has not been good at growing the good innovation and spin-outs coming out of our university and innovation space. We need to nurture them, but also build on them and invest in them in the future. That is why we are investing in that early stage development, and it is also why Great British Energy is interested in what the next set of innovations are, how we can back them and, crucially, how we can keep the intellectual property here in the UK and also build the supply chains and the industry that goes along with it. It is a huge opportunity for us, and today’s report from the CBI outlines just how crucial it is to the overall British economy that we continue to grow and nurture the exact industries that he talks about.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to ensure the effective implementation of his Department's climate-related transition plan.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her leadership in West Bromwich, in this place, and internationally. This Government have consulted on our manifesto commitment to introduce transition plan requirements for UK regulated financial institutions and large companies, and my Department will publish our response to that consultation shortly.

[Sarah Coombes]

Britain has been overly reliant on oil and gas for decades, and fossil fuel companies have profited hugely from that. I was glad to see the CBI report today, which said that the net-zero economy is now worth more than £100 billion to the UK. Given that electrification is essential to the UK’s energy future, what role will different types of energy company, who will eventually reap the profits of electricity use, have in investing in infrastructure for that transition?

[Katie White]

Electrification is key—that is something we can agree on across the House and outside. As my hon. Friend rightly says, since July 2024 we have secured £90 billion of investment in the UK within the clean energy sector, and it is fabulous to see the CBI report today that says that that sector is now supporting nearly 1 million jobs in the UK. Those are real jobs and lives across the country.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The people of Skidby, Little Weighton and Walkington are not opposed to the clean energy transition, yet 90% of them are opposing the 2,500-acre clean air solar farm that is swamping that area, in conjunction with other such farms. They are against multiple large-scale solar developments industrialising productive farmland, including grade 2 and 3a land, undermining food security, and permanently altering rural communities. Will the Minister give the House an undertaking that, if the Secretary of State will stop chuntering, he will look at the issue with an open mind and listen, properly, to the people of that area?

[Katie White]

I am glad to see the right hon. Member’s agreement on the direction of travel. We must ensure that we involve local communities in decisions, but choices need to be made. I was honoured to work with one of his colleagues in the other place—they were formerly in this place—who spoke to me as a farmer about the value of solar projects for farmers. We must ensure that we protect that land. That is why my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs introduced the “Land Use Framework”, and we must ensure a strategic approach. In all our plans less than 1% of land will be used for solar, but I am keen to continue the conversation and I am glad we agree on the direction of travel.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to help increase the production of domestic clean power.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to help increase the production of clean power.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

The two renewables auctions under this Government have secured power for the equivalent of 23 million homes, and we are embarked on the biggest nuclear building programme for 50 years. The war in Iran shows that we need to go further and faster, so we will open our next renewables auction next month. We recently signed contracts for a fleet of Rolls-Royce small modular reactors. Clean power is already reducing wholesale electricity prices by up to a quarter, and those steps will do more to protect families and businesses across our country.

[Mr Dhesi]

For my Slough constituents, the crisis in Iran and the naval blockade have had a profound impact on household budgets, but we have also been left vulnerable by previous Conservative-led Governments who ran down our energy system for over a decade, leaving us on the fossil fuel rollercoaster and susceptible to global fluctuations. Unlike our Tory predecessors who failed to invest and did not provide for our constituents, what measures are the Government taking to invest in cheap, clean, home-grown energy so that my Slough constituents, and others across the country, can be protected from those spikes in the cost of living?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The central fact that we cannot get away from is that we are price takers not price makers when it comes to oil and gas, and that is the fundamental contradiction at the heart of where the Opposition are. We are going to drive further and faster on clean power, including electrification across the economy. Indeed, customers are already better protected as a result of the renewables in our system, but we must go further and faster.

[Jacob Collier]

The US-Israel war has pushed up prices for my constituents and is yet more evidence that we need to be energy self-sufficient with clean power, so I greatly welcome the £2.6 billion investment in Rolls-Royce for small modular reactors. That is great news for my constituents, as well as those in Derby and the wider region, and those reactors will help with Britain’s energy security. Will the Secretary of State say more about how GB Energy will invest in such projects?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I was pleased to sign that contract with Rolls-Royce in the past few weeks. We are world leaders in small modular reactors and this is a massive innovation, not just for Britain but for the world. It is not just the jobs constructing the SMRs that are really important, but the jobs in the supply chain too. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and Members across the House on ensuring that their constituents benefit from those good, well-paid jobs.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

To get the best out of intermittent energy producers such as wind and solar, we need to invest in battery energy storage systems. However, these face new safety challenges. The National Fire Chiefs Council recently issued guidance that understandably concentrates on firefighting techniques rather than design. The Minister has kindly met me in the past, but will he agree to a further meeting to specifically address the unmet needs in national construction standards?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I know that the Energy Minister has met him and the National Fire Chiefs Council to discuss this issue. We take the safety of battery technology incredibly seriously, and I am sure that the Energy Minister will be happy to meet him again for further discussions.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

The Government say that less than 1% of the countryside will be covered in solar farms, but if the 7,000-acre Great North Road scheme, which is now before the Secretary of State, the 2,000-acre Steeple scheme, which is also now before the Secretary of State, and the 4,000-acre One Earth scheme, which will be before the Secretary of State shortly, are all approved, almost 10% of the land mass of my constituency—one of the most rural and largest in England—will be covered in solar farms, with good-quality agricultural land in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire lost. How on earth is that fair to local communities?

[Ed Miliband]

For reasons that the right hon. Gentleman will understand, I am not going to comment on individual planning decisions, because they have to go through the proper process, but I say to him that solar is the cheapest, cleanest form of power that we have. We can decide to bury our heads in the sand and stay on the fossil fuel rollercoaster, but the people who will pay for it are his constituents, because they are paying for it now in higher energy Bills. This Labour Government will keep going with the drive for clean power.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

7. What steps he is taking to help reduce household energy bills.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

8. What recent steps he has taken to help reduce energy bills for households.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce household energy bills.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)]

We recognise that the latest price cap that has been announced will be deeply concerning for households, many of whom were already struggling before the Iran crisis hit. That is why the Government have already taken action. We have taken £150 of costs off energy bills, extended the warm home discount to nearly 6 million families and provided over £50 million of immediate support for vulnerable customers who use heating oil. We will, of course, continue to monitor the situation closely ahead of winter and stand ready to take action.

[Olly Glover]

The energy price cap increase is estimated to cost each household an extra £18 every month, which is the price of a regular essential food shop at a discount supermarket. I note the measures that the Minister says the Government are taking, but in addition will the Government urgently bring forward a social tariff for vulnerable low-income households?

[Martin McCluskey]

The hon. Member makes an important point. The Government do not want anyone to be making the choice between heating and eating. That is why across Government we are working on a data sprint to work out how we can use household income date to ensure that we are targeting support at the right people.

[Shockat Adam]

The typical annual dual fuel bill is 40% higher today in real terms than it was in 2021. After accounting for inflation, that means it is £511 more per household. The bad news does not stop there, with Ofgem announcing that the crisis is going to get worse, with a 13% increase to the energy price cap. My constituents in Leicester South were already suffering. Labour promised to fix that, but the cost of living is just getting worse. The Minister says that the only way to protect our country is through clean, home-grown power, so what is he doing to decouple the bills from gas prices and when will my constituents feel that?

[Martin McCluskey]

The hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Leicester will benefit from the decisions that we have already made. Those decisions take £150 off energy costs and extend the warm home discount and the warm homes plan, providing £15 billion of support. We are delinking and we are already taking action, as the Secretary of State announced last month. Ofgem has pointed out that although last week wholesale gas prices at the price cap went up by 24%, electricity went up by 5%. As it said:

“This reflects the increase in the amount of renewable generation on the system and therefore reduced reliance on gas”.

[Mr Mohindra]

In my constituency, 3,199 households currently experience fuel poverty due to high energy costs, and costs linked to the Government’s clean energy agenda could mean that household bills are set to rise by at least £100 in the next four years. How long will hard-working families in South West Hertfordshire have to pay the price for Labour’s ideological dash away from domestic energy production until it has a credible plan to fill the gaps in its energy policy?

[Martin McCluskey]

That comes from a member of a party that learned no lessons from the last energy crisis. We will not make the same mistakes, which is why we are investing in clean power by 2030, which will drive down bills. Only today, we have seen the jobs benefit from the investment in clean energy, supporting 1.1 million jobs, 22,000 small businesses and £105 billion for our economy.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s measures to support domestic consumers of kerosene heating oil. I am told that if those who are eligible filled their tanks today, they would pay the equivalent of what they will be paying in February 2027. In my constituency we have big commercial users of kerosene oil, such as distilleries, seaweed manufacturing, tourist amenities and chemical plants. What measures is the Department taking to support commercial users of kerosene oil?

[Martin McCluskey]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work he does to advocate for his constituents in Na h-Eileanan an Iar; I was pleased to visit him recently to see the impact that the increases in heating oil are having on his constituents. We are looking closely at the non-domestic heating oil market, and we will come forward with more proposals in due course.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and the team on reducing the cost of energy, including with recent efforts to break the link between the volatile gas price and electricity prices. However, every witness before the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, when we ask how to decarbonise and reduce bills, tells us, “Make electricity cheaper.” What further efforts will the Government make in reforming the energy market in order to achieve that?

[Martin McCluskey]

My hon. Friend will know that we are taking action, which the Secretary of State announced, to further delink the cost of electricity from gas. As Ofgem said last week in relation to the price cap, we are already seeing the effects of that. Because of the additional renewable generation in the system, we are seeing the effects of that. Every turbine we build, every solar panel we deploy and every reactor we bring online will ultimately reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and bring down the cost of electricity.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

A good way of reducing bills is to reduce consumption. In Germany, about 12 years ago, subsidised mortgages were introduced to help reduce the cost of installing triple glazing in houses. However, in conservation areas in this country, such as in my constituency, people are prevented from installing even secondary glazing, so they cannot reduce their bills, even though they would desperately like to. Will the Minister meet colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to get this issue sorted?

[Martin McCluskey]

I would be more than happy to meet to discuss that. The warm homes plan—our £15 billion investment in home energy upgrades, which is the biggest in British history—will go a long way to achieving some of the ends that my hon. Friend describes. I point him towards the work that we are doing jointly with the Green Finance Institute to bring forward low-cost consumer loans so that people across the country can benefit from clean technology.

[Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)]

One in three households in the constituency that I represent live in fuel poverty, and they face even higher bills from 1 July. Does the Minister agree that the Ofgem energy price cap should be frozen to provide universal support for households now and to give people certainty in the cold winter months ahead?

[Martin McCluskey]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her place, and I look forward to working closely with her on this brief, as I have done with other colleagues from her party. She will know that we have said we are looking at all contingencies in relation to the support that we may need to offer in the winter, but that has to be paid for. We need to ensure that we have proposals that do not make the same mistakes that the Conservatives made in the last crisis, when they wrote a blank cheque in order to provide support to people, so we will come forward with plans for support in the winter.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Blackpool is home to something special and remarkable: a pioneering eco community hub at Palatine library that offers free, independent energy advice and is helping residents to make sense of new technologies to reduce their bills. Since July 2024, when it opened, it has visited 1,300 homes, offered 1,000 winter packs and saved over £111,000 in energy bills. I met a new trainee green doctor there, Luke Hollowell, who is going into homes to support residents. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this eco hub, to ensure that we can keep it going for the long term and maybe roll it out across the country?

[Martin McCluskey]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he is doing on this issue in his constituency, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss it further. I have seen for myself the benefits that green doctors—energy doctors—bring to constituencies across the country when I have visited those programmes. That kind of local support will be central to the work we are doing in setting up the warm homes agency, which will provide advice and guidance to people across the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Labour came to office with bold promises to cut energy bills, but in the real world we have seen bills go up, up and up again. In answer to the first question, the Secretary of State said that he wanted to do all he could to cut energy bills, so here are some ideas for how he could do so. He could scrap carbon taxes, he could remove VAT from energy for three years, and he could scrap legacy renewable subsidies—that would save people £200. It is called the Conservatives’ cheap energy plan and, in the national interest, we do not mind if he steals it. Will he?

[Martin McCluskey]

We can see the economic recklessness of the Conservative party when the hon. Member stands at that Dispatch Box making uncosted promises and claims. Before this crisis, bills were going down—they were going in the right direction—and no one would have anticipated the consequences of the war in Iran. Let us look at the balance sheet of the past two years. This Government have made the biggest investment in warm homes in our history, with record-breaking renewables delivering for 23 million homes. As of today, there has been £90 billion of clean energy investment, and every single wind turbine we deploy and every single nuclear reactor that is online reduces energy bills for consumers across the country.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of providing further support to businesses with the cost of energy.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

20. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of providing further support to businesses with the cost of energy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)]

Supporting businesses with the cost of energy is a priority for the Government. We have expanded support through the British industrial competitiveness scheme and increased discounts on electricity network charges, and we stand ready to act if market conditions worsen due to the middle east crisis.

[Clive Jones]

Surelock McGill, based in my constituency, is a world leader in the manufacture of door locking systems. It recently acquired a casting foundry to ensure that its manufacturing process proudly remains entirely in the UK, but the foundry is struggling with ever-increasing energy costs. What will the Government do to support local businesses that are proud to contribute to the UK economy yet seem to be suffering as a result of their determination to keep manufacturing in the UK?

[Chris McDonald]

In the specific case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, if the company is operating a ferrous foundry, that will be part of the British industrial competitiveness scheme. If it is a non-ferrous foundry, he may wish to share further details with me, because I have had representations on both copper and aluminium foundries, which I am looking at very carefully.

[Sarah Green]

Not only are small businesses facing increasing energy bills, but they are dealing with prohibitive costs in connecting to the grid when they want to expand. These businesses want to grow, invest and create jobs, and we should be helping them, so what is the Department doing to bring down the cost of grid connection and ensure that the price of accessing reliable power is never the reason that a small business cannot get off the ground or expand?

[Chris McDonald]

We are concerned about the ability of businesses to connect to the grid, both to expand and to invest in new production facilities. Part of the work we did on reordering the grid queue was to help with that, but my colleague the Minister for Energy has commissioned an Ofgem end-to-end review so that we can bear down on the cost of grid connections.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

From Denby Pottery to Royal Crown Derby, soaring energy costs are hitting our ceramics industry hard, putting more skilled jobs at risk. I welcome the recently announced ceramics support package, which will help bring costs down, but can the Minister confirm that he will work with colleagues across Government to ensure that energy bill support reaches the ceramics manufacturers who need it the most?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend and all the other MPs from the Stoke and Staffordshire area for their work in championing the ceramics industry. First, let me say how sad I was to hear the news about Denby, as that company proceeds into administration. The Government are providing support to the workforce. On the point he raised, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s support we are providing £120 million to enable ceramics companies to invest in lower carbon production—essentially, electrical furnaces—so that they can decarbonise and reduce their operating costs. I will be working closely with ceramics MPs on the implementation.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I have recently written to the Department for Business and Trade about the Lea Valley growers, who are fantastic fruit and veg glasshouse growers in my constituency of Harlow. That hugely energy-intensive business is important to food security, and indeed to this country’s security more generally. What work is the Minister doing across Departments and with the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that no energy-intensive business, including the Lea Valley growers, is forgotten?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his letter on the Lea Valley growers. I have had discussions as a result of his prompting with Ministers in other Departments, not only about the Lea Valley growers, but about the horticulture sector more generally. I will update him on that in response to his letter. I thank him for saying that my answers so far have been acceptable, and hopefully that one is too.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market.

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

Co-operation with our EU counterparts is vitally important when it comes to energy security. I recently travelled to the WindEurope conference in Madrid, where I joined other European Ministers to discuss how recent global events have shown that we have to work together to deliver on our energy security. We have held constructive discussions with the EU on the internal electricity market and those continue.

[Dr Pinkerton]

At a time of intense geopolitical instability, British households remain particularly exposed to volatile global energy prices. Indeed, Ofcom has announced a 13% rise in the energy price cap from July. Given that there are interconnectors with six European countries already, does the Minister agree with a coterie of esteemed energy economists that the single greatest thing that this Government could do to strengthen our energy security, drive long-term investment in renewable energy and bring down bills would be to recouple our electricity market with that of the European Union? [Interruption.]

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with the hon. Member. We have this bizarre situation where we have chuntering from the Opposition Front Benchers about the fact that we have interconnections with Europe. We have had them for decades, and they are important to our energy security. That was the case under both Governments, and theirs is an absurd position. He is absolutely right to say that in a moment of geopolitical uncertainty, closer links with Europe are important. Our interconnectors import and export every single day to the benefit of consumers in Britain. We want to see much more efficient energy trading, and that is why we are working on those formal negotiations about the EU internal electricity market, which is important for Britain.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

13. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the use of Chinese-manufactured solar panels by Great British Energy.

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

The provisions under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 drive industry action via due diligence and transparency to tackle forced labour in supply chains for solar panels. All procurement conducted under Government and GBE contracts is required to meet those standards.

[Bradley Thomas]

The Xinjiang Uyghur region of China is estimated to provide 45% of the world’s solar-grade polysilicon. An estimated 68% of UK panels come from China, and two thirds of NHS trusts are dependent on Chinese solar. The Government have said that GB Energy is committed to having a supply chain free from slave labour by spring 2025, but a Politico investigation has revealed that five out of seven of the contracts that GB Energy has provided for schools cannot guarantee that they are free from forced labour. The GB solar stewardship initiative pledges to ensure that there is no slave labour, but there is no guarantee of 100% elimination of slave labour from the supply chain. What will the Government do to reduce slave labour in supply chains and wean the UK off Chinese-made infrastructure?

[Michael Shanks]

As I said during the passage of the Great British Energy Bill, I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of tackling modern slavery as a country across supply chains and across the economy. It is right that we take action. We are tackling forced labour where we find it in global supply chains, and we want to go further. GBE will be a leader in how we tackle modern slavery, and it has set up a function to look at sustainable supply chains and to ensure that they are free from modern slavery.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to regulate heat networks.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)]

For too long, heat networks have been left unregulated, with consumers paying the price. That is why I am pleased that we have now established Ofgem as the heat network sector regulator, delivering statutory redress, advice and advocacy to protect households. We aim to develop the regulatory framework further, and recently concluded a consultation on mandating minimum technical standards.

[Tracy Gilbert]

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. May I also place on the record my thanks to him for coming to meet my constituents from Saltire Street and Saltire Square, and for listening to what they said about the long-running issues that they have been facing with their district heating networks?

I welcome the regulation that this Government have brought forward. Can my hon. Friend confirm that data on pricing will now need to be reported quarterly to Ofgem, and that this will help increase transparency for my constituents and others?

[Martin McCluskey]

I was very pleased to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents in Edinburgh to discuss the issues that they face with their heat network. The poor experience that they have had is an example of why we have introduced this regulation, and I commend her for the campaign that she has been running on their behalf. She is right to say that, under the new regulatory framework, heat network suppliers will be required to submit pricing data quarterly to Ofgem, improving oversight.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Gregory Campbell. Sorry—Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

He’s the one with the hair, Mr Speaker; I don’t have any.

I welcome the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert). The regulation of heat networks is not just an issue for her constituency, as the Minister well understands. My request to him—he is one of the Ministers who always respond very positively—is that he makes sure that we in Northern Ireland are able to take advantage of the opportunity that the hon. Lady mentioned, and that he gives us a good answer.

[Martin McCluskey]

The hon. Gentleman will know that I take a keen interest in Northern Irish politics. I spent this morning in a Delegated Legislation Committee, delivering a reduction in bills through the removal of the renewables obligation. I am more than happy to discuss further with him how the regulation of heat networks might operate in Northern Ireland.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

15. When he plans to publish the Government’s response to the consultation entitled “Voluntary carbon and nature markets: raising integrity”.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)]

May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her leadership on this issue? The UK is a global leader on carbon pricing and nature recovery. We are committed to strengthening carbon markets to help us achieve our climate and nature goals. At London Climate Action Week, we will set out our work to centre integrity and build scale in these markets through the coalition to grow carbon markets, and the consultation response will be published later this year.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for her response, and I welcome the UK’s leadership. Investors are concerned that the role of nature-based solutions in carbon market frameworks is not being fully recognised. With London Climate Action Week fast approaching, can she reassure investors that the Government see nature-based solutions as crucial to our collective efforts to tackle climate change, and that we will pursue this endeavour during upcoming article 6 negotiations?

[Katie White]

I assure my hon. Friend and investors that nature-based solutions are central to our response to this issue. London is the centre of carbon markets, and we want to protect that. We have been focusing on the coalition to grow carbon markets, which we will work on at London Climate Action Week, but I would love to work with her to make sure that we give reassurance, act with integrity and come forward with the necessary proposals.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Does the Minister plan to allow clean community energy companies to sell power directly to households and businesses?

[Katie White]

We are pursuing that through the local power plan, and we intend for that to happen.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

Today we have set out our proposal for the seventh carbon budget, as new research from CBI Economics shows that over a million workers are now supported by the UK’s net zero economy. This comes after 2025 set a new record for solar generation, and we have already set a new record in 2026 for offshore wind generation. We are taking these steps because they are the right choice for energy security, and for investment in good jobs and growth, and because it is the right thing to do for future generations and to prevent climate breakdown.

[Adam Dance]

Red diesel costs have rocketed from 78p a litre on 26 February to around 98p a litre now. For Nick, who farms in South Petherton, price rises mean an extra £7,000 per week cost that he basically has to take on the chin. Can the Secretary of State tell Yeovil farmers what steps he is taking to support them with the cost of red diesel?

[Ed Miliband]

We take this issue incredibly seriously, and we are talking to the Competition and Markets Authority to make sure that the pricing is fair. We continue to monitor this, and to look at what further action may be necessary.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

T3. My constituents Gillian and Ross worked at INEOS Olefins & Polymers, and started retraining in 2024, following the announcement in 2023 that the Grangemouth refinery would close. However, they were recently denied support, due to limits on the Grangemouth workers training guarantee. Will the Government, alongside the Scottish Government, review the Grangemouth workers training guarantee, so that support can be extended to workers like Gillian and Ross?

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done to support the workers from Grangemouth. I wrote to him earlier this week on the case of his two constituents. The training fund was set up to provide that support. We will continue to look at it, and I am happy to meet him to discuss it further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

I would like to offer my condolences to the Secretary of State on the death of his mother. It is clear that she was a remarkable woman, clearly much loved by her family.

I have a yes-or-no question for the Secretary of State: can he guarantee that not a single solar panel put on a British primary school by his Government has been produced by Chinese slave labour?

[Ed Miliband]

First, I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her kind words about my mum. If you will allow me to say so, Mr Speaker, I feel incredibly sad to have lost her, but very lucky to have had 56 years with an amazing mum, who taught me values of kindness, warmth, love and justice. It is a reminder to me of what really matters most in our lives. I sincerely thank the shadow Secretary of State for the message she sent me.

On the question about the use of forced labour, we take this incredibly seriously. We inherited a regime from the last Government, which we applied in the early stages of what GB Energy was doing, but the shadow Secretary of State will know that, through the passage of the Great British Energy Bill, we have strengthened GB Energy’s commitment to this. Frances O’Grady is now the champion of dealing with slave labour. I can absolutely assure the shadow Secretary of State that we will do everything we can to prevent the use of forced labour.

[Claire Coutinho]

Well, there were words there, but there was no guarantee, so let me just remind the House that the Secretary of State has sold his entire agenda as being one of providing moral leadership to the rest of the world, but there is no moral leadership in sending British children to schools powered by Chinese slaves.

On 2 May, our electricity grid almost breached its frequency limit. That has the potential to cause nationwide blackouts. The Secretary of State’s plans are making it harder and harder to balance the grid—there is no denying that—so can he confirm who is legally accountable if we have a blackout, thanks to grid instability, and what repercussions would that person face?

[Ed Miliband]

I am afraid that the shadow Secretary of State is indulging in the worst sort of scaremongering to justify her anti-clean-energy agenda. It is incredibly sad what has happened to her. She used to believe in clean energy. Today, a report comes out from CBI Economics, showing 1 million jobs in net zero, and what does she do? She starts quibbling about the small print, and saying that the report does not represent the views of CBI, when the CBI chief economist is actually advocating for clean energy.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

T4. A constituent of mine has raised concerns that the biodiversity net gain commitments, linked to the development consent order for the Riverside energy park in Belvedere, which was granted in April 2020 by the previous Government, have yet to be met at three mitigation sites in my constituency—Barnehurst open space, Whitehall Lane in Slade Green, and Bursted woods. What action is available if a developer does not fulfil its biodiversity net gain commitments in a timely manner?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this incredibly important issue. We need to make sure, when pushing forward with our planning developments, that they are undertaken with communities, and that the commitments made are delivered. I would very much welcome hearing more about the case that he raises, and I will talk to my colleagues and to him to take this forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The UK should be the world leader in greenhouse gas removals, but the sector is struggling to attract funding and off-takers because of uncertainty about Government support for GGRs. Will the Government please confirm when they plan to publish their response to the independent GGRs review, and whether the Department is considering the launch of a UK buyers’ club, running along similar lines to the EU system?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Member is right about the ambition, and that is why we commissioned the independent review by my noble Friend Lord Whitehead. We will respond to that review in due course, and we are ambitious about the role that GGRs can play.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T6. I thank the Minister for the £13.5 million for the Temple Quarter heat network in my constituency. Where Bristol leads with City Leap, others can follow, so what are the Government doing to support other places in following our example, in order to get investment in decarbonising our cities?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)]

My hon. Friend is a big champion of not just Bristol, but climate action more generally. Bristol is one of the trailblazing heat network cities, and its City Leap partnership is a model of what other local authorities can consider. I am pleased that we have announced nearly £35 million in this Parliament for the further development of its heat networks.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

T2. Why does the Secretary of State think that Tony Blair is so critical of his policies?

[Ed Miliband]

Tony Blair has lots of interesting views. I am actually old enough to remember when Tony Blair was a great advocate of climate leadership in this country. Fundamentally, this Government and I believe that unless we get off the fossil-fuel rollercoaster—I think all Members have to confront this—we will never get the energy security and lower bills that all our constituents want.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

The River Severn holds incredible potential for tidal energy, with the Severn Estuary Commission finding that it has the potential to generate up to 7% of the UK’s electricity. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss how the Government plan to take that forward, and how we can ensure that some of the resulting good-quality green jobs come to Gloucester?

[Katie White]

We are grateful for the Severn Estuary Commission’s work, and we recognise the benefits that tidal range can bring to our energy system. For now, the Government remain open to considering well developed proposals for harnessing the tidal range energy in the bays and estuaries around our coastline. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Ayoub Khan. Not here. I call Sir Julian Smith.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

T7. Small businesses across Yorkshire are really struggling with energy costs. We have talked about the local power plan, and the ability of communities to sell power to small businesses—the question just came up. That has to happen. We must do everything we can to lower the costs for rural and small businesses. Will the Minister make sure that that happens?

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is a crucial aspect of the local power plan. We need to support communities in developing the project, and then creating a market in which they can sell electricity locally. We are working with Ofgem and partners to ensure that can happen, and we will say more in due course.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Had the 8.3 GW of offshore wind secured at the start of this year through allocation round 7 been in place last year, we would have seen gas generation cut by a third, and wholesale prices down by 13%. It is clear that we have to double down on the clean energy revolution. We cannot be distracted by yet more fossil fuel work. Will the Secretary of State outline how we will push forward the clean energy transition, and offshore wind in particular?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. If I might actually praise the previous Government, some of what they did on renewables has helped to reduce wholesale costs. The problem is that the Conservatives have now abandoned their position. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the only answer to the crisis we face is to go further, faster, on getting off fossil fuels and on to clean power.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Northern Ireland is home to some innovative carbon capture businesses with real export potential, but many UK clean technologies face a gap between successful pilot innovation and that first commercial deployment. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that high-value opportunities can be scaled, thereby supporting jobs, investment and growth? Will the Secretary of State accept an invitation to visit Nuada?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this issue. We have provided funding to support the development of carbon capture projects in Northern Ireland, such as Catagen’s biohydrogen reactor in Belfast. We welcome engagement on further carbon capture, usage and storage projects. It is a really important part of decarbonisation, and I am happy to engage on it further.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State just praised the previous Government’s role in rolling out renewables, but what they did not do is seek to co-ordinate energy projects, in particular nationally significant infrastructure projects. In Suffolk Coastal, that is a huge issue, and one that I have raised at length and continually with the Minister. Will the Secretary of State meet me to talk about what we can do to seek better co-ordination, including introducing an energy levy to enforce co-ordination?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The strategic spatial energy plan, which will be coming out later this year, is designed precisely to ensure the kind of co-ordination that she is after. I am very happy to meet her to talk about it.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

By now, the Secretary of State will be well aware of my opposition to the 1,900 acre East Park Energy solar farm in my constituency. We are now at the business end of the planning process; the application is before the Planning Inspectorate, ahead of a decision by the Secretary of State later this year. Will he outline roughly when he expects to have to take a decision on the application? Ahead of that, will he meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) to discuss our concern that it is not the right solution for our area and our constituents?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but because it is a live planning application under independent examination, it is not possible for me to comment further. I obviously encourage him and his constituents to register with the Planning Inspectorate, if they have not done so already, so that they can share their views.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the contracts for difference for geothermal and the fact that the Secretary of State has been down to see deep geothermal in Cornwall. A policy indication from the Government that deep geothermal could form part of our energy mix would be useful to grow confidence in the industry.

[Katie White]

I thank my hon. Friend for her continued championing of this matter. It was exciting to see the opening of the first project in February. We are focusing on the local heat networks, but we will continue to engage and are glad to see the CfD projects coming to fruition.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Once again, those on the Government Front Bench have inadvertently misled the House in saying that there is a single price internationally for gas—gas is 80% cheaper in the US than it is here in the UK. When will the Secretary of State grant oil and gas licences in Jackdaw, Rosebank and other fields in the North sea to increase supply and bring down bills?

[Ed Miliband]

No matter how many times I tell the hon. Gentleman, he does not seem to get it: we are price takers, not price makers. Even the Conservatives, who want to drill every last drop, do not claim that that would reduce bills. The truth is, he said he would— [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman calms down for a minute, he will hear my answer. He said he would wage war on clean energy—that is waging war on jobs across our country and on energy security.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Today, X-energy and Centrica’s proposals for advanced modular reactors at Hartlepool reached another major milestone with the submission of an application for a generic design assessment. Given the importance of retaining Hartlepool’s world-class nuclear workforce and ensuring that there is no cliff edge when the existing power station approaches the end of its operational life, will the Minister reassure me that every effort will be made to maintain the outstanding momentum to build this project and, wherever possible, to accelerate progress?

[Ed Miliband]

I am incredibly excited about this project between X-energy and Centrica—I have met both to talk about it. It is part of this Government overseeing the biggest nuclear building programme in half a century, and that is absolutely part of the clean power mission.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for not approving the Morgan and Morecambe wind farm cable corridor and for deferring the decision for six months for further consultation. I know how much he wants to achieve his target, so I know how difficult that decision will have been. Together with cross-party local councils, I have written to him to articulate the available alternative routes. Will he use these six months to consider those alternatives?

[Michael Shanks]

As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on live applications for obvious reasons. We look at every single application on its merits; even though we have ambitions for where we want to get to, individual planning applications are considered on the individual merits on which they are presented.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

Peak Cluster in the Hope valley is a cement decarbonisation project looking to prevent 3 million tonnes of CO₂ from entering the atmosphere every year. Will the Minister commit to establishing a clear route to market for industrial carbon capture projects beyond track 1 and track 2 clusters, which would offer projects like Peak Cluster greater certainty?

[Michael Shanks]

We see carbon capture as a hugely important part of how we decarbonise, and we have supported clusters already. We are looking at what a future model could look like; equally, we need to see other projects coming forward on commercial terms to ensure that they are viable. I continue to meet with all the clusters, and I chair the CCUS taskforce to ensure that we are doing as much as we can.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Last Saturday, I met representatives from a number of well-established hospitality businesses in my constituency, one of whom is facing an energy cost increase of £70,000 this year. That is clearly unsustainable. What are Ministers doing to prevent unchecked energy increases from happening year on year?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Chris McDonald)]

As I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, we are concerned about the role of third-party intermediaries and the proper functioning of the market, and, subject to finding parliamentary time, we intend to bring forward the opportunity for Ofgem to act as a regulator in that regard. The hon. Gentleman’s question clearly identifies why it is so important that we return to energy stability in the UK through our own home-grown clean energy.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

In an earlier answer, the Minister for Energy mentioned the money being spent on carbon capture, but has he considered the impact of his net zero policies on carbon release? Last week, I visited a site in the Sperrins where 250,000 metric tonnes of peat are to be stripped from the hillside in order to put in the infrastructure for a wind farm. That is similar to what is happening on peatlands all over England. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of that and will he—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Come on, you’re not playing the game at all. I call the Minister.

[Ed Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman and I go back a long way, so I thought I would answer this one. It is important to look at the whole context of carbon emissions in projects, but if he shares our desire to reduce carbon emissions, renewable energy and nuclear energy are the right way forward.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Last September, I met the Minister for Energy Consumers, the hon. Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), to discuss those who have been adversely impacted by incorrectly installed spray foam insulation. Has the Department considered remediation or support for those affected?

[Martin McCluskey]

We are considering a range of remediation options in a number of schemes for which the Department is responsible, most of which were operated by the previous Government. We will come forward with proposals soon.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

I, too, offer my condolences to the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State will be familiar with the Russian-backed AQUIND application for a submarine interconnector that will cut through Portsmouth naval dockyard, affecting my constituency, and go on to France. The Ministry of Defence has raised national security concerns. We have been waiting over a year for a decision from the Secretary of State on the application. When will he issue one?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind words about my mum. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the progress of planning applications, as she will know, but I will definitely pass on her comments to my Department.

Milburn Review: Interim Report

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

12:37

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the publication of the Milburn report on young people and work.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

Last week, Alan Milburn produced a powerful report on the crisis of opportunity facing young people. The Secretary of State asked him to lead this work because it is a crisis that has been ignored for far too long. Far too many young people are leaving education and not getting the chance to work. The human and financial impact on individuals can last a lifetime, and the economic costs are significant. It is clear that this is not a feature of the last year or two but a deep-seated and long-term issue.

Unlike the Conservatives, we will not stand back and abandon young people in the face of this crisis. During their last few years in power, the number of young people not in education, employment or training rose by a quarter of a million—a shameful legacy. Rather than holding young people in contempt, we believe in them. We are making opportunity for young people a national cause. We have begun with the youth guarantee, more work experience, workplace training and apprenticeships, hiring bonuses for employers who take on young people in regular or apprenticeship roles, and subsidised employment for young people who remain out of work for 18 months. That means, in total, half a million opportunities for young people to work, train or undertake apprenticeships.

We have undertaken welfare reform to remove barriers in the benefits system that trap young people. We have changed the law so that claimants on sickness and disability benefits have the right to try work without the fear of automatically triggering a benefit reassessment. We have narrowed the gap between the health element and the standard allowance—a perverse incentive of the last Government’s making—and we are investing in genuinely personalised employment support.

We have made a good start, but last week’s interim report is a call to action. That is why this Government are putting work and opportunity at the heart of everything we do, and we will go even further as Alan Milburn comes forward with his final report and recommendations.

[Helen Whately]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question. It is a shame that the Minister had to be dragged here. Last week, the Secretary of State was only too eager to talk about this report on the telly. Where is he today? Why so quiet now? I think we all know.

The Secretary of State has been caught out telling the devastating truth about Labour MPs:

“who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others”?

That is what Labour MPs really think, and that is what the Government have done. They have put up people’s taxes, spent more on benefits and left hard-working people with less to live off.

Once again, Labour’s shenanigans are getting in the way of something we really should be talking about. Every morning, a million young people wake up in Britain with nothing to do and nowhere to go. This is a disaster for our country, our economy and, worst of all, for all those young people: Labour’s lost generation. The Minister said that it started under us—yes, the numbers did start going up from the pandemic, so this was not a surprise for Ministers—yet here we are after almost two years of Labour in office and it still has no plan. All it has done is make the situation worse, and of course commission this big report.

I welcome Alan Milburn’s contribution—it is a serious analysis—but Milburn himself says it is just a diagnosis; there are no solutions, actual answers or policies. In fact, he even tells us that the things the Government have been doing—their “piecemeal” programmes—are not going to work. He also says that after six months of inactivity, young people are far less likely ever to work. This is urgent, but where is Labour’s urgency?

This is not the first time Labour has let down young people: the number of NEETs soared to 17% after Labour’s last stint in government. The Conservatives turned that around to less than 10% in 2019. Of course, covid undermined that progress, but the Labour Government have turned a post-pandemic problem into a crisis by taxing jobs, tying up businesses in red tape, making it riskier and more expensive to hire a young person, and destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs in retail and hospitality. Like many young people, one of my first jobs was working in a local pub, but Labour has pulled the plug on that opportunity for this generation.

Whenever we do get to hear Labour’s plans, we know what they will be: spending more money and taxing people more to pay for it. That is the wrong answer. The answer is jobs, to back businesses, to cut taxes, to get rid of red tape, to get government out of the way and to reform welfare—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You get two minutes. [Interruption.] Yes, it is two minutes, and it has always been two minutes. I have not changed the rules. When I grant an urgent question, please stick within the rules. That helps me, because we have said that we will try to adhere to that.

[Andrew Western]

That was a predictable set of questions from the hon. Lady, who has the audacity to label the NEETs of this country “Labour’s lost generation” when the number of NEETs increased by 250,000 in the Conservatives’ last few years in office. She tells us that there were no solutions in this report—that is hardly a surprise for anybody paying attention, given that it is an interim report, with further recommendations to follow.

The hon. Lady mentioned national insurance contributions. What does Alan Milburn actually say in his report? Let me direct the House’s attention to paragraph 268, which says

“the UK’s NEET crisis is much more long-term and deep-seated than any decisions taken in the last few years.”

Specifically on NICs, paragraph 266 says,

“it is worth remembering that those under 21 remain exempt from employer NICs and, as the review has already highlighted, the increase in youth inactivity long precedes any recent changes”. [Interruption.]

The hon. Lady chirps that I am in denial—this is the Conservatives’ record, their problem, and a mess that we will solve.

On that very point, there was no explanation—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, the urgent question has been granted, and I do not need Opposition Front Benchers thinking that they can shout the Minister down.

[Andrew Western]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, there was no explanation or apology from the hon. Lady for the fact that her party left almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. That was a predictable omission, but an unacceptable one none the less, because discussing the rise in NEETs in recent years without discussing the actions of the past Conservative Government is rather like staging “Hamlet” without the Prince of Denmark.

On the Secretary of State’s comments, what he has said has been the same ever since he was appointed. He has said that we have to change the question and the system from “What benefits are you entitled to?” to “How do we help you change your life?” That is what matters and it is exactly what this Government are doing: fixing the broken welfare system that we inherited from the Conservative party, rebalancing universal credit, implementing right to try, tackling the Conservatives’ backlog on access to work, and, of course, providing our £2.5 billion investment in the youth guarantee. That is the welfare reform that this Government are delivering, with opportunity and work, especially for young people, at its heart, and the guarantee of a safety net for those who need it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I welcome Alan Milburn’s report. The Select Committee is in the concluding stages of its own youth employment, education and training inquiry. We take account particularly of the drivers, and the Minister is right. As the millennium cohort study has shown, more than half of NEETs have experienced adverse and persistent child poverty and family adversity over the last 15 years, which has contributed to the current level. I really think that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), should recognise that and apologise.

Is the Minister as concerned as me that we must not forget that, in addition to young people, hundreds of thousands of disabled people have had a lack of opportunity, and they have not had the profile that our young people are getting? They also need to be considered alongside young people, particularly in relation to employment support.

[Andrew Western]

I thank my hon. Friend not just for her question but for the work that the Select Committee has done on its inquiry. Indeed, I know that Alan Milburn was before her Committee recently, speaking to the work that he is doing. She is absolutely right to call for a focus on disabled people too. Our Connect to Work agenda provides significant support. There is, of course, always more that we can do, but on this—as with those not in employment, education or training aged 16 to 24—we are determined to act, we have a programme to do so, and we take this extremely seriously.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who always has something of value to bring to the Chamber.

There are 1 million youngsters not in employment, education or training; this has been brewing for many years, but sadly has been exacerbated by the new Labour Government. We have seen the sad decline of our high streets over the last 20 years, a quarter of a million jobs lost in retail in the last five years and, since the last Budget, 100,000 jobs lost in hospitality. The dual impact of the national insurance change—the jobs tax—and business rates has hit hard. Whitbread has cut 3,800 jobs across the United Kingdom, with the closure of two restaurants in my constituency—one in Torquay and one in Paignton.

I welcome most findings of the Alan Milburn review; the Liberal Democrats welcome the sense of direction. However, I have some key questions. Does the Minister have some clear economic plans to grow jobs for young people, and how can we develop greater connections with our European partners in order to grow our economy?

[Andrew Western]

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson will have heard the Prime Minister’s recent intent to work more closely with European colleagues, because of the economic benefits that working in partnership can yield. Further, the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that this is a problem many years in the making. I welcome the broad support from Liberal Democrat colleagues for the interim review and I hope that will be the same when the final review comes forward with recommendations.

On plans to bring forward jobs for young people, I point the hon. Gentleman to recently announced interventions by the Secretary of State to provide £3,000 to small and medium-sized enterprises that hire apprentices and £2,000 to any employer who hires a young person who has been on universal credit for more than six months. This will make a significant difference and it is the right thing to do.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Too often, young people are written off as lacking ambition, when the reality is that they are lacking the opportunities for good work. More than 40% of young people not in education, employment or training have said that finding fulfilling work is their top priority. Despite that, in my area under the Scottish National party-run Renfrewshire council and the SNP-run Holyrood Government, employability services are being cut by 30%, failing too many of our young people. Can my hon. Friend set out what steps the Government are taking to work with the Scottish Government to protect vital employability services and ensure apprenticeship opportunities for young people in my area?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend knows that I met an employment support provider in her constituency recently, and I was grateful for her welcome. She is absolutely right to say that young people do not lack the ambition to find work. This is a failure of the state’s making, not a failure of young people. If she has specific concerns about cuts to employment support in her area, I would very much welcome a letter from her setting out those challenges, and I will raise those issues on her behalf.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

As the report highlights, the number of NEETs is set to rise to 1.25 million over the next five years unless something is done. The Government need to listen to the wealth creators that create the jobs that so many of our young people need. Alan Milburn’s report says that 84% of young people really do want to get a job, education or training, but the policies of this Government are making that even harder. Given that the Government are looking for a reset moment, perhaps over the summer, will the Minister ask his Cabinet colleagues to look again at the increases in national insurance and business rates, and at repealing the most damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act, which are doing so much damage to the life prospects of our young people?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman has elevated me to Cabinet level—something that is at least premature, if not unlikely ever to happen, I suspect. I refer him to the Milburn report, because it sounds as if he has not read it. It states that

“the UK’s NEET crisis is much more long-term and deep-seated than any decisions taken in the last few years.”

Making particular reference to national insurance, it states that

“it is worth remembering that those under 21 remain exempt from employer NICs and, as the review has already highlighted, the increase in youth inactivity long precedes any recent changes to NICs.”

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

I welcome the interim report. My question is about work experience. When I was at school, this was typically organised by teachers and gave children a peek into worlds that otherwise would be unimaginable, but today children in my Bristol constituency are being asked to find their own placements, which obviously disadvantages children from families that are less well connected. Will we be likely to see more organised work experience placements for schoolchildren as a result of this review?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to highlight the value of work experience, in particular for children from disadvantaged backgrounds who perhaps do not have the connections that others benefit from. He will be pleased to know that the Government are committed to reforming work experience to break down barriers to opportunity, so that every pupil will have access to two weeks-worth of multiple, meaningful and varied workplace experiences throughout key stages 3 and 4, progressively increasing their work-readiness as they move through secondary education.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s youth guarantee scheme; something similar operates in a number of European countries. However, under the proposals, it will not kick in for 18 months. If someone is unemployed for 18 months, the damage is already done. Will the Government consider acting earlier?

[Andrew Western]

I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s trepidation, but I fear that he has not been made aware of the full range of activity before the 18-month intervention kicks in. This includes the addition of a reframed employment and skills review at two weeks and the maintenance of weekly appointments from weeks 3 to 12, with increased focus on personal support to address barriers to work. After three months, the specialist youth guarantee gateway kicks in, whereby young people are referred to one of six options, including sector-based work academy programmes, training, work experience and apprenticeships. At six months, the £3,000 youth jobs grant for employers recruiting young people kicks in. This is one part of a range of holistic interventions that we consider will make a significant difference to the challenge we face.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is it not the truth that Governments just do not respect working-class jobs, like apprenticeships? Since the apprenticeship levy was brought in, the number of starts has dropped by 35% and the number of level 2 starts has dropped by 68%. Of those that did take place, only 16% were advertised in the two months when young people were finishing their exams, creating the gap that young people fall through. The Milburn review is welcome and absolutely needed, and I am appreciative of the Government for starting this process, but can I ask two question? First, why can we not close the gap today by saying that every public sector employer, whether it is the Government, a council, the police service or the NHS, must advertise at the point that young people are leaving school? Secondly, does my hon. Friend agree that devolution has to be part of the solution, because we cannot command and control from the centre when so much of this is about localised economies?

[Andrew Western]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the power of devolution—it is something that he and I know only too well from our roles as leaders within the Greater Manchester combined authority—but I hope he will recognise that this Government are taking a very different approach on apprenticeships and technical education. That is underpinned by the Prime Minister’s revised target, not of 50% of young people going to university, but of having two thirds of young people in either an apprenticeship or higher education.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Many young people take time to adapt to new jobs and simply have not proved themselves after six months, but with the coming into force of the Government’s Employment Rights Act 2025, the period for dismissal without fault will be reduced from two years to six months. Many employers have told me that this will make them much less likely to employ young people, because they fear that they will not prove themselves in that time period, and that it will be much harder to get rid of them after six months. This provision is not due to come into force until the beginning of next year, so at this very late stage, can I urge the Minister to look at it again? It will make a bad situation so much worse for young people.

[Andrew Western]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I have to say that I have rather more faith in young people in the workforce than he seems to. The Employment Rights Act is an important, once-in-a-generation opportunity to level up rights in the workplace, and this Government remain committed to it.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I very much welcome this report by Alan Milburn, who highlights the need to work cross-sectorally to support young people. I wonder if the Minister could take away the thought that he could test and learn by doing a pilot with Choice in Hackney, which works with disabled people, and with my local Mind, which has very good employment training schemes to help people into work. Their success rate is phenomenally higher than the DWP success rates, and we would be very keen to work with the Government on this matter.

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend makes the important observation that, for us to make successful change in this space, we need to work with a range of partners and providers. I am very happy to propose, on the terms that she has outlined, that Hackney be put forward to test some of the initiatives that we are looking towards in this space. We need to work not only with charities and employment support providers, but to work more holistically across Government, with Health, Education and other Departments, and we are determined to do that work.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Alan Milburn, in his excellent but devastating report, makes it clear that the young people most at risk of ending up out of education or employment are likely to go to a further education college, and he identifies that 32,000 of those FE places are currently unfunded. Just last year, in her skills White Paper, the Education Secretary promised

“increased funding to…16 to 19 providers to provide real terms per-pupil funding in the next academic year”,

yet I know from talking to my local college that per-head funding this year is going up by only 0.55%. That is a real-terms cut and a broken promise. Coupled with the lag in funding of up to a year for new students, this is disincentivising colleges to take on these pupils. How does the Minister explain that?

[Andrew Western]

The 0.55% increase in 16-to-19 funding rates is only one aspect of 16-to-19 funding. In the academic year 2026-27, we will provide nearly £9 billion in 16-to-19 funding, and overall funding per student will rise by 1.66%, meeting the White Paper commitment by reflecting inflation at the time that the spending review was settled.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

This excellent report makes it clear that exams can lead to early disengagement from school, particularly for children who are neurodiverse. The son of my constituent Danielle repeatedly failed his GCSEs, which left him stressed and undermined his self-confidence. She felt that his opportunities would be limited and doors would be closed for him, but thankfully he was encouraged to get functional skills and has now secured a place at Leeds College of Building to learn bricklaying. Does the Minister agree that early information on and awareness of alternative qualifications and pathways, such as functional skills, can help young people to fulfil their potential?

[Andrew Western]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. If she has any ideas about how we can extend the knowledge and availability of such information, I would be happy to hear them.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Minister must understand that to create the jobs that we need, we must encourage the private sector to invest. In my constituency, every single hospitality venue has halved the number of staff it employs. When I ask why, the answers are national insurance, non-domestic rates and the new Employment Rights Act. Extending the national insurance holiday, as it were, from age 21 to 24 would enable people who leave school to get a job, enable those who leave university to get a job, and de-risk taking on young people for employers.

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that incentives are needed to encourage employers to hire young people. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced the incentives that I have already laid out: supporting young people who have been on universal credit for six months by financially incentivising employers to hire them, and incentivising small and medium-sized enterprises to hire apprentices under the age of 25 earning less than £50,000.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I have just had a group of year 8 pupils visit me in Parliament, and many of their questions were about the increasing numbers of young people on benefits, AI sweeping away jobs, and new opportunities and training for young people. The red wall MPs recognise that issues surrounding youth unemployment are not new, but I am hugely concerned that young people now see that as their future. I welcome the Government’s initiative for a youth hub in Worksop, and I am already working on that with partners, but does the Minister agree that we need to work with other partners beyond the DWP to resolve this problem?

[Andrew Western]

I do agree. I hope that my hon. Friend heard what I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) earlier about the need to work holistically, across Government and outside Government, with partners in the charitable sector, employment support companies and so on, to ensure that a range of interventions are available so that young people do not—exactly as she outlines—see a life not in education, employment or training as their future. That is something we must stop.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

Some 70% of graduates say that university just was not worth it—and is it any wonder, when we have seen an increase in low-quality degrees, people coming out with crippling debt, and lower job prospects for graduates? I welcome many elements in the Milburn review, but if we are to fix this crisis of youth unemployment, we need not tweaks, but an overhaul of vocational training and a correction to the Blairite obsession with university, so that fewer young people are scammed by the great university con.

[Andrew Western]

I would not put it quite in the terms used by the right hon. Lady, but jingoistic rhetoric is a feature of her new place in this House. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), this Government recognise that it should no longer be a target of any Government to send 50% of young people to university. That is why we have revised the target, so that this Government’s aspiration is for 66% of young people to be either in higher education or undertaking an apprenticeship.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In York, 410 young people are not in education, training or employment, and we know from Alan Milburn’s report the causes of that. I particularly want to focus on mental health, and the fact that we do not have the right support in place for young people much earlier than the point at which they seek employment. Will the Minister work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that we have systems in place to identify young people who experience mental health challenges, in particular children with adverse childhood experiences, so that they can be set on a stronger path and build more resilience throughout their childhood, enabling them to be prepared for work?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise that many of the challenges faced by young people not in education, employment or training start at school or even preschool. We need to ensure that there is early intervention in schools, with more mental health practitioners available to children and young people, and that they can receive the support needed at the first possible opportunity, because mental ill health blights and affects their future, not just in academic terms with exams, but often for many years beyond that. I absolutely agree with her. That point underpins many of the proposals put forward in the Department for Education’s special educational needs reforms. We need early intervention and greater mental health support for children.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

This is an important piece of work from Alan Milburn, but what principles will underpin the Government’s approach? Does the Minister think that, other things being equal, if we increase the cost of employing people, then that will come at the expense of jobs? Does he think that, with slack in the labour market, if we do things such as reducing probation periods at a time when the cost of employing younger people without experience is going up anyway, that will mean that those young people are less likely to be given the opportunities and the vacancies that exist?

[Andrew Western]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, in the current climate, incentives are required to encourage employers to hire young people, and I have set out the measures that we have taken to do that. However, he is one of a number of Conservative Members today who have raised the Employment Rights Act, which is the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. This Government are steadfast in continuing to support working people and ensuring that the Act is fully implemented.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

This generation of NEETs grew up under Tory austerity, suffered the closure of Sure Start centres and finished their education with per pupil funding lower than it was in 2010, and then many of them grew up in poverty. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a root-and-branch change from what we had under the Conservatives if we are to end the conveyor belt of young people finishing school and going into unemployment?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the damage caused by the previous Government to a range of services on which children and young people rely. Child and adolescent mental health services—pertinent to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—are one example, but there are a range of others. A recent report highlighted the difference that Sure Start, which was ravaged by the Conservative party, had made to young people. He is absolutely right that we need root-and-branch reform, and this Government are committed to delivering it.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The only country in the whole of Europe that has a NEETs crisis worse than the UK’s is Romania. That is quite shocking. For me, the issue is funding for further education. Mike Taylor owns Bond’s Barbershops and runs an award-winning academy, and he has far more students than he can give places to. Other local providers tell me that they are taking on students with no funding because they need to get them in place for next year, with no funding at all for this year. The youth guarantee is a great idea, but surely it is better to get ahead of it, provide the places for our young people and stop them becoming NEETs, rather than waiting until they have been out of work for 18 months.

[Andrew Western]

The sweeping range of this Government’s interventions means that we will deliver more than 500,000 opportunities for young people. The hon. Lady asked specifically about training for younger people. This Government have pivoted funding from older apprentices—level 7 and above—to younger ones, and introduced foundation apprenticeships so that we can better support people aged 16 to 24.

[Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I welcome the report, which dismisses the long-held stereotypes that young people are lazy or do not want to work. This situation is not a failure of young people; it is a failure of the system. In the survey, 84% of NEET young people said they want to find a job, education or training. Will my hon. Friend set out how the Government believe that we can move to a system that recognises that fact and adopts a participation approach, and how employers can play their part?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend asks an important question and underpins it with an extremely important statement: this is not the fault of young people. They are not lazy. They have been let down for years by a system that does not serve their needs. The Government are putting in place £2.5 billion for the youth guarantee. We continue to work with employers and employment support providers to talk about how we can tailor support to the specific needs of young people to get the number of young people not in education, employment or training down.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Returning to the important points about mental health made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), I draw the Minister’s attention to paragraphs 424 and 425 of the report, which states:

“It is mental health conditions that are now the most commonly reported health condition among NEET young people…This explosion has primarily been in mental health issues such as anxiety and depression, rather than in serious mental illnesses”.

We can all have our different ideas as to what might be causing this upsurge—I think there has clearly been a loss of mental resilience among young people—but does the Minister agree that, given that this is such a large part of the problem, further detailed research and analysis need to be done on why so many young people are so much more anxious and feel that they cannot cope?

[Andrew Western]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the importance of that point, and the Department of Health and Social Care is undertaking a review of mental health provision, the causes of poor mental health and so on. I agree that 40% of young people citing mental health conditions as a driver for their not being in employment, education or training is a concerning increase—it has almost doubled in recent years. That is clearly unacceptable. That is why some of the interventions being led by the Department for Education are so important: more mental health support in schools, getting those CAMHS waiting lists down and ensuring that children and young people get early intervention when they need help, because, as we see in those numbers and this report, poor mental health blights them not just at school, but in later life.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

This report powerfully illustrates the benefits of investing in our young people, as well as the costs and consequences of not doing so. It shows that children who are not school-ready at the age of 4 or 5 are nearly three times more likely to be a NEET at 16 or 17, and those young people who have the bank of Mum and Dad to support them financially to take risks are more likely to succeed, even if they are less talented. What discussions has my colleague had across Government about how we can ensure that every child can access early years education, and what thought has he given to restoring child trust funds so that every child can have a nest egg for their future?

[Andrew Western]

If it is okay with my hon. Friend, I will write to her specifically on the point about child trust funds, because it is not specifically in my domain. She is absolutely correct, though, to highlight the issue of school readiness and the link that that has to the likelihood of a child becoming a NEET when they turn 16. That is why, as I said in an earlier answer, the loss of Sure Start is such a tragedy, and that is why I am so pleased that this Government are reintroducing family hubs. On the bank of Mum and Dad, I hope that she heard the question that I answered earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan) about our intention to revolutionise work experience to ensure that it is not the opportunities that someone’s parents can provide them, but the opportunities that we can arrange that make a real and tangible difference and level the playing field.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is the system that is broken, not the young people. Alan Milburn seems to have actually listened to young people when he wrote this, but too many people do not hear and value those voices. Nobody seems to be talking yet about co-production and the value of asking young people and working with them to make these changes. What will the Minister do to ensure that young people are involved in writing the policy, so that we know that they will work for this generation and not just for what we think this generation might want?

[Andrew Western]

I spend a great deal of time talking to young people about what they need to support them into work. Clearly, at the moment, we are waiting for the recommendations of the Milburn review, but she will have seen the intent on co-production from the Timms review. I do not know what will be recommended in the Milburn review as yet but, if co-production is in there, I am sure that it is something the Secretary of State will look at.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I was privileged to open our new youth hub in Thanet last week. It is a perfect example of how the DWP is working with third sector and private sector organisations to offer that wraparound help for young people, which of course we need desperately in places such as Thanet, where unemployment is 12%—among the highest in the south-east. In the light of the analysis both in the Milburn review and beyond that there is a particularly entrenched problem in coastal towns because of our poor connectivity, transport links and fewer chances to learn and earn, will my hon. Friend commit to a coastal and place-based dimension to the plans to turn around this moral and economic crisis?

[Andrew Western]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of place-based interventions. Of course—she sits next to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb)—I am aware of the particular challenges facing coastal towns, and I will feed that request in. Whatever interventions we make, it is incredibly important that they are bespoke where needed and that they tackle this crisis in all parts of the country.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s answers to Conservative Members on national insurance, business rates and the Employment Rights Act, but I fear the Minister has been, at best, attempting to dance on the head of a pin. If he wants to come to Mid Buckinghamshire, I can take him to business after business that desperately want to take on new apprentices and young people, and would love to use the incentives of the national insurance provisions for under-21s, but cannot because of the overall impact of taxation from this Government, not least national insurance rises on employment. Can he at least accept that it is the overall impact and not the incentive that is the problem?

[Andrew Western]

Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is that I am here to answer questions about the interim report from Alan Milburn, who himself points to a problem that is longer and more deep-rooted than the changes that have been made in the last couple of years. I remind him, as I have already said in response to other colleagues, that under-21s do not pay national insurance. A range of incentives have been put in place for under-25s seeking apprenticeships with small and medium-sized enterprises and for young people who have been on universal credit for more than six months.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need to speed up if we are going to get a lot of these Members in. Emma Lewell will be a good example.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—I will do my best.

I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s responses, but youth unemployment in South Shields continues to be higher than the national average. Hospitality is the absolute lifeblood of my small tourist town, and it typically employs our younger constituents. The local industry is telling me clearly that a perfect storm of taxes and now the impending tourist tax is directly impacting its ability to stay afloat, let alone employ staff—

[Mr Speaker]

You’ve failed.

[Emma Lewell]

Please will my hon. Friend look at and speak to his colleagues about a VAT cut for the sector?

[Andrew Western]

In the interests of time, I will follow up with my hon. Friend directly in writing.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

My first job was in a local café washing pots when I was 13, and then in my 20s, I opened my own restaurant in that same location, offering young people in my local community their first job. But when I am out in Chichester, all my businesses tell me that they are so squeezed at every single angle that they cannot take risks on young people any more. Will the Minister lay out what he will do to support hospitality, specifically looking at reforming business rates so that those businesses can offer the right path for our young people to cut their teeth in work?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please help me to get your colleagues in, because we are really struggling for time.

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Lady will be aware that business rates are a question for the Treasury, but we are looking at a range of interventions through the youth guarantee and other interventions that I have already outlined that will help to provide more opportunities for young people, including in work experience, in first jobs and in training and apprenticeships.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The reality is that a generation was lost and forgotten about under the previous Government, with NEETs increasing by 40% in Blackpool. Now, 3,000 young people are not in education, training or employment—double the national average and among the highest. Despite local initiatives, such as the Platform and the job fairs that I put on with the DWP, there is a lack of opportunity. If the Minister agrees that geography still shapes destiny, can he set out—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Andrew Western]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he does through jobs fairs and so on, and I suggest that we meet to discuss it further.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Youth unemployment in North West Norfolk has increased by 10% over the last year, and the Minister referred to paragraph 268 of the Milburn report on the jobs tax. It actually says that if policy aims to increase growth,

“it has to help minimise risks and maximise incentives. It needs to avoid creating a labour market in which costs of entry have risen”.

Will he listen to that and lift the costs on employers, so that they do not have to subsidise so many jobs?

[Andrew Western]

I refer the hon. Member to the rest of paragraph 268, because his selective quoting does not cover all that was in there. It also says:

“the UK’s NEET crisis is much more long-term and deep-seated than any decisions taken in the last few years.”

Milburn is very clear that action is needed, that there are a range of reasons for that and that he will bring forward a set of recommendations on which he expects the Government to act. We await those and stand ready to act.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

It is brilliant to see an example in the interim report of a young woman who taught herself Shopify in order to start a business. This Government have prioritised growth, which comes from innovation and entrepreneurship. Given that young people have incredible ideas and often thrive when they can direct their own destiny, rather than adapting to another company’s culture, does he agree that encouraging entrepreneurship among young people needs to be a significant part of the solution?

[Andrew Western]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I know that the Secretary of State is interested in what we can do to increase the support available to self-employed people of all ages.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Many young people get their first job on the checkouts. The boss of Next, Lord Wolfson, said that two years ago Next received 10 applications for every job vacancy, but that number has since risen to 19 applications per vacancy. He said nothing about how retailers have stripped out jobs at checkouts. Next made a profit of over £1 billion last year. Does the Minister accept that retailers also have a responsibility to create opportunities for young people?

[Andrew Western]

I do accept that, and the hon. Member will be aware of our work with Charlie Mayfield. He may also be aware that we have recently appointed Marc Bolland, a former chief executive of Marks & Spencer, as the lead non-executive director in the Department. We are incredibly interested in how we can work in partnership with retail to deliver more job opportunities for young people.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to Alan Milburn for this sobering report. The proportion of young people aged 16 to 24 in south-east Wales who were NEET in the year ending June 2025 was 13.2%, and as the report indicates, that is only modelled to increase. Does my hon. Friend agree that tackling the increase in NEETs has to be a central mission of this Labour Government?

[Andrew Western]

Absolutely, and that is not just for this Department, but Education, Health and all other Departments.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Among the things that Tony Blair taught us in his essay last week was that apparently AI is where it’s at, and we just have to suck it up and fit in. Given the vast number of graduate and entry level jobs being lost to AI, as Milburn identifies, is it not time for us to demonstrate that we have agency? Technology does not need to be the king; we can be. Is it not time we built our economy and our technologies around our people, rather than building our people—especially our young people—around our technologies, with a lost generation of a million young people as casualties?

[Andrew Western]

The causes of those 1 million young people being NEET are deeper than the advent of jobs being lost to AI. None the less, the hon. Member makes an important point, and that is why the Government are undertaking a review of the impact of AI on the labour market.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Only around 5% of young people with an education, health and care plan end up in permanent employment, so any plan to address this issue needs to be better on that. Supported internships are an incredibly good way of supporting young people with EHC plans and others to find work—we have a great example in Derbyshire—but we need more funding for them. What will the Minister do to boost supported internships and support those young people with EHC plans?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. As I have said in a number of answers, we need to work creatively and holistically with colleagues in the Department for Education and elsewhere to make sure we are joined up, so that there is an opportunity for all young people to find employment—whatever their background or their level of need. I look forward to working with him to deliver that.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

The social contract that we all had growing up was, “Work hard and you get ahead.” Now artificial intelligence is ripping that apart, and young people do not understand what their relationship is with the state. How would the Minister describe the new deal with young people?

[Andrew Western]

The current deal that this Government have with young people is that we will give them opportunities after the Conservative party did not. We will make sure they can find education opportunities, employment opportunities or training opportunities. We will not allow a lost generation to continue based on the failings of the Conservative party.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Tomorrow I am going to visit my former colleagues at the University of Nottingham to celebrate our first tranche of electromechanical engineering degree-level apprentices as they approach the end of their five-year course. Will the Minister join me in congratulating them and explain what this Government are doing to ensure that people can earn and learn through gold-standard apprenticeships like those being delivered by Dr Liz Bishop and my old team at Nottingham?

[Andrew Western]

I extend my congratulations to those young people. I know that my hon. Friend takes a significant interest in higher education, and I hope he will pass on my congratulations directly. As for what we are doing to ensure that high-quality apprenticeships are available, he will be aware of a significant increase in funding for the growth and skills levy.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. The APPG published an inquiry earlier this year which found that 40,000 young adult carers are providing more than 50 hours of caring a week. They face significant financial and systemic barriers to going into higher education, training and employment, and almost half have turned down education or training opportunities. They are the best of people; they are balancing education, work and caring. I offer the Minister one suggestion that would help. Will the Government look at changing the eligibility rules for carer’s allowance, so that students studying for more than 21 hours a week are eligible?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Lady will be aware that carer’s allowance is intended to offset lost income elsewhere, and students do receive finance from various sources, but I have not seen that report, so I would be very grateful if she could send it to me.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

This is not just about work; this is about what it means to grow up as a young person in this country and meeting the ambitions of young people like those in my community in Croydon East. The Government have already announced a number of measures to support our young people. Can the Minister outline what can be done to bring together the national youth strategy, the Young Futures programme, the youth guarantee, youth hubs, health and education to ensure that our response to this emergency is joined up and across all of Government?

[Andrew Western]

I hope my hon. Friend has recognised a sincere conviction in the narrative around the publication of the report in recent days that this must be a key priority right across Government, working with both public and private sector partners to ensure that it is treated as a whole-system problem, so that we can get to the bottom of it and resolve it, to give opportunities to young people.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The Minister proudly touts jobs, hiring bonuses, youth guarantees, Government-funded work experience and job placements, but these are all treating the symptoms of the problem. Frankly, it is all a bit old Labour. The problems are structural ones in the economy to do with investment, taxation and regulation. Is there anyone on the Government Benches who understands how an economy works?

[Andrew Western]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a debate on why young people not in education, employment or training are struggling as they are, he would do well to look at his party’s legacy in government between 2010 and 2015, because we are seeing the impact of things like cuts to Sure Start and opportunities for young people across the piece. It is a far more complex picture than that which he seeks to articulate, and his party’s fingerprints are all over it.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

I welcome the report and my hon. Friend’s commitment to cross-departmental working, but I want to raise one area that his Department could put its weight behind. The Health and Social Care Committee has suggested an amendment to the Health Bill that would put the mental health investment standard into statute, so that we could increase investment in our mental health services, bring down the backlog of people waiting for mental health treatment and get more young people in Gloucester into work.

[Andrew Western]

I am very keen to look at all opportunities to bring down mental health lists, and if my hon. Friend wants to share information with me directly, I am happy to look at it further.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Last week I met Sophie and Matt, two young entrepreneurs aged 24 and 19 who have bucked the trend and opened Toploaf Bakery, but they are already terrified about the long-term viability of their business. I hear this time and again from entrepreneurs who say they have nothing left in the tank—pressure put on them by this Government means that they are at risk of closing their business. When are the Government going to start listening to those who actually employ people?

[Andrew Western]

As I said in response to an earlier question, we have the Mayfield review, we have a former chief executive of Marks & Spencer as a lead non-executive director at the Department, and we are talking to business all the time. That is how we have developed some of our initial thinking in this space, it is why we have brought forward the youth guarantee, and it is why we are incentivising businesses to hire young people. We are serious about helping them, and we will continue to do so.

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

I welcome Alan Milburn’s interim report, which is nothing short of totemic. Given the work that he will now do to develop recommendations, will it be in scope to consider how to support not only those currently impacted, but those most at risk of leaving education, employment or training, as identified according to the risk factors in this helpful interim report?

[Andrew Western]

I hope that Alan Milburn will propose a range of interventions that look not only at how we help people now, but at how we fix this problem for the long term. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: short-term fixes will not work. We have a structural problem that requires a structural solution.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

When 84% of young people are classified as NEET—or as LEET as I prefer to say, because they are all looking for education and training—it is heartbreaking that they feel they are the lost generation. The new Plaid Cymru Welsh Government have committed to aligning education and training with Welsh economic needs, so can the Minister set out how the UK Government will use their powers to address those challenges in Wales?

[Andrew Western]

I am due to meet the new employment spokesperson for the Welsh Government as the devolution lead for the Department, and I will be very interested to hear their ideas. This needs to be a partnership moving forward, and if sensible and credible solutions come forward from that Administration, I will look to work with them to deliver those.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

We must not forget that hundreds of thousands of NEET young people are disconnected from traditional employment support, and hidden from the system entirely as a result. With youth workers and trusted adult relationships offering the missing link to help identify and bridge those young people into support, how will we put those relationships at the heart of the systems change that is needed to meet that challenge?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which has not been made so far today, about young people who slip through the net because they are perhaps living with their parents or not claiming—as he described, they are “hidden” NEETs. We are looking across the piece, and particularly talking with the Department for Education about interventions we can bring forward, and I will update him as soon as I can.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Every week I meet young people with energy and ambition whose hopes are at risk of being crushed by a lack of opportunity. I also recently met Stuart Forbes, who set up Fairford Heating 42 years ago in my constituency. Stuart told me that this year, for the first time, they will not be taking on an apprentice due to the cost overheads of employment. What are the Government doing to make it easier and cheaper for local family businesses to take on apprentices?

[Andrew Western]

As I have said many times, we are introducing a new financial incentive to support SMEs to hire young people under the age of 25 as apprentices, providing that the earnings are below £50,000.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that what is needed is a complete cultural change in our schools, giving equivalence of practical skills to academic pursuits? We have masses of rebuilding in our country after the wreckage of 14 years, including in Suffolk, yet we have no welders. Let’s fix this.

[Andrew Western]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He is correct to say that we must make it easier for people to unlock technical as well as other forms of education, in support of the Prime Minister’s target of getting two thirds of young people into either an apprenticeship or higher education.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

We say we are going to listen to young people, but one young person recently said that they should be labelled as LEETs, not NEETs, because they are looking for education, employment and training. Positive framing is essential, especially as AI reshapes the labour market and we have the boss of Standard Chartered calling them “lower value human capital”. Does the Minister agree that we must rethink pathways into work, invest in new models of education, and provide a stronger safety net so that technological changes create opportunities, not exclusion?

[Andrew Western]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and that is what we are seeking to do, not least with the youth guarantee.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

In Medway we have identified 240 NEETs as part of our local authority review. They have suggested that part of the solution is increasing the capacity of further education colleges so that people can be streamlined from school straight into college, as opposed to having to wait. Does the Minister agree that more investment in further education is a solution to this problem?

[Andrew Western]

That is one of a range of potential solutions, and I agree that it is an important one.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Milburn highlights the need for the cross-departmental working that the Minister has highlighted, but I wonder what structures are in place for that. We have already seen missed opportunities, for example through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, to put more local powers in place. This must be a focus of every Department of Government, so what is the structure to deal with that?

[Andrew Western]

I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that Milburn reported on Thursday, and recommendations from that report will not come for several months, but this is an important point and we will need a structure in place. I am committed to ensuring that this is a whole-of-Government intervention, but for the moment it is important to take time to get that right.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Dudley has one of the highest levels of NEETs in the country, and the highest levels of deprivation. After my NEETs roundtable in February, stakeholders wanted better data, joined-up services with the Departments for Work and Pensions, of Health and Social Care, and for Education, and better SEND provision locally. What guarantees will my hon. Friend provide to ensure that places such as Dudley are prioritised, and the root causes of inequality are tackled holistically?

[Andrew Western]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are absolutely committed to delivering that holistic intervention and ensuring that all areas of the country see progress in this space. As colleagues would expect, we will particularly target those areas where this issue is the greatest problem, and if that includes her constituency, she will see some action.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The concept of paying our dues, working long hours and bad shifts, and working our way up are principles that founded the British work ethic, but they now appear something to be embarrassed about. What steps can the Minister take with education Ministers and the voluntary sector to train our children from a young age that working hard at any level is something to be proud of, and that not working if they are able to is not a choice that anyone should profit from?

[Andrew Western]

I am reluctant to respond in the strongest terms possible because it is the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who has made the point, and I hold him in the highest regard. The Milburn review says loud and clear that this is not about a fecklessness in young people, and neither are they proud of not being in education, employment or training. Young people want those opportunities, and it is a failure of the state and the system. Whole-system reform is needed, and we are determined to bring it forward.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

The Milburn report identifies a state failure to provide timely and appropriate mental health support—and this is just about child and adolescent mental health services, up to adult services. Most tellingly, it states that there are no waiting time targets for mental health services. Will the Minister have a conversation with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to supplement the jobs guarantee with a mental health support guarantee, and ensure that young people are not waiting more than 18 months for mental health support?

[Andrew Western]

I will raise that with the Department of Health and Social Care and come back to my hon. Friend.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

We have excellent alternative learning providers in Bristol, from the Enemy of Boredom Academy, which is about developing video games, to the Wheels Project, which is about stripping down cars and rebuilding them. They are a lifeline for young people who are struggling with mainstream education. As part of the Milburn review, will the Government look at supporting ALPs so that young people can be set back on the right path towards a job in the future?

[Andrew Western]

We are still waiting for the recommendations, but I will feed in my hon. Friend’s suggestion because I think it is a good one.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

One legacy of the previous Government was that it is easier to keep disabled people on an education, health and care plan until they are 25 because there is no adequate support to get them into work. Equally, other young disabled people became NEETs, because there is no adequate support to get them into work. Does my hon. Friend agree that any reforms need a cross-departmental approach to support disabled young people into work and ensure lifelong work opportunities for them?

[Andrew Western]

I agree with my hon. Friend: sometimes this can feel like a vicious circle for young people with disabilities, and we must ensure that we get this right.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

My generation and the generation after me have been systematically failed. The scale of the NEETs crisis is not because of young people but, as the Minister said, due to a widespread problem across education, health and the welfare system. May I take this opportunity to welcome the report, praise the work of the excellent jobcentre staff in Castlemilk in my constituency, and invite the Minister to come to a jobs fair for young people that we are hosting later this year?

[Andrew Western]

I join my hon. Friend in his praise for local jobcentre staff. He knows that I would never refuse him, and I look forward to that visit.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was disappointed earlier to hear the condition of anxiety being downplayed, and we must accept that it can be absolutely debilitating. To solve the problems presented in the Milburn report, we will have to break down silos within Government, and work with the devolved Governments. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline his approach to doing that. Also, there is a tendency—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the Minister has the question to answer.

[Andrew Western]

As I said in response to an earlier question about conversations with the Welsh Government, I am due to meet my Scottish counterpart next week. Such conversations take place regularly and routinely, and we will ensure that there is a joined-up approach so that everybody across these isles can benefit from the changes.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I recently visited the jobcentre in Bournemouth town centre with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, and we saw the great work it is doing to build skills and confidence in young people through work experience with organisations such as the National Trust. I am delighted that we are also getting a youth hub, but will the Minister please tell us how young people in my constituency will benefit from that?

[Andrew Western]

Youth hubs are an incredible way for specialists to reach out and work with young people through a range of different interventions. They provide a single space from which we can drill down and target the needs of individual young people, in individual communities, such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment enjoyed her visit, because she told me so.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

In my constituency, major Government-funded infrastructure projects are providing strong opportunities for young people, including skills training, permanent jobs and careers. Does the Minister agree that as we renew our homes, bridges, crossings, railways and infrastructure, we have to maximise the opportunities for young people?

[Andrew Western]

I absolutely agree. That is significant Government investment that presents a significant opportunity to do just as my hon. Friend suggests.

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

The report identifies the importance of the home learning environment, a dry term that recognises that children do not grow up in isolation but are in rich relationships, and that parental skills, parental relationships and secure attachment all matter. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on family hubs, I am pleased that the Minister has mentioned the Government’s investment in family hubs. With the new guidance, they are set to be a rich network of partnerships to support families. Does he agree that that should be cause for us to double down on our plans to roll them out quickly and successfully?

[Andrew Western]

I agree, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Department for Education lead on family hubs.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

The majority of young people not in employment, education or training in West Dunbartonshire want a job or training, but they are not getting the support they need. Does the Minister agree that one way to tackle the challenge of youth employment is through our youth hubs, such as the one in West Dunbartonshire that is opening this month, which is one of 10 across Scotland? Will he come and visit the youth hub in West Dunbartonshire?

[Andrew Western]

It sounds like I will be having a day out in Scotland, so yes, I will take that in at the same.

Murder of Henry Nowak

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

13:40

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the murder of Henry Nowak.

Last December, Henry, aged just 18, was a first-year university student with his life ahead of him. He was kind, hard-working and loved by his family and friends. His murder, at the hands of Vickrum Digwa, was a horrifying act. Digwa murdered Henry and then lied about him as he lay dying, falsely accusing him of racism. It was an evil act.

I know that the thoughts of the whole House will now be with Henry’s family and friends, just as mine are. What they have been through is heartbreaking and, for most of us, unimaginable. I know that nothing can take their pain and loss away, but yesterday we saw some measure of justice. Digwa was sentenced to life imprisonment. He will serve a minimum term of 21 years. His mother, Kiran Kaur, has been convicted of assisting an offender. She is due to be sentenced on 17 July. The Crown Prosecution Service has today authorised further charges against other members of the attacker’s family.

With further sentencing and possible charges pending, we must be cautious still in what we say about this case so that we do not place any proceedings at risk. However, I can and must pay tribute today to the dignified and powerful words of the Nowak family in the statement they gave after yesterday’s sentencing. They deserve answers, in particular about what happened on that awful night and the actions of the police officers who arrived on the scene.

I expect many in this House, and many more across this country, have now seen the police officer’s bodycam footage, which was released last night. It is, without question, a disturbing and tragic thing to see. People are rightly asking questions about how the situation was handled. They are shocked and disquieted to hear Henry’s words, “I can’t breathe.”

I know that it is difficult to wait any longer for answers, but there is a proper process for assessing whether there have been incidents of police misconduct, led by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. It will determine what could and should have been done differently, and it will determine what action may need to be taken against individual officers. The family yesterday called on me

“to ensure the IOPC has the resources, authority and independence it needs to conduct a full, fearless and transparent investigation.”

I can confirm today that I will do so. The IOPC will be equipped and encouraged to act; to find the truth; and to ensure, if necessary, that there are consequences.

There have been accusations, I know, of two-tier policing, and that one community has been prioritised over another. It will be for the IOPC to determine the facts in this case—I cannot and will not comment on them—but let me say this on the question of preferential treatment more widely: the police in this country have a sacred duty to police without fear or favour. Everyone in this country is equal before the law; it is the promise upon which our whole justice system rests. The equality of every citizen is the foundation on which the openness, tolerance and generosity of this country rests.

Let me also be clear about one other thing—a dangerous undercurrent that I have seen in the reaction to this awful crime. Threats against police officers are utterly unacceptable. There can be no justification for intimidation, abuse or attempts to take the law into one’s own hands. A police officer unrelated to this case has been misidentified online and subjected to death threats. He has been forced to relocate, to protect himself and his family. Misinformation and inflammatory commentary is making a dreadful situation even worse. We must all, together, condemn it. We must also allow the facts to be established through the appropriate investigations and the courts, and we must do so calmly and responsibly.

The Nowak family, and Henry’s memory, deserve answers. The family have also called on us all to take action to address the daily tragedy of knife crime in this country. This Government are committed to halving knife crime in this decade. Since the start of this Parliament, we have made progress. Knife crime has fallen by 10%. Knife homicides are down 27%, and are at their lowest level in a decade, but clearly we must do more while there are still tragedies like this one. For that reason, we have recently published our halving knife crime plan. It sets out how we will go further to drive sustained reductions in violence. It brings together action across Government and society to stop people turning to knife crime, and to ensure that perpetrators are caught and brought to justice. It includes a range of measures. It will see schools and families supported to address the root causes of knife crime through the establishment of 50 young futures hubs; police using new crime mapping tools to target enforcement more precisely, and making better use of stop and search; and cruel and exploitative drug gangs stopped from criminally exploiting children, which will prevent the knife violence that is driven by the county lines trade.

On knife controls, there have been calls to limit the right of Sikhs to carry their ceremonial knife, the kirpan, one of the five holy items in their faith. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019, passed under the previous Government, clarified and strengthened existing legal protections in relation to long kirpans. This included extending defences, so that kirpans can be lawfully possessed for religious reasons and used in religious and ceremonial contexts, but let me be clear: carrying the knife for the purpose of religious observance is one thing, but using it, as so tragically occurred in this case, is quite another. It is a vile act, a crime of the utmost severity, and it will be met with the severest punishment.

Yesterday, the Nowak family ended their statement with a powerful call to us all: they did not want Henry’s death

“to be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”

They quoted the words of the prosecuting lawyer:

“This is not a case about Sikhism. This is not a case about racism. This is a case about murder. ”

I echo those words. We cannot allow this murder to turn communities against one another. We must condemn those who seek personal political profit from tragedy. Instead, we must show who we really are in this country. This was a murder—a vile and violent crime. The punishment must be reserved for those who are responsible for the act. We do not believe in collective punishment in this country. Instead, we stand together against an act of pure evil. We condemn those who committed this heinous crime, not all those who share their faith or ethnicity.

Yesterday, a sentence was handed down in court. I know it will never be enough. The loss felt by Henry Nowak’s family and friends will last forever. A wonderful young man will never enjoy the promise of the life that stretched out before him. The evil acts of his murderer and accomplice will never be undone, but we can choose to use this moment to pursue positive change. We are still limited in what we can say—there is a sentence to be handed down, further charges may follow, and an IOPC investigation is ongoing—but I call on everyone here to be responsible in this moment, and to allow justice to run its full course. While we must be limited in what we can say, we must not be limited in how we act.

I will end with the words of the Nowak family, once more. Last night, they wrote that

“no other family should experience the heartbreak and horror of losing a child to knife crime.”

Let that be the challenge to us all, across this House, across Government and across society. It is the very least we can do to honour the memory of Henry Nowak. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

13:49

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary, and you, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that the Government came to the House today.

The murder of Henry Nowak is devastating for his family. He was an innocent young man on the way home when he was brutally killed. Henry’s family have suffered an unimaginable loss, and I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with them all. The evil murderer Vickrum Digwa lied from start to finish, including in a false allegation of racism. On arriving at the scene, the police appeared more concerned with the accusation of racism, and even the possibility that Digwa was injured, than with helping Henry. Henry told the police that he could not breathe nine times. He told them that he had been stabbed four times. The response from the officer, which we have all heard, was, “I don’t think you have, mate.”

Henry was handcuffed and dragged across the ground as he lay dying. Can you imagine what he must have felt as he cried out for help and was ignored—as the officers who should have worked to save him instead handcuffed him and inquired after the welfare of his killer, standing just inches away? Henry’s dad Mark said:

“Henry did not die with dignity. He did not die with the care he deserved. He lost consciousness before anyone believed him.”

We need the IOPC to urgently and transparently report on how it was that the police attending were more concerned with the accusation of racism than with helping a dying man.

We cannot tolerate a situation in which false allegations of racism by criminals are believed. We cannot allow the colour of someone’s skin to be a consideration in how the police or other public services treat people, yet that has happened. Just recently, we learned that Valdo Calocane, who murdered three people in Nottingham, was not sectioned by mental health professionals because they thought there was

“an over-representation of young black males in mental health detention”.

The consequent failure to section Valdo Calocane, in part because he was black, led directly to the murder of three innocent people. The headteacher of Axel Rudakubana was accused of racist stereotyping when she described Rudakubana as a threat to safety, and the risk assessment was watered down. Rudakubana, of course, went on to stab and murder three young girls at a Southport dance class.

This has not happened by accident; it is enshrined in the police’s own policy documents. The police anti-racism commitment, published in March 2025 by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, urges police forces to reverse-engineer arrest rates for ethnic groups so that those rates are the same, even though the offending rates are different, by treating different ethnic groups differently. Let that sink in for a moment: an official police document actually says that people should be treated differently based on the colour of their skin. I have said before at this Dispatch Box—at least twice—that that document should be withdrawn. The dangerous ideology of so-called anti-racism, which allows people to be treated differently based on race, must end. Extreme activists have hijacked the policymaking process, and this is where that has led. It has no place in policing; it has no place anywhere. Does the Home Secretary agree that the so-called police anti-racism commitment must urgently be withdrawn? It is morally wrong and dangerous. Police forces must focus on catching criminals and keeping the public safe. They must simply treat everyone exactly the same.

I will finish with the words yesterday of Mark Nowak, Henry’s father. He said:

“Henry was 18. He was kind, ambitious, loved and full of promise. He had his whole life ahead of him. That future was stolen from him, and no verdict or sentence will ever give it back.”

It is true that nothing can bring Henry back, but let us ensure that no one ever again experiences what Henry did in his last tragic moments.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me thank the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks, and the tone in which he has reflected on this horrific murder and the words of the family, which he knows that I share.

I would normally let the right hon. Gentleman’s initial point slide, but there is far too much misinformation floating around on social media for me to just leave it unchallenged. On the point about the Government coming to the House, he will know that the proceedings and sentencing concluded at 4 o’clock yesterday. We said that we would come to the House immediately thereafter, and we have presented ourselves here today. We have responded in an appropriate way, and had all the facts and all the judge’s remarks at our disposal for our review before coming to this House. It is important that we respond in these moments in a measured way, and that is what the Government have sought to do.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to evidence in the Valdo Calocane inquiry. He will know that the inquiry into the Nottingham attacks is well under way. I do not think it would be appropriate for me, at this Dispatch Box, to pre-empt any findings that the inquiry might make, but all the actions taken, and assumptions made, by professionals from the public services, including the police and the health service, are subject to scrutiny in that inquiry. I am sure that we will return to those matters when the inquiry reports.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to phase 1 of the Southport inquiry on the horrific murders, and the findings relating to how the public service systems centred on the danger that Axel Rudakubana might have posed to himself, given his mental health diagnosis, and did not take into account the danger he potentially posed to others. The right hon. Gentleman will know that recommendations for change have been made in this area, which the Government will respond to fully in due course. Let me be very clear to him and to all Members in the House that in all such matters, when it comes to how we engage with our public services and how they assess risk, the only important factor is the risk that an individual poses—not their race, religion or anything else. We will not tolerate a situation in which other, irrelevant factors are taken into account. I repeat that all are equal before the law, and every public service needs to bear that in mind.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the police anti-racism commitment. He will obviously remember that the race action plan for the police began life under the previous Conservative Government—in fact, I am old enough to remember when Theresa May called out the disproportionate use of stop and search in black communities in particular. He will know that the way policing works in this country is by consent. It is important that the police retain the confidence of all the communities they police, and I think he will acknowledge that there is a history and a context here relating to racism and the police. Whatever changes are made, it is important that nobody over-corrects or course-corrects in such a way that all of us citizens are no longer equal before the law.

This Government will always ensure that the police, in fulfilling their sacred duties to keep our communities safe, always act without fear or favour, and always ensure that every citizen is treated equally. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not want to do down or ignore the historical and legitimate concerns from some communities about institutional racism as well as differential treatment. I condemn every and all types of differential treatment; I do not stand for it. My own track record as a Government Minister shows that I will always act when there is evidence of differential treatment, and it is absolutely vital that that message is heard loud and clear across the whole of our country.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Henry was a popular and much-loved student at the University of Southampton, and his murder has horrified our city. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur) commend everyone at the university for their response and their support for the university community following this tragedy. Like many, I have watched the bodycam footage, and it is both heartbreaking and infuriating. It makes it plain for all to see how Henry posed no threat that would warrant being handcuffed, yet he was treated as a criminal based on the lies of his murderer. No one in their right mind thinks that one Sikh represents all Sikhs or that one or two police officers represent the entire police force; as Henry’s father has said, this is about murder, our response to it and our prevention of it. As such, I have two questions for my right hon. Friend.

We have a knife problem in this country. That is why we have taken early steps to ban zombie knives and crack down on knife sellers, but it is obvious that that is not enough and we have to go further. Will the Secretary of State commit to clarifying a set of tough and consistent knife laws with the resources to enforce them, so that we can actually move on? Secondly, I echo the words of Henry’s dad, as the Secretary of State did, and ask her to guarantee that the IOPC will have

“the resources, authority and independence it needs to conduct a full, fearless and transparent investigation.”

Will she guarantee that? The catastrophic errors that were made when police officers got to Henry must never happen again.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and his questions. I give him that guarantee: the IOPC will, and does, have the resources it needs to conduct its investigation, and I know that it will do so with the full independence that our system affords it. I understand that the IOPC intends to report finally within the next three months, and I believe that a meeting is now taking place with the family—some contact had been made before, but the IOPC was waiting for the end of the criminal trial. Of course, it will do its job; it is getting on with doing its job, and I expect it to report as quickly as possible, but I can give my hon. Friend the guarantee he seeks.

My hon. Friend is right that we have a knife crime problem in this country, which is why the Government have a landmark commitment to halving knife crime over a decade. It is why we have launched the knife crime action plan, and I reassure him that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its historic mission.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

This is a heartbreaking case of a young man who should be alive today with a happy life ahead of him. Because of the forces of evil, he is not. On behalf of my party, I extend my sympathies to Henry’s family and friends, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement.

The independent investigation should uncover how one evil individual was not picked up despite apparently exhibiting disturbing behaviours that saw him ejected from his place of worship and having an obsession with weapons. Of course, police officers work under high stress and must make split-second decisions, and we rely on their good judgment every day. Tragically, in this case the officers made a clear and terrible mistake—one that failed Henry and has broken the hearts of his family. The investigation must ensure that recommendations are made so that nothing like this can happen again, but as the Home Secretary said, there must be no doubt that the police officers we see on our streets must be treated with respect.

Before going any further, we must acknowledge that Digwa betrayed his faith and his community, and he deserves his punishment. Regardless of that, when we in this House discuss this issue, it is incumbent on all of us to bear in mind the words of Henry’s father Mark:

“We do not want Henry’s murder to be used to create further hatred, division or tension.”

Since the sentencing and the release of the harrowing video showing the sickening incident, the vast majority of politicians have responded to this matter with due sensitivity, and that reflects well on this House. It is therefore all the more disturbing that we have seen the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) once again using tragedy to divide British communities. We all know why he does this—he has made a career out of it, and has become rich as a result—but we are also well aware, as is he, that his actions are divisive, dangerous and fundamentally un-British. The rights of British people to observe their faith are hard won; they cannot be contingent on the colour of any individual’s skin. Those rights come with a responsibility, one that Digwa has betrayed, and he must now serve his well-deserved punishment.

Of course, as other Members have said, we are too aware of the tragedies of knife crime and the problem it represents in this country.

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Max Wilkinson]

That must be tackled, as Mark Nowak has rightly said. The judge’s remarks in this case tell us that the knife being carried by the murderer was different from that typically carried by British Sikhs as a part of their faith.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Wilkinson, it is no use holding your hand up as though you are some policeman. I am policing this statement on the basis of the time allowed, and you are quite a bit over. I hope you are coming to the end of your question now.

[Max Wilkinson]

I am, Mr Speaker, and I apologise.

As Mark Nowak has said, the outcome here should not be further division. In that spirit and in Henry’s memory, we must work together to ensure that this kind of tragedy is not allowed to happen again.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I welcome the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, and associate myself with his words about the family and their reaction to what has happened. I am not sure there was a specific question in there for me, but if there are other things that the hon. Member wishes to pick up with me, I would be very happy to engage with him on other points of detail that he maybe was not able to come on to.

For the benefit of the whole House, I reiterate that anyone who uses this tragedy—this horrific, vile act of murder—to stoke further division in our country should be rejected by everyone across this House. Political grandstanding and further division are not what is needed; clear-eyed action and a commitment to ensuring that all of our citizens are equal before the law of our collective land is what is needed.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

This is a terrible incident, and my heart goes out to Henry’s family. Is my right hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that some have said that the Macpherson inquiry has caused the police to hold back when dealing with people who perpetrate crimes and who may be from an ethnic minority? Does she agree that nothing in the Macpherson inquiry suggests that the police should behave in that way or excuses the extraordinary behaviour of the police at the scene of this crime, and does she think that what needs to be reviewed is the way in which police are trained to deal with incidents of this sort? It seems to me that what happened at the scene of this crime falls way below what we expect of the police.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Police officers must apply the law fairly, without fear or favour, to every single person they serve. They work incredibly hard and get it right the vast majority of the time, and where mistakes are made, it is right that they are properly investigated and examined. The whole House should remember that our police officers run towards danger every day in order to keep our communities safe. As my hon. Friend will know, because of the ongoing independent IOPC investigation, I do not think it is appropriate to comment further on the specifics of this case.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I agree with everything the Home Secretary says. I agree that we should not weaponise this issue, but neither should we tiptoe around it. The truth is that many white people in this country feel that the police are so terrified of being called racist that they either underreact, as in the case of the appalling grooming scandal, or they overreact, as in this case, so there is a role for the Home Secretary now. She needs to summon in top police officers and say, “Things have got to change. We are all equal. Don’t be terrified of what people think about you—just carry out the law as you’re supposed to do as police officers.”

[Shabana Mahmood]

I have made it very clear from this Dispatch Box and over the course of my tenure as Home Secretary that all are equal before the law, and the police must always act without fear and without favour towards any one group. I do not think it is helpful for us to start pitting either majority or different minority communities against one another; that is not what this moment requires.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is always a balance to be struck—there must not be underreaction or, indeed, overreaction. I believe that in the vast majority of cases, the police get that balance right, and as I say, our police officers run towards danger every single day to keep us safe. I will always scrutinise all these actions to make sure that our police service is functioning as it should, so that every single citizen in our country, regardless of the colour of their skin or the faith that they have or may not have, can be absolutely certain that they will always be treated equally, and that whatever complaint they have will always be investigated in the way we would all expect.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I am deeply saddened by the murder of Henry Nowak, and my heartfelt condolences go out to his family, whose pain was made all the worse by the police wrongly handcuffing Henry, believing the lies of the violent murderer. That stripped Henry of his dignity in his agonising final moments, and is something that should never happen again. It is very galling that the likes of Reform, Restore and the far right decided to politicise people’s pain, attacking the Sikh community for wearing the kirpan and wanting it banned, even though the kirpan was not used in this violent attack. [Interruption.] They have decided to scapegoat and throw under the bus an entire community based on the actions of one violent murderer. [Interruption.] Let me also give them a history—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You are meant to be speaking through the Chair, not across the Chamber.

[Mr Dhesi]

My apologies, Mr Speaker. Let it be said that we see those people, and we will stand up to them. [Interruption.] Let me also give a short history lesson, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I started this Session by calling for tolerance and respect. I do not expect Members to be pointing at each other and attacking each other. Members speak through the Chair. We want an orderly Chamber that is respectful. This does nobody any good.

[Mr Dhesi]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hundreds of thousands of Sikh soldiers bravely fought alongside British soldiers in both world wars. Tens of thousands made the ultimate sacrifice, proudly wearing their turban and their kirpan. What reassurances can my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary give to the Sikh community, who are horrified and ashamed by this brutal murder and fearful about their right to freely and peacefully practise their faith?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I reiterate for my hon. Friend that religious freedom is an important principle that this Government respect. It has been respected by different Governments of different party political persuasions, and I am sure that that will continue to be the case. As I said in my statement, we are not a country that collectively punishes an entire group of people for the actions of individuals. The responsibility for this murder rests with the murderer, and he has now faced justice and been sentenced. That is the right way for these matters to proceed.

I will also say something about the tone of this debate. It is right for the whole House to remember that Henry Nowak’s family and friends are watching. The way that we conduct ourselves in this place can be passionate, but it must not result in name calling and in just shouting different political views. I do not think we should stand for the politicisation of this murder. There are lessons to be learned and further issues to be drawn out from what has happened, once the IOPC has concluded its investigation. I am sure that we will debate that here in the future. The way that we conduct the debate matters just as much as what is said.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

This is an appalling and sickening tragedy. Words cannot express my heartbreak for Henry’s family and my fury at the system that has led to this. We have all seen the body-worn video footage. In a previous role, part of my job was to review that footage and give an independent judgment. In this case, it is clear to everyone that the police did not act appropriately and proportionately. There are many good police officers who work hard to keep us safe, but on that night, these police officers displayed no concern for Henry. Immediate action should have been taken to try to save his life, but instead Henry was put in handcuffs and mocked as he lay dying. Those police officers have serious questions to answer. Can the Home Secretary explain what action the Government will take to ensure that every officer involved is held accountable for the decisions they have made, so that the public can have confidence that we will all be treated equally under the law?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the IOPC is investigating this matter. It will be free to conclude that investigation using all the powers it has and all of its evidence-gathering abilities. He will know, having reviewed such footage in the past, that what is publicly available is three minutes of a much longer incident, but the IOPC will be able to review every bit of bodycam footage in its totality, as well as other evidence that sheds light on the context of the incident, what the police officers saw and how they reacted to it. The IOPC is free to make recommendations not just on specific conduct, but on wider lessons that should be learned. I reassure him that once the IOPC has reported and made its findings, I will make sure that I personally update the House.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my constituent, Henry Nowak, a bright young man at the start of a life that held so much promise. The turnout at his funeral and the outpouring of community support show that he had an impact well beyond his young years. I pay tribute to his family, and in particular to Mark Nowak, his father. Many here have quoted his words calling for Henry’s death not to lead to more division and hatred. Henry’s sister, Olivia, made space in the early days of her own grief to support his friends. That speaks to the family and their courage, bravery and dignity in dealing with one of the most tragic and devastating things that any of us could ever imagine going through.

Like many in this House, I have watched the body-worn camera footage that was released last night, and I watched it with horror. I cannot imagine what Henry’s family felt seeing that, knowing that it was their son’s last moments. They expected help from the police, but when Henry lay dying, what he got was accusation and he was disbelieved. This can never happen again. What will the Home Secretary do to meet Henry’s family’s calls to tackle the national emergency that is knife crime? Like many families who have suffered a loss from this appalling crime, Henry’s family have called for his death not to be in vain and for lessons to be learned, so that they can go forward to see that his legacy is that no one else has to suffer that grief.

I would welcome the Home Secretary’s assurances that the IOPC investigation will be thorough and fully resourced and that no stone will be left unturned, so that the family can have the answers they need and deserve, and can know why their son was treated as a criminal while the criminal was treated with much more dignity than their son. Will she ensure that the family’s needs, wishes and voices are heard throughout this inquiry?

[Shabana Mahmood]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her powerful contribution as Henry’s Member of Parliament, and I give her the assurance that she seeks in relation to the IOPC investigation. That investigation is continuing at pace, and I know that the family are being engaged with. If there are any concerns about the process, I invite her to let me know immediately. I will personally ensure that any concerns are dealt with, so that the family can have confidence in the IOPC process. This Government have acknowledged the epidemic of knife crime in our country and our imperative to act on it. That is why we have our landmark commitment to halve knife crime over a decade and have launched the knife crime action plan, which is a resourced package of measures designed to deal with the scourge of knife crime.

I give my hon. Friend reassurance, exactly as I said in my statement, that we will leave no stone unturned in dealing with knife crime. We do so in the name of all victims of knife crime, including Henry. Their loss must not be in vain, and we must learn the lessons that will prevent these tragedies from occurring in the future.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

When Henry lay on the floor, he warned that he had been stabbed four times and he said that he could not breathe nine times, yet the officer chose to cuff him, rather than treat him. That officer should be in court, being prosecuted for a total dereliction of duty, but the bigger question is this: why do officers behave in this way? Is it because they have been taught repeatedly to elevate perceptions of ethnic minority communities over the safety of white British people? That sickness contributed to the killings by Rudakubana, by Calocane in Nottingham, and now by Digwa. It is a sickness rooted in the anti-racism agenda. Will the Home Secretary root it out? Will she return to equality before the law for all? Will she say that when it comes to public safety, white lives matter just as much as anyone else’s?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I do not think this is a moment to pit white Britons against non-white Britons; this is a moment to reflect on a horrific tragedy. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the IOPC is investigating the conduct of those police officers. It would be wholly inappropriate for a Member of this House to seek to pre-empt an independent investigation into the potential misconduct of police officers. That IOPC investigation will look at individual conduct, but also at the wider lessons that can be learned from this case. I will personally ensure that all lessons are learned and acted upon.

It is a fundamental principle—not just of the British criminal justice system, but of who and what we are as a country—that we are all equal before the law of our land. That applies regardless of the colour of one’s skin, and regardless of whether someone is a non-white Brit whose family arrived here 50 years ago or 10 years ago, or whether they are a white Brit whose family have been here for 300 years or more. We are all equal before the law of our land, and we should all support that principle but not use it to pit our citizens against one another. That is not what this moment demands.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the Chamber this afternoon. As many hon. and right hon. Members have said, no one can fail to be moved by watching the footage and seeing a young life being wasted like that. The inhumane and degrading treatment that Henry had to go through in his last few moments is something that will stay with the family when the news coverage has moved on and those police officers have been prosecuted, because when someone is killed by a murderer who is intent on killing— regardless of race—it is the families and communities that have to deal with the long-term impact.

Many of us in this Chamber have had to comfort constituents who have lost a family member through knife crime. This epidemic across the UK has to stop. How is it possible that the killer was allowed to roam the streets with a 21 cm knife, freely stab someone and then lie? It is really important that we make sure that this Government get to grips with that. As soon as the IOPC concludes the findings of its investigation, will the Home Secretary come back to the House and make sure that the Government adequately respond, so that we are not back here again and do not have to console another family whose life has been taken by knife crime?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me give my hon. Friend that reassurance. While the investigation is taking place, it is right that we give the IOPC the space it needs to do its important work. It would be wholly wrong for Ministers to pre-empt what findings might be made in the future, but as soon as those findings are made, I will ensure that the Government respond.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. We in this House need to be careful about our response to what is a sad loss of life of a young man who was going to a vibrant university in a fantastic and welcoming city, with the rest of his life supposedly ahead of him. Notwithstanding what the Home Secretary has said—I am grateful to her for saying that the IOPC will receive full resourcing—has she done any thinking about what other investigations her Department might need to do into the conduct of Hampshire constabulary? Can she confirm whether the officers in question have been suspended, pending the investigation? Could she also outline whether she is currently looking at whether she needs to make changes to the exemptions to carrying knives for religious or cultural purposes?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The question of suspensions is a matter for the IOPC because of the way it makes its initial findings and then reacts to the evidence as it all becomes available. Of course, now that the criminal proceedings have concluded, the IOPC will be able to ramp up and go faster in that process. Again, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to be sighted on that or to seek to direct it in any way, but I know that staff at the IOPC are watching. If clarifications are needed or questions need answering, I am sure that they will respond, but they are wholly independent of Government.

The exemption for the carrying of knives for religious and ceremonial purposes has been a long-standing arrangement, as a way of balancing public safety and religious freedom. It has been supported by successive Governments, including this one, and we are not seeking to move away from our respect for religious freedom. The wider context is an important question that is always worth serious consideration, but my approach would be to engage directly with representatives of the Sikh community and knife crime campaigners, rather than pitting those two groups against one another, because these are issues of a common cause. I will repeat the point I made in my statement: there is a world of difference between a person acting out of religious observance and carrying something as an act of faith, and somebody unsheathing that weapon and using it to kill somebody. That individual has met the full force of the law.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

As you know, Mr Speaker, there is no bigger champion of policing in this House than me, but the body-worn footage of Henry Nowak’s death is gut-wrenching and the police response, on the basis of what we know so far, is unfathomable. It is right that the IOPC is investigating, but as everyone around policing knows, such investigations have often taken far too long—sometimes many years—which is not good for anybody involved. Can the Home Secretary assure me that she will press the IOPC to report as quickly as possible—most of all, for Henry’s family?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully from deep personal and professional experience, and I pay tribute to him. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have had many concerns about the length of time it sometimes takes the IOPC to report—concerns that I have raised with the IOPC directly since I have been Home Secretary. However, given that the investigation started in December, the criminal investigation and case in relation to the murderer have only just concluded, and the IOPC has said that it expects to report within three months, I believe that this investigation is proceeding at the pace that the House would expect. I am sure that the IOPC is reflecting on the tenor of today’s debate, and will understand the need for urgency and to make sure that the family have answers as quickly as is humanly possible.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

My thoughts are with Henry Nowak’s family, friends and the local community. The prosecution said that the perpetrator had a “weapons obsession”. It should not have been so easy for somebody with a weapons obsession to amass an arsenal of knives. What is the Minister doing to reduce the availability of dangerous knives on our streets?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point. She will know that we have legislated through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which became law just a few short weeks ago. The measures within the Act will be implemented at pace by this Government; they relate to the possession of weapons and the buying of weapons—whether online or elsewhere—and there are new duties on sellers of knives to report larger sales or bulk sales. The Government have introduced a broad range of measures to deal with the scourge of knife crime, and those measures have just become law. We will ensure that the law is implemented as quickly as possible, so that we can get on top of this issue.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

The death of Henry Nowak is a horrifying tragedy, and my thoughts are with his family, friends and community. We must honour the words of his father by not using this tragedy to create further hatred, division or tension, and the House should not go against those wishes. Henry’s family want action so that no other family goes through what they are going through right now. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that she will go further and faster to tackle knife crime, so that no one fears walking the streets of the UK?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Yes, I will.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Can the Home Secretary please make sure that the findings of the IOPC report are shared with Police Scotland and all police forces across these islands in order to ensure that any recommended structural or procedural changes are made, and that lessons can be learned by all forces and then implemented?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Although some of these responsibilities are devolved, I hope that other legislatures in our country will show an interest. My Ministers and I certainly engage with our partners in the devolved Administrations. We will continue to do so, and we will discuss this matter as well.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

I, too, thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As a Nanaksari Sikh, I wear the five Ks every day as part of my religious observance, including the kirpan, and as a Sikh, I really struggle to express the feelings of sheer horror that this case has generated within me, my family and my friends. It absolutely has been a horror.

The senseless murder of Henry Nowak should be condemned in its entirety by everybody. A young man’s life has been taken in his prime, and I wish to express my and my constituency’s full sympathy with and condolences for the family of Henry Nowak, who have shown incredible dignity in their grief. I totally condemn the action of Vickrum Digwa, the mindless, senseless murder and the lies. There is simply no religious justification for his actions. I am relieved that our criminal justice system and the courts came to the same conclusion, and that sentiment is shared universally across the Sikh community.

This case has raised many aspects of concern for my constituents—Sikh and non-Sikh—including issues of safety and knife crime, and the freedom to practise one’s faith. Will the Secretary of State meet me and colleagues to discuss these issues further?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Let me again emphasise the dignity and the grace shown by Henry’s family. Their response has been something I do not believe I would have been capable of, if I had been in their shoes, and it is an example to us all.

On the broader issues, and there will be many issues in relation to this case, once the IOPC investigation has concluded we will be able to draw further conclusions on the facts, the police response and the wider problems. I am always happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the different issues raised in this case, and in particular how we get the right balance between the religious freedoms he and I both enjoy as members of faith minorities in our country and the need to make sure that public protection is never compromised.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Henry Nowak’s tragic murder is, sadly, stark proof that we have become a country where we no longer treat everyone as equal under the law. Does the Home Secretary agree it is time to put a stop to the political correctness that has overpowered common-sense policing, and will she commit to ending the nonsense of police cultural competency training being put ahead of protecting every citizen regardless of race?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me reiterate my belief and expectation that the police must always act without fear or favour and treat all citizens equally before the law. I hope the hon. Member will recognise that the vast majority of our police officers run towards danger every day to keep us all safe, and in the vast majority of cases they get the balance right between how they respond in a specific case and, more broadly, how they keep communities safe. Where there are issues, lessons must be learned; I am sure that, once the IOPC investigation has concluded, we will do that.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think that for all of us as MPs, the time we spend with families who lose a family member in horrific circumstances stays with us throughout our career. I know that in my community there will be many parents who, sadly, have lost children to knife crime, who will have seen Mark Nowak’s statement and felt every single word, and who will want to send their condolences to the family. They will also be acutely aware of how difficult a watch that body camera footage was, and of his words about not seeing the tragedy used to “inflame division”.

Given that, and given how some people are interpreting this matter and the misinformation that is circulating, what thought has the Home Secretary given to ensuring trusted sources of information on this issue? There is an important need for scrutiny and transparency about what has happened—and in a context where there is so much misinformation, we need sources of light, not heat. What more could the Home Office do on that matter?

[Shabana Mahmood]

We in the Home Office have a responsibility, which we seek always to fulfil, to make sure that we act calmly and responsibly, with the full facts at our disposal; if we do not have the full facts at our disposal, we wait until we do before we comment, in order not to put out misleading or false information.

My hon. Friend is right that the wider environment is very challenging. Of course the Government are taking action through other Departments, such as through the Online Safety Act 2023, in relation to digital platforms. I am sure we will return to those conversations, because there is no doubt that, on social media in particular, the environment makes it very challenging to establish the truth, rather than misinformation and straight-up lies. We collectively have a responsibility in this House to make sure that we shine light rather than heat on these matters, so that we can hold our country together and make sure that all our citizens are treated fairly.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Our sympathies go out to the family, who must have been horrified by what they saw on the police footage. How have we reached a stage in this country where, when the police go to an incident, they arrest a dying man because they are afraid of being accused of racism by his murderer? This is affecting the police right across the United Kingdom. Only this week, in a park on the edge of my constituency, the police were called because a gathering of Muslim men were seen to be carrying weapons. No arrests were made, excuses were made for carrying the weapons, and the anger of the community is palpable.

Would the Secretary of State make it clear to the police that policing should not be based on fear of racism, or direction by chief constables, or on the colour of people’s skin? The police should carry out their duty impartially; two-tier policing only diminishes the police and undermines their credibility and their standing in the community, which is bad for everybody.

[Shabana Mahmood]

There can, of course, be no suggestion of two-tier policing; we would never—no one would ever—stand for that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the police respond to danger every single day and have to make quick decisions, usually in very difficult circumstances. In the vast majority of cases they do get things right, and it is important that we acknowledge that broader picture of policing. Of course, when things go wrong or the balance is not struck correctly, that should be investigated and scrutinised, and lessons must always be learned.

I would not want us to be in a position where we just accept that there are big problems with how our police, generally speaking, approach their job. I do agree that any instances where it looks as though something has gone wrong cost public confidence in policing, but that is why we have the independent arrangements with the IOPC to investigate fully and make findings of fact, on which the Government and others can take action.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

Henry Nowak’s murder was a senseless, evil act, a criminal act, which Vickrum Digwa bears responsibility for. It is horrific that he made false claims to evade that responsibility. The actions of a perpetrator do not represent the whole community, and I know the Sikh community in the UK wholly condemn them. Many of us are deeply distressed about the circumstances of Henry’s death and his treatment in his final moments. How will the Secretary of State ensure that those lessons are learned, and that Henry’s family are put first and fully considered? On knife crime, how will we ensure that the root causes are dealt with and that resources are provided to agencies and to communities?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me assure my hon. Friend that the knife crime action plan is funded, and we have put significant money behind violence reduction units and other measures that we know are imperative to deal with knife crime in our country. Let me assure her again that, as soon as the IOPC investigation has concluded, I will make sure that the House is updated.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Is it normal police practice to handcuff a person who is lying helpless on the ground and clearly offering no resistance? Given the Home Secretary’s admirable and utter rejection of differential treatment of people according to their race, will she undertake to examine and withdraw the policing policy document identified by the shadow Home Secretary as embodying precisely such differential treatment?

[Shabana Mahmood]

On policing practice and the specifics of this case, that is precisely what the IOPC is looking at, because it takes into account the context and the expectations of police officers given the specific dangers that they face. The IOPC will look into that and, once it has made its findings of fact, I will of course return to the House.

On the issue of differential treatment, the right hon. Member will know, as a long-standing Member of this House, that we have had many debates from the opposite end of the race spectrum, if I might put it that way. Today, we are talking primarily about the white community in this instance, but there have been many debates in this House about differential treatment for minority communities. That is why I do not think it is helpful for us to look at this issue through a community-specific lens; it is much broader than that. I will of course ensure that I always engage with the police on the specifics of their policies, but it is not my view that the police are institutionally or systemically operating a system of differential treatment. We will always make sure that we guard against that, and I will work with the police to make sure it never happens.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s fierce rejection of two-tier policing and of any suggestion that people should be judged differently according to their colour. The footage is one of the most sickening things I have ever seen, and my heart goes out to the Nowak family who had to witness it. The Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that we must wait for the IOPC investigation, but if it does turn out that some kind of misguided application of the culture of policing has led to the victim not being believed while the murderer was believed, what more will she do to ensure that every single police officer hears loud and clear her message that everyone deserves to be policed in exactly the same way, regardless of the colour of their skin?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me give my hon. Friend the assurance that, as soon as the IOPC investigation has concluded and it has made its findings on the specific circumstances of this case, I will make sure that we return to the House so that we have an opportunity to debate collectively what the correct response will be. Let me also reassure him and everybody else that I will never stand for a system where there is any suggestion of differential treatment before the law. We are all equal before the law and every lesson we learn must always live up to that abiding principle.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

Henry Nowak was murdered near my constituency and local people are rightly furious with Hampshire police—not only the officers who attended the scene, but those leading the force. It is important to remember that Henry’s murderer accused him of racism. In honour of Henry’s legacy, it is important that we are all abundantly clear that the judge found absolutely zero evidence to back up that claim.

Does the Home Secretary agree that a false accusation of racism against a white person is just as bad as, if not worse than, a legitimate claim of racism, because of the deceit? Does she also agree that, watching the bodycam footage, it is clear that police officers treated Henry with disdain, contempt and arguably negligence because of the colour of his skin? We are hearing No. 10 say that two-tier policing does not exist. I ask the Home Secretary: where is the leadership today? British people are furious. The leadership is not coming from the Government.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I disagree entirely with the right hon. and learned Lady. Great leadership has already been shown by the family of Henry Nowak in the tenor of their response and their statement, and in their desire—rightly, in my view—not to see this murder used as a tool for furthering division in our country. We would all do well to take our lead from Henry’s family.

I am in the House today; I am answering questions and I have undertaken to come back once the IOPC investigation has concluded. The right hon. and learned Lady is a former Home Secretary and will know that those independent arrangements exist so that people can have confidence in the findings made in cases such as this and can know that they are made without political interference or for political ends.

On the broader point about false allegations that the right hon. and learned Lady made, lies are lies and they must be called out as such. Where a lie is criminal or leads to criminality, it must face the full force of the law. That is what has happened in this case. There has been a measure of justice, because the criminal case has concluded, the murderer has been found guilty of murder and the judge has made further findings in relation to the circumstances of the case. I urge her and some of her colleagues, when commenting on this case, to stick to the facts as they have been established.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary for the way they introduced this very sensitive issue.

The murder of Henry Nowak was a wicked act of brutality. His family and all those who loved him have been left with unimaginable grief, mourning their brother, their son and their friend, who they will never, ever get back. I know Members across the House share my devastation at this vile murder by this vile individual. However, some Members have been using this horrific incident for political capital, spreading disinformation for their own gain. Does the Home Secretary agree that politicians have a responsibility to act with decorum, and to focus on Henry, who lost his life, and his grieving family, who have lost a son and a brother, rather than fanning the flames of division?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that on this matter we should take our lead from Henry’s family, who have set an example for us all to follow.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

“I’ve been stabbed” versus “He racially abused me.” How are the Government going to rebuild public confidence in our culture and in institutions that have attempted to rank people according to perceived oppression, rather than judging each person on their actions and on reality?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me just repeat to the hon. Gentleman the point I have already made in this debate: there can be no suggestion of two-tier policing in our country. In the vast majority of cases the police apply the law fairly and without fear or favour, and they must always do so. Once the IOPC investigation has concluded, I will make sure that the specific lessons from the circumstances of this case are learned and acted upon.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

This was a vile act and a crime of the upmost severity, and I am pleased that it has been treated as such by our courts. The case is about the murder of a young man, and our thoughts should remain with Henry Nowak’s family. We do not know why the officers acted as they did, but there is nothing in the Macpherson inquiry that can be blamed for the apparent lack of humanity displayed in the body-worn camera footage. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that we should reflect on the words of Henry’s father, Mark Nowak, who asked that his son’s death should

“not…be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”?

Does she agree that this is entirely what the interventions of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and others seek to do?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I agree with him; he is right to refer to the words of Henry’s father. Many Members have rightly referred to those words today and we should all bear them in mind. Let me reiterate that I will ensure that all the lessons that must be learned from this case are learned and acted upon properly, but this case must turn on its own facts and its own circumstances. It is not to be used, in my view, to unwind other changes that were made to rebuild public confidence in policing.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

This cowardly murder is not a reflection on the Sikh community, which has integrated itself into the UK with honour and modesty. I understand that the weapon wielded was not that traditionally carried by Sikhs. However, I believe this murder may give reasonable grounds to review existing exemptions to knife legislation on the grounds of religious reasons and national dress. I know that the Home Secretary wants to halve knife crime within the next 10 years. What message do the exemptions give? Is she honestly going to rule out even a review?

[Shabana Mahmood]

As I said earlier, our religious freedoms and the arrangements we have are of long standing and have been designed to strike the right balance between religious freedom and public protection. I said earlier that the wider question is worthy of serious consideration, which is what I will give to it, but I would want to start that process by discussing the matter with the Sikh community themselves, knife crime campaigners and the police. I think that is the right way to proceed, rather than launching a formal review. As the judge found in this case, this was not an act of religious observance. The minute the knife was unsheathed to be used, it became a murder weapon and the murderer has now faced the full force of the law.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

My thoughts are with the family and friends of Henry Nowak. It was absolutely gut-wrenching to see the video footage from the body-worn camera. In Hampshire, the murder has left people deeply shocked not only by the violence of the act, but by the circumstances as he lay dying. I am pleased to hear that the IOPC will have the resources it needs to fully investigate. I am also glad to hear that the Hampshire police and crime commissioner has said that she will ensure the recommendations are fully implemented. Mistakes have clearly been made, but will the Home Secretary ensure that Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary receives any support needed to implement the IOPC findings in full, and that lessons on victim recognition, officer judgment and impartiality are acted on swiftly?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In fact, the Minister for Policing met the police and crime commissioner earlier today.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Henry’s heartbroken father has said that Henry’s family do not want his murder to

“be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”

I pray that we all heed those words in this House. This heinous crime is made worse by the shocking police response, and lessons must be learnt. What will the Home Secretary do differently to crack down on the epidemic of knife crime, such as creating a dedicated knife crime Minister? What steps will she take to ensure that our Sikh community, who are overwhelmingly peaceful and integrated, are not held collectively responsible by those who wish to divide us?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Government have a landmark commitment to halve the levels of knife crime in this country over the next decade. We have our landmark knife crime action plan, which is a funded action plan. The Prime Minister has taken a personal interest in that commitment. This Government will strain every sinew to deliver on that.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

In the ’80s and ’90s in this country, many police officers carried out their duties in a prejudicial and racist way. I am proud of having worked alongside many others to eliminate that racism as much as we could. However, we are now left with what is perhaps a more difficult problem to deal with, because many police officers and other public servants are now frightened that they will be accused of racism in carrying out those duties. What actions can the Home Secretary and the Cabinet take to reassure people who are accused of racism that proper process will be followed and that they will not just be left out of a job forever?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the historical context of policing in this country and the question of racism itself. Many minority communities have been on the receiving end of that treatment in the past. It is right that the system as a whole has sought to learn those lessons and to deliver a policing service in which we can all be confident so that we know we will all be treated fairly under the law. I will ensure that continues to be the case going forward.

On his question, when accusations are made—whether in a legal and policing context or throughout other parts of the public sector—they are just that: accusations. We should remember the principles of our broader justice system when it comes to innocence, findings of guilt and the fairness of procedures to give people a chance to explain themselves without findings of fact being made against them before that has happened. I expect to see that happen throughout the criminal justice system, but also throughout wider society.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

When the race card was played by his murderer, was Henry Nowak treated differently because of the colour of his skin, causing the innocent victim to be handcuffed and the murderer to be pandered to?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The reaction of the police officers attending the scene to the circumstances they faced there is what the IOPC is investigating. Once that investigation is complete and findings of fact are made, I will be happy to discuss the further lessons with the hon. Gentleman and others in the House.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I join colleagues across the House in offering my thoughts and prayers to Henry’s family over his vile and disgusting murder. Unfortunately, far-right groups in Blackpool and across the country are weaponising Henry’s death to create more hatred. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning those in Blackpool and across the country and ensure that we honour the powerful call from Henry’s family, who do not want his death to be used to create further division, hatred or tension in this country?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I join my hon. Friend and Members across the House in condemning the actions of the far right utterly. They are completely unacceptable. We should all take a stand against the far right weaponising this horrifying murder—this terrible tragedy for the Nowak family—to spread further division, which is not what this moment requires. I hope that that stand has broad support across the House.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My thoughts are with Henry’s family. As I listened to his dad yesterday, I could not help but cry at the loss that his family have suffered, and at the fact that the video footage will be etched on their minds forever.

It appears that we have an undercurrent of anti-white racism brewing in the UK. We see white people jailed for allegedly inciting racial hatred on social media, while members of other communities are not even prosecuted for viciously attacking police officers. Henry Nowak deserved better—he did not deserve to be attacked; he did not deserve to spend his final moments pleading for help and saying that he could not breathe; he did not deserve not to be believed; and, above all, he did not deserve to die. Why did it take this Government until yesterday to speak out on this matter, while they run to virtue signal on many other cases? Is the UK no longer a safe place for people like Henry Nowak?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The reason the Government did not comment until yesterday is because a criminal case was going through our courts. Members of this House, and certainly members of the Government, are not commentators for the purposes of social media. Ministers of the Crown must respect the independence of our criminal justice system and the ability of our courts and independent legal processes to function so that, when findings of fact are made, a conviction happens and a sentence is passed; it commands public confidence across the whole country, because everyone knows it was not interfered with politically; and that it was, in fact, an independent assessment of the facts of a case. I remind the hon. Lady and all Members that that is the responsibility we all have. I urge her to reflect on that.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I offer my condolences to Henry Nowak’s family, who have been through an appalling ordeal. What assurances can my right hon. Friend provide that Henry’s family’s concerns about the initial police response are being fully considered by the relevant authorities and that lessons will be learned from this terrible incident, so that no other family has to see their loved one doubted in their final moments by those who should be helping them?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me give that assurance to my hon. Friend and, through him, to Henry’s family, as I did earlier in my statement. The family asked me a specific question when they responded yesterday. I have met that challenge and will ensure that we continue to meet that challenge, and that they get the answers they need and deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final question, I call Tristan Osborne.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House today, and I extend the sympathies of my constituents to Henry Nowak’s family over this heinous and horrific crime. There is speculation online about the identities of these police officers, which is putting at risk other officers across the country due to the irresponsible actions of extreme-right groups and others, fanning the flames of tension. Will the Home Secretary confirm what we are doing to protect our officers on a daily basis under these circumstances, and will she comment on the irresponsible speculation that is happening online?

[Shabana Mahmood]

Speculation online is not just irresponsible, but wholly unacceptable. As I said earlier, we should all take a stand against that. First, it is putting at risk people who are not connected with this case. Secondly, with regard to the officers who have been connected with this case, there is a proper process that must be allowed to take its course to investigate their conduct and make the appropriate findings in the proper way. Everyone in this House should stand up for the independence of that process and give it space to conclude so that once it has concluded, we can thoroughly debate the lessons that must be learned.

Points of Order

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

14:59

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 21 May, during business questions, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) asked a question relating to the murder of my constituent Henry Nowak. At the time, the case against his murderer was still ongoing. The right hon. Gentleman gave numerous details of the crime itself, including accusations that had been made by the now convicted murderer. I am led to believe that matters subject to ongoing criminal cases are considered to be sub judice and that Members should not speak about the details of such cases due to the risk of prejudicing proceedings and, in the worst-case scenario, causing a mistrial. Can the right hon. Gentleman imagine the impact on my constituents of going through the trauma and horror of a trial only to have to go through it again because a politician had been impatient and reckless?

I would be grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how Members should conduct themselves when wishing to raise matters that are sub judice and whether the right hon. Member for Newark owes an apology both to Members of this House, who have abided by this convention, respecting the family’s right to justice, and whom he has repeatedly castigated online, and to my constituents, who refrained from publicly voicing their justified horror at the initial police response until the trial concluded so that their loved one could receive justice?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order, and I understand that she informed the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) of it in advance. The House’s sub judice resolution is a significant self-imposed restriction on freedom of speech in this House. Its purpose is to prevent prejudice to individual cases, and to preserve comity with the courts. As the hon. Member notes, the Clerks in the Table Office are always happy to advise Members on the sub judice rule and its application to proceedings. It is, however, ultimately the Member’s responsibility to avoid infringing the sub judice rule, and to exercise freedom of speech responsibly.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not giving prior notice of my point of order, but it pertains to the answer given to me by the Minister during the statement. Could she advise on whether the record can be checked to see whether this House discussed the murder of the three little girls in Southport and the case of Sir David Amess before the murderers in those cases were sentenced? I believe that both those cases were brought to the House before the murderers were sentenced.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Member did not give me prior notice of her point of order. First of all, the Chair is not responsible for the content of speeches or contributions made by Back Benchers, let alone Front Benchers. I do not have to hand the information that she requires about those two issues, but no doubt the Clerks can provide it in a moment or two. As the hon. Member will know, the Government are responsible for the statements that they bring forward to the House.

Armed Forces Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the Order of 26 January in the last session of Parliament (Armed Forces Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:

(1) Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Order shall be omitted.

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on recommittal, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.

Committee of the whole House

(3) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be taken on the first day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the first day.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day.

(5) Any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.

(6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.—(Deirdre Costigan.)

Question agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

Bill, not amended in the Select Committee, considered in Committee

[Relevant documents: First special report of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill of Session 2024-26, Armed Forces Bill 2026, HC 1712, and the Government response, Session 2026-27, HCWS41.]

[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind Members that in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” or “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.

Clause 1

Duration of Armed Forces Act 2006

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

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 8 and 9.

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Continuity of plans for special educational needs

(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations to make provision for a plan for special educational needs awarded to a person who —

(a) is a child of or dependent upon a person serving in the Armed Forces, and

(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when posted.

(2) The regulations made under subsection (1) must ensure that, if a person is required to move from one base to another as part of their service in the armed forces, any plan awarded to their child or dependent under subsection (1) must be automatically transferred to the relevant authority.

(3) A person to whom subsection (2) applies shall have reasonable time to negotiate a named school for their plan under subsection (1) with the relevant authorities.

(4) Under this section, “a plan” means —

(a) in England, an Education and Health Care Plan;

(b) in Wales, an Individual Development Plan;

(c) in Scotland, a Co-ordinated Support Plan;

(d) in Northern Ireland, a Statement of Special Educational Needs.”

This amendment would allow serving families, with a child for whom they have been awarded an Education and Health Care Plan or equivalent Special Educational Needs support, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area to another.

Amendment 3, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements

(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements for a person who—

(a) is a serving member of the Armed Forces,

(b) has entered into negotiations about potentially adopting or fostering children, and

(c) is required to move base as part of their military service.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must ensure that if a service family is required to move from one base to another, for operational or other reasons, any adoption or fostering arrangements they have made with their existing local authority should be appropriately transferred to the appropriate new local authority.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “appropriately transferred” means any adoption or fostering arrangements shall not be disrupted as a result of the transfer from one local authority to another.

(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for minimum residency requirements for adoption or fostering in a local authority to be waived for any service family which is required to move from one local authority jurisdiction to another, for operational or other reasons.

(5) Service families to which this section applies shall have an opportunity to renegotiate potential adoption or fostering arrangements with the new local authority, including prior to transfer to their new posting.”

This amendment would require adoption and/or fostering processes being undertaken by a service family to be automatically transferred to the appropriate local authority if that family is required to move bases as part of their service in the armed forces.

Amendment 4, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Continuity of NHS secondary care services

(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of secondary care treatment for a person who—

(a) is a dependent of a member of the regular or reserve forces who is receiving secondary care services from a health body in one part of the United Kingdom, and

(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when the member of the armed forces to whom that person is dependent is posted.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for relevant health bodies to take reasonable steps to ensure that any course of secondary care treatment being provided to the dependent is transferred to an appropriate health body in the area to which the dependent relocates, and—

(a) the dependent’s treatment or place on a treatment waiting list is maintained upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and

(b) the dependent will not require a new referral form from a general practitioner or other primary care professional as a condition for continuation of treatment upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.

(3) Regulations under this section must include a requirement for a national authority to issue guidance on—

(a) the transfer of patient records,

(b) the continuation of treatment pathways upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and

(c) the preservation of waiting list placement upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision for NHS secondary care services to be appropriately transferred where a person who is dependent on a member of the armed forces must become ordinarily resident in an area for which a different NHS body is responsible for care.

Amendment 88, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Communication regarding armed forces pensions

(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of communication with former service personnel about their armed forces pension.

(2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include—

(a) a review of the number of armed forces pensions which have been unclaimed,

(b) the impact of the current armed forces pensions system on former service personnel, and

(c) an assessment of the effectiveness of introducing an annual letter distribution service to inform former personnel of their pension entitlements.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “former service personnel” means a person who has completed their services in the armed forces.

(4) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements.

Amendment 89, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Transfer of medical assessments

(1) The Secretary of State must review current practice for the transfer of medical records and services for armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces.

(2) A review under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of—

(a) the time and costs associated with current practice,

(b) the costs and benefits of introducing a case-by-case approach for determining whether a reassessment of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services is required upon their transfer to the reserve forces.

(3) Within one year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice regarding the transfer of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services upon their transfer to the reserve forces.

Clause 2 stand part.

Government amendments 10 to 24.

Clause 3 stand part.

Government amendment 25.

Clause 4 stand part.

Clauses 5 and 6 stand part.

Government amendments 26 to 30.

Clause 7 stand part.

Clauses 8 to 11 stand part.

Amendment 90, in clause 12, page 29, line 6, at end insert—

“115C Duty to refer sexual offences and domestic abuse to civilian police

(1) This section applies where a service police force or the tri-service serious crime unit is made aware of an allegation that a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, has committed a relevant offence in the United Kingdom.

(2) The Provost Marshal of the relevant service police force, or the Provost Marshal for serious crime, must immediately refer the allegation and transfer the investigation to the relevant civilian police force.

(3) In this section—

“relevant civilian police force” means the civilian police force for the area in which the alleged offence took place;

“relevant offence” means—

(a) any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003,

(b) an offence involving domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, or

(c) an offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence within sub-paragraph (a) or (b).

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify further offences which are to be treated as a relevant offence for the purposes of this section.”

This amendment requires the Service Police and the Defence Serious Crime Command to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the civilian police forces for investigation and subsequent trial in the civilian justice system.

Clause 12 stand part.

Government amendment 31.

Clause 13 stand part.

Clauses 14 to 19 stand part.

Amendment 5, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert—

“(iii) a retired holder of such a rank.”

This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial.

Clause 20 stand part.

Government amendment 32.

Clause 21 stand part.

Clauses 22 to 24 stand part.

Government amendments 33 and 34.

Clause 25 stand part.

Clauses 26 to 28 stand part.

Government amendments 35 to 37.

Clause 29 stand part.

Clauses 30 to 32 stand part.

Government amendments 38 to 41.

Amendment 1, 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 6, 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 passage 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.

Clause 33 stand part.

Clauses 34 to 41 stand part.

Government amendment 42.

Clause 42 stand part.

Clauses 43 to 51 stand part.

Government amendments 43 to 46.

Clause 52 stand part.

Government amendment 47.

Clause 53 stand part.

Government amendment 48.

Clause 54 stand part.

Clause 55 stand part.

Government new clause 4.

New clause 1—Exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights for Deployed Members of the Reserve Forces—

“A member of the reserve forces who has been deployed for operations under this Act may not be subject to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of that deployment.”

This new clause would make provision for the members of the reserve forces who have been deployed under this Act to be exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights for that period of deployment.

New clause 2—Laying of the Defence Investment Plan—

“Within one month of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament within a month of the passage of this Act.

New clause 3—National Veterans’ Commissioner (England)—

“After section 366 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert—

“366A National Veterans’ Commissioner (England): establishment

(1) Within 12 months of the passing of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England (“the Commissioner”).

(2) The Commissioner shall act independently in carrying out the functions of the office.

(3) The Commissioner’s functions shall include but are not limited to—

(a) promoting the interests of veterans in England;

(b) monitoring the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England;

(c) reviewing the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families;

(d) identifying barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services;

(e) making recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans.

(4) In exercising the functions under subsection (3) the Commissioner may —

(a) carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans;

(b) consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations;

(c) publish reports and recommendations.

(5) The Commissioner shall prepare an annual report on the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.

(6) The Commissioner may at any time prepare a report on any matter relating to the interests of veterans in England.

(7) The Secretary of State must lay any report prepared by the Commissioner under this section before both Houses of Parliament.

(8) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for—

(a) the provision of staff, accommodation, and other resources as they consider necessary for the Commissioner to carry out their functions, and

(b) the publication of the Commissioner’s reports under this section.

(9) The Commissioner is to be appointed for a term of three years and may be reappointed for one further term.

(10) The Secretary of State may remove the Commissioner from office only on grounds of —

(a) incapacity,

(b) misbehaviour, or

(c) failure to discharge the functions of the office.

(11) In this section—

“public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998;

“veteran” means a person who has served in His Majesty’s armed forces.””

This new clause would require the Government to appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England and sets out its functions.

New clause 5—Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or dependants of serving or discharged member of the armed forces—

“(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 68, after subsection (11) insert—

“11A Fees may not be charged

No fees may be charged in respect of a serving or previously serving member of the armed forces or their family members applying for indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules Appendix HM Armed Forces.””

This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces.

New clause 6—Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights—

“After section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 insert—

“14A Duty to consider derogation in relation to overseas operations

(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must consider whether it is appropriate for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1) of the Convention.

(2) In this section—

“overseas operations” means operations of Her Majesty’s forces outside the British Islands in the course of which members of those forces may come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance;

“Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).””

This new clause reinstates a duty, removed during passage of the Overseas Operations Act 2021, requiring the Secretary of State to consider derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights during significant overseas operations.

New clause 7—Assessment of the reserve forces estate—

“(1) Six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the conditions of the reserve forces estate.

(2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of—

(a) catering provisions,

(b) personal hygiene provisions, and

(c) support for existing and new reserve forces.

(3) The Secretary of State must consult the RCFA in conducting an assessment under subsection (1).

(4) Under subsection (1) ‘reserve forces estate’ refers to all properties managed by the RFCA.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the reserve forces estate six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter.

New clause 8—Review of Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must review offences included under Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider whether any offences pertaining to domestic abuse which have been classified under Schedule 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 may be instead classified as an offence under Schedule 2 of that Act.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the classification of offences under Schedule 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006; it would create a specific requirement for the classification of domestic abuse offences to be considered.

New clause 9—An armed forces retention strategy—

“(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State lays before Parliament the Ministry of Defence Votes A paper seeking Parliamentary authority for the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for service with the armed forces in the following financial year.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay alongside the Votes A paper an armed forces retention strategy.

(3) The retention strategy must include—

(a) an assessment of the current rates of retention across the regular and reserve forces,

(b) an explanation of the steps the Ministry of Defence is taking to improve retention to meet the maximum numbers of personnel set out in the Votes A paper, and

(c) an assessment of the findings of the most recent Armed Forces Continuous Attitudes Survey and its findings regarding satisfaction with service life.”

This new clause would require the Government to lay an armed forces retention strategy alongside the annual Votes A paper on the maximum number of personnel to be maintained in the armed forces.

New clause 10—Independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention—

“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the processes for recruitment and retention across His Majesty’s forces.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider—

(a) the efficiency and consistency of recruitment processes across the Royal Navy, the regular army, the Royal Air Force and the reserve forces,

(b) the effectiveness of steps being taken to improve diversity and inclusion within His Majesty’s forces,

(c) the impact of the quality of defence housing (including single living accommodation) on the retention of service personnel, and

(d) the impact of the medical discharge process on retention and transition to civilian life.

(3) A report of the review must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause requires the Government to commission an independent review into recruitment and retention in the armed forces and lay the report of the review before Parliament.

New clause 11—Duty to provide medical records on discharge—

“(1) This section applies where a person ceases to be a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a complete copy of the person’s service medical records is provided to the person no later than one month after the day on which the person is discharged or otherwise ceases to be a member of those forces.

(3) Those regulations may specify the manner and form in which service medical records are to be provided under this section, including provision for records to be transferred directly to a civilian health body with the person’s consent.

(4) In this section—

“health body” has the same meaning as in section 343AZB;

“service medical records” means any records relating to the person’s physical or mental health care and treatment created or maintained by or on behalf of His Majesty's forces during the person's period of service.”

This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that all service personnel leaving the military receive a complete copy of their medical records within one month of their discharge date.

New clause 12—Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer—

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 343C (Establishment and functions of veterans advisory and pensions committees) insert—

‘343CA Establishment and functions of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer

(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to be the Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer.

(2) The general function of the Officer is to oversee the mental health care and treatment provided to veterans by the health bodies specified in section 343AZB.

(3) In exercising their function, the Officer must, in particular, monitor and assess the extent to which health bodies are complying with the duty imposed by section 343AZA (Duty to have due regard to the covenant) in relation to the mental health and well-being of veterans.

(4) The Officer may require a health body to provide such information as the Officer considers reasonably necessary to discharge their functions under this section.

(5) The Officer must prepare an annual report on the exercise of their functions and the general state of veterans’ mental health care and treatment in the United Kingdom.

(6) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Officer’s annual report before each House of Parliament.

(7) In this section, ‘veteran’ means a person who has at any time been a service member.’”

This new clause establishes the statutory role of a Veterans' Mental Health Oversight Officer.

New clause 13—Single living accommodation standards—

“(1) The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 101 (The standard of MOD accommodation), after ‘service family accommodation’, in each place it occurs, insert ‘and single living accommodation’.

(3) In subsection (10), at the appropriate place insert—

‘single living accommodation’ means any building or part of a building which is provided for the use of a person subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline as living accommodation, but which is not service family accommodation;”.

This new clause amends the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 to ensure defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation.

New clause 14—National Standards, Funding and Monitoring of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty—

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After Section 343AE (Sections 343AA to 343AD: guidance) insert—

‘343AEA Armed Forces Covenant Duty National Standards

(1) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance establishing clear and consistent national standards for the discharge of the duties imposed under section 343AA to 343AD (“the Covenant Duty”).

(2) The national standards must—

(a) set minimum requirements for compliance by relevant public bodies,

(b) promote consistency in the quality and accessibility of services provided to members of the armed forces community across England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and

(c) require relevant public bodies to demonstrate due regard in a manner capable of objective assessment.

(3) Relevant public bodies must have due regard to the standards issued under this section.

343AEB Funding and Support for Delivery

(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that sufficient funding is made available to support the effective implementation of the Covenant Duty.

(2) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain a dedicated Covenant Duty Training Programme, which shall—

(a) provide accessible training and guidance to relevant public bodies,

(b) promote awareness and understanding of the purpose and scope of the Covenant Duty among staff and decision-makers,

(c) support the sharing of best practice between relevant public bodies, and

(d) include provision for capacity-building where required.

(3) In determining the allocation of funding under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to variations in local demand and the particular needs of the armed forces community.

343AEC Reporting and measuring framework

(1) The Secretary of State must establish a framework for the monitoring and evaluation of compliance with, and impact of, the Covenant Duty.

(2) The framework must include—

(a) defined performance indicators and outcome measures,

(b) requirements for relevant public bodies to collect and report data relating to the Armed Forces Community in a consistent manner,

(c) annual independent review of the effectiveness of the Covenant Duty, and

(d) mechanisms to identify and disseminate learning and best practice.’”

This new clause would create a requirement for guidance that sets national standards of Covenant Duty delivery across the country, for funding and resources to support delivery and to require monitoring of compliance with the duty.

New clause 15—Armed Forces Covenant report: required content—

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 343A (Armed forces covenant report), after subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) An armed forces covenant report must—

(a) include an assessment of compliance with armed forces covenant duty national standards under section 343AEA,

(b) include analysis of outcomes for the armed forces community, and

(c) include recommendations for improvement.’”

This new clause, which is consequential on NC14, would require the Armed Forces Covenant report to include detail on compliance with national standards, outcomes for the armed forces community and recommendations for improvement.

Government amendments 49 to 56.

Schedule 1.

Schedule 2.

Government amendments 57 to 84.

Schedule 3.

Schedule 4.

Government amendments 85 to 87.

Schedule 5.

Schedules 6 and 7.

15:04

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)]

It is a pleasure to speak in Committee of the whole House on the Armed Forces Bill. I start by placing on the record my thanks to the members of the Select Committee on the Bill for their thorough and constructive consideration of the Bill, and their extensive special report.

There are a considerable number of amendments and new clauses before the Committee. I will speak first to the amendments in my name, and then I will focus principally on other amendments. I will endeavour to address as many of the new clauses as possible in my closing remarks, after listening to the points raised in the debate.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting so early, but before the Minister gets into his stride, I would like to place firmly on the record that we are debating legislation of material importance, relating to the care of our armed forces, and yet again, there is no Reform Member of Parliament present. Does the Minister agree that there is a massive irony here? These plastic patriots love to wrap themselves in the flag, but they cannot be bothered to turn up in Parliament to debate the fate of those who serve to defend it.

[The Chairman]

Order. Obviously interventions are taken by those who wish to take them, but we need to make sure that interventions and speeches stay within the scope of the debate.

[Al Carns]

I absolutely agree. I am a full patriot, and I support patriotism, but I make sure that I practise it. By not being here today, Reform Members are demonstrating that some individuals do not necessarily live up to those standards.

Government amendments 8 and 9 bring the Greater London Authority, combined authorities and combined county authorities within scope of the covenant duty, alongside the local authorities already listed in the Bill. These bodies exercise functions in policy areas covered by the Bill, and should therefore have regard to the armed forces covenant, just as other local authorities do. The amendments simply add those authorities to the list in clause 2; they do not create new functions or impose new outcomes. I remind the House that the new duty will expand the number of policy areas involved from three to 12, and there are already 14,400 covenant signatories, which is a prime example of patriotism across society today.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The amendment to bring the Greater London Authority within scope of the covenant duty focuses my mind on the fact that this Bill applies the covenant to all local authorities in all parts of the United Kingdom, except the district councils in Northern Ireland. Why is it that the only councils excluded from the ambit of the covenant are in Northern Ireland? Why has the Minister not tabled an amendment—I have previously raised this with him—to include those councils?

[Al Carns]

I have continued to engage with the devolved Administrations on this matter. I strongly recommend that district councils buy into the covenant and abide by it, though there will be nuances in some cases on how the covenant is practised in Northern Ireland, as regards security arrangements relating to armed forces personnel and charities.

Government amendments 10 and 11 focus on defence housing. They extend the powers in clause 3 of the Bill, so that the Secretary of State and the defence housing service can acquire land through compulsory purchase not only in England and Wales, but also in Scotland and Northern Ireland. There are historical UK-wide powers, but they are not fit for purpose as modern powers of compulsory purchase. New powers are sought for this reason. Importantly, in the case of the defence housing service, these powers will be exercised only with the authorisation of the Secretary of State; that will ensure proper oversight and accountability.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. and gallant Friend is making an excellent speech. I apologise for intervening so early on, but I want to put on record my thanks to him for the work that he has done to support housing for veterans. I worked for a homeless charity in Harlow, where we had a number of veterans who needed this support. Does he recognise that as well as the massive upgrade that this Government are making to veterans’ housing, it is really important that we support veterans with their mental health, particularly those who have post-traumatic stress disorder, to ensure that they can continue their tenancies in the long term?

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued championing of veterans, cadets and all in his constituency. Recently, £12 million has gone into reducing the number of homeless veterans, and the Op Fortitude programme continues to run; it tries to get as many veterans into housing as possible.

Government amendments 51 and 54 ensure that Crown status is retained for defence housing and other critical property assets, in the event that they are built or bought by the defence housing service. This will ensure, for example, that service living accommodation remains outside the scope of housing and tenancy legislation that would otherwise apply.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. and gallant Friend is talking about the support that the Government are giving to veterans, and about improving their housing situation. In my constituency, the East Sussex Veterans’ Hub, which provides really valuable support for local veterans, has just received a grant of half a million pounds to scale up its work, and convert disused office block accommodation in Hastings town centre into supported accommodation for over 14 veterans, which is amazing. Will he join me in paying tribute to the work done by the East Sussex Veterans’ Hub, led by Bernard Stonestreet? May I extend an invitation to him to visit? He will be pleased to know that the hub has built a full-scale flight simulator that simulates Operation Black Buck, and I know that the veterans would be delighted to welcome him.

[Al Carns]

As an ex-Marine, I have never been known for flying, but I would love to visit East Sussex Veterans’ Hub. When I am going around the country, be it to Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or England, it always amazes me to find these little examples of pure community spirit that help our veterans out. Importantly, while the flight simulator may be fun, it also helps people to learn critical skills and get them back into work. I thank Bernard in particular for all his hard work. If I can come and visit, I most definitely will.

Government amendment 48 will ensure that the defence housing service provisions come into force on Royal Assent, so that there are no delays in standing up the service as early as April 2027. I remind the Committee that under defence housing strategy plans, nine in 10 defence houses will be modernised or upgraded for our family personnel—that is 40,000 across the entire estate. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with over 10,000 defence houses being refurbished or replaced over that period.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am sure the Minister will like to pay tribute to Alabaré, which does great work for service veterans in and around my constituency. However, will he ensure that we do not give the false impression that all veterans are homeless and have mental health problems? Nothing could be further from the truth. Happily, the great majority of people leaving our armed forces are well sorted in their life, and in robust mental health. That is important, since we need to attract people to join our armed forces and our reserve forces, not deter them or put them off.

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for that really useful observation. First, I support the work going on in his constituency; Alabaré is doing an amazing job. I think it might have recently received some Valour funding for that—a programme through which we are really trying to change the initiative that we take in looking after veterans. On his second point, I am a firm believer that when people join the military, they contribute to the most important function of government, which is to protect our people and our nation. When they leave as veterans, they go on to contribute to the economy. Actually, a large percentage of them go on to thrive across all sectors of civilian society, and go above and beyond in what they deliver. There is a percentage who need help, and a smaller percentage who need lots of help. That is what we must focus on, and what Valour is there to do. I am sure that over the next couple of years, it will absolutely deliver and readjust our mechanisms for looking after veterans across society.

I turn to the service justice system. Government amendments 57, 59, 66 and 67 relate to the point raised by the director of service prosecutions to the Select Committee. They will ensure that service protection orders can be made by a service court in relation to a service offence, even if the person has left the armed forces.

Government amendments 80 and 84 will make provision for the post-service management of service stalking protection orders in Northern Ireland. They will ensure that such orders can be effectively recognised and enforced, once an individual leaves service. Government amendment 30 will provide for service restraining orders to be enforceable as equivalent orders in Scotland and Northern Ireland in certain circumstances.

New clause 4 will introduce a new power for service courts to make a service image deletion order. The new deletion order will enable the service courts to require offenders to delete and destroy any images or films in their possession or control that are connected with specific offences, and which depict a person in an intimate state. Government amendment 31 will remove the limitation of the powers to search and seize electronically tracked stolen goods without a warrant to relevant residential premises only, and instead applies the broader concept of “relevant premises”, which are any premises occupied or controlled by a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, but those premises need not necessarily be occupied as a residence.

It is worth the Committee noting that since 2021 we have created the defence serious crime command and a witness care unit. We are moving forward with the tri-service complaint system, and are putting in place the violence against women and girls taskforce to improve standards and the culture within defence.

I turn to Government amendments 33 and 34, which will make small but important changes to clause 25. The clause will require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to help a victim reach a view on their preferred jurisdiction. The Select Committee highlighted the importance of victims receiving information in an objective and impartial way, so that they have an informed view. The Government recognise that need, and amendment 33 reflects that. The amendment will also ensure that the needs of victims and the circumstances of the events are taken into account in providing that information, and that an appropriate record is kept of that information. Amendment 34 will add the Lord Advocate to the list of consultees. That will ensure that she is consulted when the Secretary of State issues or revises the new guidance.

Amendment 37 will extend the provision in clause 29 that requires a disclosure of spent cautions for the purpose of administrative action. Cautions are not issued in Scotland as in England and Wales. The amendment will mean that clause 29 applies to spent alternatives to prosecution issued under the Scottish justice system.

15:15

I will move on to reserves. Amendments 38 and 39 will remove the 18-year recall liability for other ranks to simplify and unify the liability for all service at 65 years. This change is significant as it aligns us with our NATO partners: Germany and Finland both have similar liabilities, while France has just announced a similar increase to age 70. Aligning policy with NATO partners ensures effective co-operation, strengthens our collective defence and improves joint response to shared threats.

Further simplifying the reserve liability is fundamental. It enables us to create a clear and modern framework that is easier to administer and explain, and it will enable the Ministry of Defence to plan more effectively for workforce requirements and defence readiness. The amendments will also ensure greater compatibility with a new workforce model—zig-zag careers, as we are calling it—provided for by clause 31. We want to encourage a much more flexible working approach that mirrors civilian society and allows people’s careers to be more flexible, but it is difficult and complicated to calculate exactly when the 18-year liability should start for people who move between the regulars and reserves, and potentially back again.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I welcome the introduction of the strategic reserve in the Bill, but I would like clarity on how it will be paid for. Will it be via separate funding or will it come from the money already allocated to pay for the active reserve in the MOD budget?

[Al Carns]

As the hon. Member will know, there is a multitude of different reserves in the system, with different liabilities, different pay and different pensions. Indeed, I have often described it as a spaghetti junction of different policies that have been layered on top of each other over the last 60 years. This is the first move to simplify that, as well as the funding mechanisms and recall processes for it. By removing the 18-year liability, we simplify it at 65 years, which creates our ability to zig-zag those roles within the military so that people can leave, rejoin and leave again depending on their personal circumstances and the liability available within the armed forces.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

This weekend, just over two years after leaving the military, I received my recall notification. I managed to update the details within it. At the same time, I was presented with nearly 60 pages-worth of forms to complete just to take on a reserve service commitment. Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that there is still some way to go and that the amendments should perhaps speak of movement between reserve forces and regular forces, rather than the other way round?

[Al Carns]

That is one of the reasons for these amendments and other provisions in the Bill. In the past, personnel had to leave the regular forces to join the reserves and leave the reserves to join the regular forces. We want to create a seamless transition, which will reduce the 60 pages of administrative burden that my hon. Friend had to fill in to a much more seamless transition between regular and reserve services, mirroring other nations across the world that do it quite well.

We need a system that is fair and equitable and that does not discriminate against anyone who wishes to exercise that flexibility. It is worth noting what that will provide for the UK in the current geostrategic environment. It will likely take us from a strategic reserve of 95,000 that could be mobilised up to 150,000 over the next 10 years, which is a significant step forward.

All the other Government amendments tabled in my name are either consequential to the amendments I have just covered or are minor and technical, simply to improve the drafting of the Bill.

I turn to the Opposition amendments. On amendments 2, 3 and 4, I am aware that the Minister for Veterans and People recently met the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) to discuss the concerns behind them. We continue to work across Government on the best way to address those issues in practice. The better route is not a rigid statutory fix but practical improvements through existing systems. The statutory guidance on the covenant legal duty already gives public bodies a flexible framework to take account of the particular challenges service families face when on the move. Let me be clear: considering the statutory guidance supporting the duty is not optional; once it is in force, public bodies that are subject to the duty must have regard to it in their decision making and policy development.

Special educational needs, adoption and fostering, and NHS continuity are exceptionally important issues, but they are not well addressed through rigid legislation. The systems are different, the legal frameworks are different and the decisions involved often depend on professional judgment, safeguarding or clinical need. A blanket duty to transfer plans, arrangements or treatment automatically could create confusion, cut across devolved responsibilities and in some cases delay the support families need. Instead, our focus is on improving continuity in delivery so that service families get better support without unintended consequences.

Amendment 88 would require the Secretary of State to review current practices for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements. The MOD maintains a comprehensive and ongoing programme of communication with both serving and former personnel, supported by established governance, regular data analysis and targeted engagement activity. The Department already monitors take-up and traces unclaimed entitlements 60 working days after pension due date. When a positive address is identified, individuals are contacted. That approach has resulted in over 10,000 pensions being brought into payment. Mandating a further statutory assessment would add process without delivering meaningful additional insight, diverting resource from delivery at a time when the focus is rightly on implementing pension remedies and strengthening frontline pension support.

Amendment 89 would require the Secretary of State to review current practices regarding the transfer of the medical records of armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. I reassure the Committee that no transfer of military healthcare records is needed when transferring from regular to reserve service because Defence continues to hold and manage healthcare records for reservists in the same electronic system, which will also be simplified by some of the reserve forces amendments I mentioned earlier. It is worth noting that we send out 425,000 quarterly digests to those receiving pensions across the system.

Amendment 90 seeks to make sure that all investigations and prosecutions of service persons for sexual offences and domestic abuse in the UK take place in a criminal justice system. Since the prosecutors’ protocols were published in 2023, there have been no cases where a victim wanted trial in the criminal justice system but the case was instead prosecuted in the service justice system. The amendment would, however, override the victim’s preference in cases where they would prefer the service justice system. That risks increasing the victim withdrawal rate in civilian police investigations which, for adult rape-flagged cases in 2024, was 59%, while the withdrawal rate for the Defence Serious Crime Command was 24%. Furthermore, the amendment could lead to the loss or erosion of golden hour evidence and the safeguarding of victims, as there is no duty on civilian police to accept the case. A case-by-case approach that takes into account the views of the victim is better. Clause 25 therefore strengthens the provision of information to victims when asked for their preferred jurisdiction. That will help prosecutors take into account the victim’s view when making a decision on jurisdiction.

Amendment 5 would extend eligibility to sit on a court martial board to retired officers. The Government do not consider the amendment to be necessary, nor do we believe that it would improve the current arrangements. First, there is no shortage of eligible board members. The court martial already draws from a broad and sufficient pool of eligible personnel. In 2025, for example, 447 service personnel were sworn for 263 trials, and there has been no difficulty in constituting boards. Secondly, it is important that board members bring current knowledge and practical experience of the latest single service policies, procedures, values and standards. An individual who has left service, even relatively recently, may no longer be sufficiently connected to the pace of change across the service. I recognise the valuable contribution that veterans continue to make, but service on a court martial board is not the appropriate means of drawing on that experience. It is also worth noting that, when we are court-martialling higher rank, there are over 331 one stars in the British military and therefore ample opportunity to sit on court martial boards.

Amendment 1 would ensure that persons undertaking vital civilian work are exempt from a recall order under new section 69A of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Section 73 of the Reserve Forces Act already provides powers of exemption to recall. That existing provision allows the Defence Council, by regulations, to exempt individuals from or relax recall liability in total.

Amendment 6 aims to increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army reserve group A from 180 days to 90 days. I reassure the Committee that all Army readiness levels are subject to annual review, and to effectively fulfil its obligations 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 rigid constraints, creating an obstacle rather than a suitable mechanism for setting and reviewing readiness levels.

Hopefully, I have given the necessary assurances, and I ask that the Opposition amendments be withdrawn.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Martin, are you hoping to contribute today, or do we just have the pleasure of your company?

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

indicated dissent.

[The Chairman]

Marvellous. I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Francois]

I rise to speak to amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 6, which appear in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I will say a little about each amendment and new clause in turn. I will also refer to new clause 5, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), and say at least a little about the multiplicity of Government amendments that have just been tabled, in particular Government amendment 54 on the proposed Crown immunity for the defence housing service. By your leave, Madam Chairman, I propose to speak to the amendments first and then to refer to the new clauses a little later in the debate so as not to try the patience of the Committee with an inordinately long speech.

I hope that we have collectively done the House and, indeed, the armed forces a service in our scrutiny of the Bill so far. The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, most of whose members are here, held seven oral evidence sessions on the Bill’s contents, as well as making a fact-finding visit to the Defence Serious Crime Command in Fareham and to defence housing sites at Emsworth near His Majesty’s Naval Base Portsmouth. As a Committee, we received 47 pieces of written evidence and heard from 42 witnesses. Having held the evidence sessions, we then went through a detailed process of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill and produced our subsequent report to the House, which was published on 29 April.

The Bill has already had quite a detailed amount of scrutiny; however, it is right that a measure of such importance is now in Committee on the Floor of the House. I reiterate my disappointment that Reform does not regard these proceedings as important. I am sure that the rest of us do; that is why we are here.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I reiterate the fact that there are no Members here from the party led by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), in particular because so many of the local authorities responsible for implementing the armed forces covenant are led by that particular party. It is grossly incompetent that they are not here to listen and learn.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. May I reiterate the comments made by the Chairman of Ways and Means earlier? The point that the hon. Lady and others have raised is not in the scope of this Bill, so perhaps it is best if we move on.

[Mr Francois]

Thank you, Ms Nokes. I will not cut across your ruling, but I do nevertheless say that I wholly agree with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor).

During the process of the Bill so far, we in His Majesty’s Opposition have sought to act as critical friends, agreeing with the Government when we think they have done the right thing and probing them when we think they could perhaps have done better. The Government have now tabled some 81 new clauses and amendments in toto. Many, as the Minister has said, are relatively minor or technical drafting improvements, but some are quite substantial, in particular those relating to the proposed new defence housing service and the service justice system.

I would like to ask the Minister a specific question about Government amendment 54, the essence of which is that, where property held by the defence housing service is to be treated as property held on behalf of the Crown, the defence housing service should have

“the same immunities, privileges and exemptions in respect of its holding of that property as would apply if it were property held by or on behalf of the Crown.”

It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the House exactly what that means in practice.

15:30

Specifically, if this amendment is to grant Crown immunity to the defence housing service, which is what the wording implies, how would that affect the ability of armed forces families to raise complaints about the standards of their accommodation? The Minister will recall that we spent a lot of time in Committee debating the future operation of the defence housing service, and he stressed on several occasions his wish to raise standards. We took him at his word, so perhaps he could reassure the House that there is nothing in amendment 54 that would impede that process or make it in any way more difficult for dissatisfied military tenants to see their needs addressed.

I shall turn now to our own amendments. Amendment 1 relates to those people who might be eligible to be called up as reserves but who also perform work that is vital to defence in their civilian employment. During the second world war, people in such a situation were generally referred to as working in reserved occupations. The essence of this amendment is that the Secretary of State should be able to define, via regulations, certain categories of civilian work that would be classed as reserved occupations, and therefore be able to exempt people in that category from being mobilised. We still believe that is a practical suggestion, but I take the point that there is already some power on the statute book allowing Ministers to do that. I think we are halfway there, so I am not minded to press the amendment to a vote this evening.

Our amendments 2 and 3 refer to service personnel with children who have special educational needs, and to the related matter of service personnel who wish to foster or adopt children. Both amendments are based on one of the two key principles of the armed forces covenant—namely, that those in the armed forces and their families should suffer no disadvantage as a result of their decision to serve their country, relative to those in the civilian community.

As hon. Members across the House will no doubt know from their own constituency casework, it is sometimes quite difficult for parents of children with special educational needs to achieve an education, health and care plan. The length of time taken to complete the process can vary considerably between different local authority areas, but times of between one and two years are by no means unusual. Let us take as an example some service parents who were based in Tidworth and who had managed to achieve an EHCP for their child from Wiltshire, as their local education authority, but were then transferred by the military to Catterick garrison in North Yorkshire. The risk is that they would then have to start the EHCP process all over again.

Anecdotally, some service parents have left the armed forces in order to protect the EHCP for their child rather than risk the delay that might be incurred by having to go round the loop all over again if they were transferred for operational or other reasons. In short, they put their children before their service, and I think anyone can understand why, morally, they might make that choice.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

The right hon. Member is making a powerful point, and it is something I hope that I can expand on as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community. We have worked extensively with the Department for Education on this matter, and I hope to be able to address the right hon. Member’s concerns in my speech later. Does he recognise that special educational needs and disability policy should fall under the Department for Education, and that the point of the armed forces covenant is that we can have some leverage over the Department for Education rather than placing this detail in the Bill?

[Mr Francois]

There has been a leak: the hon. Gentleman has clearly had access to my speech. He has put a lot of work into this issue, so perhaps I can meet him halfway with what I am about to say.

In fairness, there are already DFE guidelines that can facilitate the portability of an EHCP from one local education authority to another. The crucial point, however, is that that is by voluntary agreement, and there is no guarantee that if service personnel are transferred at the behest of their commanders, the LEA into which they will move will accept the EHCP on transfer. The essence of amendment 2 is that it would ensure that that process does take place, rather than leaving it as a matter of discretion for the receiving LEA, which itself may be under considerable pressure to meet the demand for SEN support.

Amendment 3, which relates to adoption and fostering, is similar in spirit. It would mean that service personnel who have begun the fostering and adoption process under one local education authority would not have to go again to the back of the queue, as it were, if they were to transfer to another. The spirit of both amendments is the same.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

I place on record my thanks to the shadow Minister, the APPG and others for their work on this matter. I have constituents—I am very proud to represent Weeton barracks—who have had to make that choice because of the postcode lottery to which my right hon. Friend refers. Whether an LEA accepts the transfer is down to its discretion. That is such an important point, and I thank him for making it.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend is bearing out the point that there are real-world examples of this issue coming into play, and he has done the Committee a service by reiterating that.

The Minister for Veterans and People kindly met me and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) last month to discuss whether the Government might be able to do more on this subject, and in fact the Minister for the Armed Forces referred to that meeting in his remarks a few minutes ago. During the meeting with the Minister for Veterans and People, we suggested—here is the leak—that, given the announcement in the King’s Speech that there would be a new Bill on the whole topic of special educational needs, one way of achieving the aim of the amendment might be to include such a provision in that Bill—in a DFE Bill, rather than an MOD Bill. That would still, at the end of the day, achieve the same desirable outcome. The Minister undertook to go away and look at the matter, including potentially in consultation with colleagues from the DFE. Having received her letter of yesterday, I have to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that I was extremely disappointed in its tone. It was a classic civil service boilerplate reply that bore little relation to the discussion that we had in the Minister’s office. I can only ask her to look at this again, perhaps in the context of the new DFE legislation, as I have just suggested.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Rather than the shadow Minister extending his speech, I urge Members concerned with this area to perhaps listen to what I will explain, which is the work that we have been doing with the DFE. We have had members from the armed forces community from across the country liaising directly with the Department for Education and the Minister for Veterans and People. I will try to put that across in my speech.

[Mr Francois]

I do not want to pre-empt what will no doubt be an erudite speech, but the key point is that there is a mechanism for doing this—we are halfway there.

If service parents get a transfer order a few months in advance, then unless they can be certain that the receiving LEA will accept their EHCP, which they may have gone through a bureaucratic minefield to achieve—I am sure we all have individual examples from our constituencies—are they going to risk it? Will they stick or twist? Or will they leave the service and try to find somewhere local to live, but at least keep the precious EHCP? The nub of the matter is whether we can make it mandatory that the transfer takes place. Having made the point, I will rest, and wait for the contribution from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey).

Amendment 4 is similar in spirit to amendments 2 and 3, but relates to the national health service rather than to education. The essence of the amendment is that military personnel who are already on a waiting list for treatment in one NHS integrated care board area should not suffer any disadvantage relative to the civilian community if, again, they have to be transferred for operational or other service-related reasons. In plain English, they should not lose their place in the queue.

[Dr Murrison]

One area that will blight the lives of many of my right hon. Friend’s constituents as it does mine is, of course, primary care dentistry. People can move from one end of the country to another into a dental desert—Wiltshire is one of those. Does he think that there is a case for putting a duty on integrated care boards to translate people’s position with an NHS dentist—where they are lucky enough to find one—to their new area? I am thinking particularly of Wiltshire and the shortage of places, especially for service children and the partners of service personnel.

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend is of course a former MOD Minister himself and represents a large number of service personnel. It is obvious from his intervention that he understands the issue very well. What he has just asked me is wholly in line with the spirit of our amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley unfortunately has a competing commitment this afternoon with the Justice Committee and the report on jury trial, which I hope the House accepts is a very important matter. He hopes to join us later in the debate when he has attended to that. Given his medical expertise, he pressed this point with the Minister for Veterans and People at the same meeting that I have referred to. Sadly, again, we received an equally uninspiring reply. For the record, given that the King’s Speech also presaged new legislation on NHS organisation, we sought to suggest that one way to proceed might be to include an amendment in that Bill rather than in this one. In other words, that medical issue could be put in a Bill introduced by Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care. I reiterate our request, perhaps to the Government more broadly, to consider what we still regard to be a sensible proposal.

I turn now to amendment 5 on court martial boards. One issue highlighted during our visit to see the service justice system was the challenge of finding sufficient officers to serve on court martial boards who are in no way connected with the defendant. That can become more of a challenge as defendants become more senior, as the pool of officers from which to draw narrows as one moves up the promotion pyramid. The essence of the amendment is to allow retired officers to be drawn upon to help comprise the membership of boards for court martial, and therefore to widen the potential pool of those who might be available to undertake this important military and, indeed, civic duty.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very indulgent. I agree with him and—with respect—not with the Minister, because my recollection from being the Minister at the time was that there was a shortage of officers to populate court martial boards. When in office, we ensured that the process was service agnostic, which gave a bigger pool from which to draw. Would it be a compromise to allow retired officers of a certain seniority or length of time out of service, since that would maintain the currency that clearly is troubling the Minister? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Minister is right to require OR-7s, as well as warrant officers, to serve on court martial boards since that would expand the pool of people available?

[Mr Francois]

Again, my right hon. Friend makes a very important point: allowing tri-service boards increases the potential pool, even of senior officers, who can serve.

When we made that visit, the Minister was not able to be with us. That is no criticism; he is an MOD Minister, and he has a lot to think about—he has a great deal to think about at the moment—but he was not able to be there on that visit, so he did not hear it from the horse’s mouth. This issue was raised with us by practitioners in the service justice system.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Francois]

They told us as a Committee—I am looking round the House for nods of assent from others who were on the visit, and I am getting them—that it was a problem, and it was cramping the ability to hold court martials. All we were trying to do was justify the cost of the train ticket to the taxpayer and prove that we had listened to what we were told on the visit, so I do not quite take the Minister’s sanguine approach that there are plenty of officers to go round. I will not hammer the nail any further, but I respectfully ask him to look at this one more time, particularly after the contributions today.

13:22

The essence of amendment 6 is to speed up the potential mobilisation of group A reserves from readiness level R9, which is 180 days, to readiness level R8, which is 90 days. Again, we debated this in the Select Committee, where I was keen to point out to the Minister that this suggestion came from the shop floor, as it were, having been put to me by a number of serving reserve officers—no names and no pack drill, in order to prevent any career damage. They were very clear that they would like the Government to accelerate their potential mobilisation timetable. It is because it came from that quarter that we gave this request particular consideration.

I recall the Minister giving an undertaking to the Select Committee that he would take the suggestion away and look at it in more detail, in consultation with officials in his Department. We were therefore cautiously optimistic that that might lead to some change in the Government’s position. I heard what the Minister just said, but we have re-tabled this amendment to give him an opportunity to report back to the House on the fruit of those discussions. Given the strong hint that he dropped in Committee, I urge the Minister to think again on that, bearing in mind that the idea does not come from me or my right hon. and hon. Friends; it was the idea of serving reserve officers. I am passporting their plea to him to mobilise them more quickly, should the situation require it—it is as simple as that.

I thank the Committee for its indulgence; I will sit down now to facilitate other contributions, not least on education, health and care plans. By your leave, Madam Chairman, I might want to speak again towards the end, when we have heard the debate, particularly on the new clauses. For the moment, though, I will rest there.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister and his team at the Ministry of Defence for their engagement with the Defence Committee on this legislation, including the helpful briefing they gave us ahead of Second Reading. I also thank the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, chaired by my good friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). He and the other Select Committee members have done incredible work. I place on record my thanks to my Defence Committee colleagues, the hon. and gallant Members for North Devon (Ian Roome) and for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), who served on that Select Committee.

The Defence Committee naturally takes a close interest in the areas affected by the Bill. Beginning with clause 2, we strongly welcome the Government extending the armed forces covenant to new policy areas and making the duty binding on Whitehall Departments and the devolved Administrations. That is something we recommended in our inquiry report on the covenant last year. At the time, we said that legislation would be only one part of the solution for strengthening the covenant and that the Government needed to make sure that the covenant legal duty is more consistently applied, by improving guidance and training.

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

The measures on the armed forces covenant are one of the most impressive things about this Bill, not just UK-wide, but for the 115,000 veterans in Wales and their families who will now benefit from the legal duty on public services to take into consideration their specific circumstances. Will my hon. Friend join me in wishing a very happy Armed Forces Day to Prestatyn Royal British Legion branch, as I will when I celebrate and commemorate this special day with them later this month?

[Mr Dhesi]

I commend my hon. Friend’s intervention and join her in extending my best wishes. It is welcome that the Government have published draft guidance on the legal duty, and I am pleased that it includes an explanation of what it means to pay “due regard” to the covenant, because witnesses to our inquiry told us that that phrase can sometimes seem ambiguous. I hope the Minister will consult widely with those affected by the legal duty to ensure that the guidance meets their needs. Our Committee will be watching closely to see whether the expanded covenant is being delivered and is making a positive difference for our armed forces community.

The creation of a new defence housing service in clause 3 is also welcome. I am pleased that the Government have made it a priority to modernise the defence estate and have committed £9 billion over 10 years to support that work. The challenge for the Minister will be to ensure that the funding is delivered as promised; in the current geopolitical climate it is not hard to imagine that the Government might come under pressure to divert scarce resources in response to some crisis. I hope the Government will uphold their commitment to our service families, come what may.

The new powers in clause 4 to counter uncrewed devices are sorely needed. My Committee’s inquiry “Defence in the Grey Zone” examined the many kinds of hybrid threat posed by hostile states, including drones. The armed forces need the power to deal with such threats, to show our adversaries that their hybrid tactics will not work against us.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

The other day I had the opportunity to meet the Ministry of Defence Police and their chief constable at RAF Wyton in my constituency. I was impressed by the counter-drone capability that they are now equipped with; it is vastly in excess of what Home Office policing teams now have, and it is a simple solution to provide the counter-drone capability that we should have at all our bases. I urge the hon. Gentleman to put pressure on the Minister to roll out those new CPM-Wilson and CPM-Watson counter-drone weapons to all our bases, to ensure that that capability is as widespread as possible.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that intervention. The Defence Committee had the good fortune to view some of those counter-drone measures during one of our visits, and I fully concur with his views.

The measures on service justice are focused on better supporting victims of serious offences. As the Minister knows, this subject comes up time and again in the Defence Committee’s regular sessions on women in the armed forces, and I am pleased that it is a focus of the Bill. It is only right that the Bill brings protections available in the service justice system, such as domestic abuse orders and stalking protection orders, into line with those available in the civilian system.

The new reporting requirements and the victims’ code are also welcome changes, but it has been our experience as a Committee—as it was for our predecessors—that new initiatives do not always have the impact we would hope for, because they take place in an environment and culture that does not take the needs of victims as seriously as it should. I know that we cannot legislate for culture, but unless there is proper training on the measures in the Bill, and a message from leaders throughout defence that things must change, it is likely that our Committee will continue to hear stories from victims who feel let down by the service justice system.

The Bill also aims to update the way that defence uses reserves, and I welcome clause 31, which will make it easier to move between regular and reserve forces. That will support more flexible career paths, allowing people with military expertise to move into roles in industry, and vice versa. The changes to call-out and recall conditions in clauses 32 and 33 should help to strengthen the capacity of our reserves. Reserves are a key component of our nation’s readiness; showing that we are ready to respond to aggression deters our enemies and lets us respond more effectively, if needed. I hope that these measures will soon be followed by further steps to improve our readiness, including the promised defence readiness Bill, which is needed sooner rather than later.

While the measures in the Bill will undoubtedly improve our readiness, they are focused on the strategic reserve only. The strategic defence review stated an ambition to increase the active reserve by 20% when funding allows. We do not know how and when that will be achieved. The measures in the Bill are a good start, but there is more work to do.

In conclusion—I see you are giving me a stare, Madam Chair—I believe the Bill will make a positive difference to the lives of those who serve in our armed forces, and I will certainly support it as it continues to make progress through the House.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

There is much in the Bill that deserves support. It renews the statutory basis for our armed forces, extends the armed forces covenant duty, introduces a defence housing service and reforms certain aspects of the service justice system. Those are genuine steps forward, and we acknowledge them as such. However, good intentions are not the same as good outcomes, and our amendments seek to close the gap between the two.

Let me begin with the question of people—specifically, how we recruit them, retain them and treat them when they leave. The Government will shortly ask Parliament to authorise maximum numbers of service personnel across each branch of the armed forces.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

The Bill makes great strides in Ministry of Defence housing standards, and the enshrinement of the covenant is to be lauded. However, I cannot help but feel that there is a sense of strategic lethargy, with a lack of serious worked-through policies to tackle the crisis in recruitment and retention. For example, from what I can see, there is no mention of incentives or bonuses. Is that an oversight or a deliberate decision to put those issues on the back burner? To put it another way, are the Government now simply content to sit on their hands while the crisis deepens?

[James MacCleary]

My hon. Friend raises questions for the Minister to answer in closing the debate, but recruitment and retention are key concerns and have been a sort of crisis in the armed forces for many years.

In the context of authorising the maximum numbers of service personnel, it is reasonable that Parliament should be told how the Government plan to treat those people in service. New clause 9 would require publication of a retention strategy alongside the authorisation. It is a modest proposal, and the case for it is straightforward; recruitment alone solves nothing, if the conditions of service drive people back out of the door. We can invest in advertising, outreach and processing, and still find ourselves filling a vessel that will not hold. The problems that cause people to leave are well known: inadequate housing, unsupported families, opaque career structures and a sense that the institution does not value them as individuals.

New clause 10 would require an independent review to examine precisely those factors, including diversity, inclusion, the medical discharge process and the state of defence housing, not because these are peripheral concerns, but because they are operational ones.

[Dr Murrison]

I am concerned by the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. We have the continuous attitude survey, which does its work every year and delivers to Ministers a clear account of what is keeping people in and what is driving them away. Is he seriously proposing another set of reviews, which would add very little to what we already know?

[James MacCleary]

The continuous attitude survey is a survey of service personnel, but a review is quite different, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates. We are talking about an independent review, which is not the same thing.

On housing, I want to be specific. The Government’s commitment to improving service family accommodation is welcome, but new clause 13 exists because single living accommodation has for too long been treated as a secondary concern. For a significant proportion of serving personnel, that accommodation is not temporary—it is their home. It is where they recover after deployment, where they live between postings and where they begin and end each working day. If it falls below a reasonable standard, that is not merely a welfare issue; it is a retention issue. We cannot speak of our people as our greatest asset while declining to apply that in principle to where they sleep.

16:00

Let me turn to veterans’ support. The move from military to civilian life is a difficult passage for some, and it should not be made harder by administrative failure. New clause 11 would ensure that personnel leaving service receive a complete copy of their medical records within one month of discharge, with the option for direct transfer to civilian health providers. That reflects a basic duty of care, and it really should not be complex. For someone leaving with physical injuries, trauma or a history that civilian doctors need to understand, a delayed or incomplete medical record can be more than just a bureaucratic inconvenience; it can be a genuine barrier to treatment.

New clause 12 would address something that we have discussed in this House for many years without sufficient action: veterans’ mental health.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Veterans’ mental health challenges can be significant, for obvious reasons—trauma, stress, spending a long time away from friends and family, and so on. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, devastatingly, veterans under the age of 24 have a suicide rate that is two to four times higher than that for the civilian population of the same age. Given that mental health problems are so significant and less visible than physical health needs, does my hon. Friend agree that establishing the role of a veterans’ mental health oversight officer, as outlined in new clause 12, would ensure that mental health support is robust?

[James MacCleary]

Absolutely. The suicide rate among young men in this country is already high, and the numbers relating to people discharged from the armed forces are deeply troubling.

We have passed motions, published strategies and made commitments, but we have not created proper, sustained oversight. As my hon. Friend mentions, a veterans’ mental health oversight officer with a statutory remit to monitor provision, assess compliance with covenant duties and report annually to Parliament would begin that change. The covenant should not be a postcode lottery; its outcomes should be measurable, consistent and accountable.

I also acknowledge the amendments tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on pension communications, the transfer of medical assessments, the reserve forces estate and the treatment of domestic abuse offences. In each case, they address the same underlying problem—that service personnel, veterans and their families are too often disadvantaged, not by malice, but by systems that do not speak to one another, and processes that were never designed with them in mind.

That brings me to the covenant. New clause 14 would place national standards around the extended covenant duty, requiring statutory guidance, minimum requirements for public bodies, proper training and a framework for monitoring reporting. New clause 15 would require the annual covenant report to assess compliance against those standards, analyse outcomes and make recommendations.

The objection to such measures is rarely principled. Almost no one opposes the covenant; the difficulty has always been with the consistency of delivery. One local authority may understand its obligations well, but another may not. One health body may have invested in this, but another may have done the minimum. One veteran may receive good support, but another with identical needs in a different part of the country may be left to navigate the system alone. These new clauses would make the covenant something more than just a statement of good faith. They would make it a standard that could be measured and enforced.

Finally, amendment 90 would require that allegations of sexual offences and domestic abuse occurring in the United Kingdom be referred immediately to the civilian police, and those offences would be prosecuted through the civilian justice system. Let me be clear: this amendment is recognition that when serious crimes are committed by someone in service—crimes that would, in any other context, be investigated by the police, and would be cases heard in a Crown court—the victims are entitled to the same confidence in the justice system as any other civilian. The Bill introduces new protections for victims of domestic abuse, stalking and sexual harm within the service justice system. Those changes are very welcome, but they do not fully answer the question of whether victims have sufficient confidence that a system embedded in a single institution can handle the most serious offences against them with complete independence.

Sexual offences and domestic abuse are not matters of military discipline; they are serious criminal matters. When they occur in the United Kingdom, there is no compelling reason why investigation and prosecution should default to a separate system. Amendment 90 would remove that ambiguity, give victims clarity, and demonstrate that justice for individuals takes precedence over institutional processes.

[Dr Murrison]

The question is surely whether victims are given a choice. At the moment, they are. The prosecutors’ protocol usually means that these cases are tried through the civilian criminal justice system. That is fine, but does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that justice delayed is justice denied? Through the service justice system, these cases are brought to a conclusion far more rapidly than they currently are in our civilian criminal justice system.

[James MacCleary]

I understand exactly what the right hon. and gallant Member is saying, but failures in the civilian justice system—which, as he rightly observes, has a big backlog of cases—should not be a reason for reducing people’s confidence about coming forward with complaints. We know from the continuous attitude survey, to which he has referred, that the main reasons given by personnel for not making a written, formal complaint continue to be not believing that anything will be done with the complaint, and believing that it might adversely affect their career. It would encourage more people to come forward if they knew that the complaint would be dealt with in the civilian system. The amendments I have spoken to do not unpick the Bill, nor do they reverse its intentions.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

So that I can understand, could the hon. Gentleman explain slightly more carefully why he is proposing to remove the choice that the victim has? They can say which of the two systems—the service justice system or the civilian justice system—they have more confidence in. Why would it be better for the victim if that choice were removed, and they had to go down the civilian justice system route?

[James MacCleary]

As I am sure the hon. Member is aware, this was a recommendation of the Atherton report, and there was good reason for it. That inquiry took a lot of evidence on this subject, and the view was that this change would increase confidence. Serving personnel bringing complaints against senior officers may feel pressure to keep their complaint within the service, and so may not receive the justice they need. We have looked at the findings of the Atherton report and agree with them, so we have included that recommendation in the amendments that we tabled to the Bill.

We ask the Government to go one step further and convert general commitments into specific duties, and provide the structures, standards and oversight that will determine whether those duties are genuinely met. Our armed forces are held to the highest standards in everything they do; it is not unreasonable to expect the same of the legislation that governs how we treat them. I hope that the Government and this Committee will take these amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are meant, and will support them.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I welcome the many amendments tabled to this Bill, the first of which is the Government’s amendment to include the Greater London Authority among bodies that must apply the covenant duty. As a London MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community, which has supported the campaign to ensure that military compensation is not treated as income for the purposes of welfare means-testing by local councils, I strongly welcome this step to ensure that the covenant applies to all local and regional authorities. I also recognise the changes that both Redbridge and Waltham Forest councils made to their treatment of military compensation last year as a result of that work.

The GLA has responsibility for critical aspects of everyday life in London, including transport through Transport for London and oversight of the Met, and it plays an important role in skills development and housing. We must ensure that all levels of government, including combined and mayoral authorities, have obligations under the covenant duty, so I welcome the GLA’s inclusion. However, I am concerned that some policy areas that—as our casework shows—intersect with local government, such as immigration, citizenship, pensions and armed forces compensation, are excluded from the local government scope. This risks current and future inconsistencies in the application of the covenant duty. Likewise, I remain concerned that the current draft of the statutory guidance makes it clear that non-ministerial Departments such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Ofsted and HM Prison and Probation Service are not covered by the covenant. Those institutions have critical roles in taxes and income support, education and the justice system, so I would welcome it if the Government could explain why those Departments are not included and say whether they will make changes to include them.

I turn to some of the Opposition’s proposed amendments. I understand and welcome the intent behind the amendment dealing with special educational needs and disabilities, but this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for such changes. SEND policy falls within the remit of the Department for Education, which is now rightly covered by the covenant extension, including in this legislation.

The APPG on the armed forces community has contributed to the Department for Education’s SEND consultation, with particularly notable contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), who has been leading on this area for members of the Army and her local community. Drawing on a number of meetings that the APPG held with the Minister for School Standards, we hosted a roundtable involving civil servants from the Department, researchers from Oxford Brookes University and Edinburgh Napier University, the three armed forces family federations, the Royal British Legion and the SSAFA. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot raised the well-evidenced and distinct challenges faced by our service children arising from frequent relocations across borders—challenges that the SEND White Paper did not adequately recognise. However, the solution is not the automatic transfer of plans. Our devolved education system means that an education, health and care plan in England is not equivalent to a co-ordinated support plan in Scotland. In England, around 5% to 6% of children with additional needs qualify for an EHCP, but only about 0.2% qualify in Scotland.

Making one legislative change in this Bill will not automatically make our disconnected SEND systems conform to the needs of our service children. Instead, we need the standardisation and timely transfer of records. Children’s SEND documentation must move with them. Records from devolved Administrations and overseas postings must properly be considered and accepted by receiving authorities, and this must be accompanied by a greater understanding of the different education systems from which service children may arrive, including overseas systems. The amendment does not address that. We have raised that issue with the Minister for School Standards.

Training about armed forces life should be embedded in mandatory SEND teacher training. There must be stronger cross-nation co-ordination between the four Education Departments to establish shared principles for the transfer of support, particularly as all four systems are undergoing reform. That work must be led first and foremost by the Department for Education. The repeated and genuine engagement we have had with Education Ministers gives me hope that these changes will come forward.

New clause 5 would waive fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses and dependants of serving or discharged members of the armed forces. I strongly welcome the intent of the amendment. As its author, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), knows, this policy was included in the Labour manifesto in 2024, and it must be delivered by the Home Office. While I understand that the Home Office is working on the issue with the Ministry of Defence, we are nearly two years on from the general election, and there is still no clarity on when this change will be introduced. In the meantime, the families of service personnel are struggling to afford to stay in this country, and that is plainly wrong.

As many members of the armed forces community APPG know—they support this amendment—we have repeatedly sought clarity from the Home Office on how the new immigration rule changes will affect service personnel and their dependants. I have repeatedly requested meetings with Home Office officials over months, but—this is in contrast to the position with the Department for Education—I have made little or no progress. I am therefore pleased that I have been granted a meeting on this matter next week. Responses to my letters state that the views of the armed forces community will be considered, but that does not mean that they are being heard.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am grateful to my fellow member of the Defence Committee for giving way. If he supports new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), will he vote for it?

[Mr Bailey]

I hope to provide the detail on why new clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, is not appropriate in this Bill. The Home Office must take on this work and responsibility, which is why the armed forces covenant has been put in place. We must make sure that all Departments take their responsibilities seriously, but this Bill is not the mechanism for doing so.

16:14

There are 8,000 personnel from Commonwealth and overseas nations serving in the UK armed forces—more than one in 20 of all trained regulars—and 1,008 veterans in England and Wales were born outside the UK, including me, yet the immigration system that servicepeople face remains stressful, costly and unfair. I will continue to press for a more comprehensive approach, including automatic enrolment for those who have served in our armed forces. That would remove not only the financial cost but the administrative burden of compiling evidence, as well as the disruption that is often caused by having to wait while being unable to work and contribute to our country. It would also offer vital protection to those who are medically discharged before completing four years of service—service personnel who, under the current system, are usually denied visas and instructed to seek treatment back home, despite having already risked life and limb in the service of their country.

Even with the proposed removal of fees for dependants, the current Home Office approach to non-UK personnel remains inconsistent with the principles of the armed forces covenant, which is why I do not support new clause 5. It is the covenant that should do that work. The reality of military life makes navigating a complex and bureaucratic application process especially difficult. From the work of the APPG on the armed forces community, it is clear that there is cross-party support for the automatic enrolment of those who have served. It is therefore difficult to understand why the Home Office remains so reluctant to introduce measures to ensure that non-UK personnel are not disadvantaged by their service.

Again, I welcome the Home Office’s meaningful engagement with the APPG on this issue. This is first and foremost a Home Office responsibility, and it must consider how best to implement the covenant, which extends to its work. Although the policy that new clause 5 seeks to address needs to be changed as soon as possible, the new clause is premature. However, I hope that the Ministry of Defence will continue to press the Home Office to move further and faster.

I turn briefly to new clause 2, which is about the laying of the defence investment plan.

[Mr Francois]

I fully acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s point about education being a devolved matter, which makes the SEN issue more complicated. He is quite correct about that, but does he acknowledge that amendment 2 allows for that and specifically refers to it? Secondly, there is no cross-border issue in England. If I agree with him that this would best be done via an education Bill, will he agree with me that in England there is no impediment whatsoever to making the transfer of EHCPs for service children mandatory?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. One thing that came up very strongly in the APPG’s discussions with the Department—we had military families from all three services, and representatives of all the service organisations—was that this problem is faced by all people; it is just that service families and service children manifest the issue most specifically. The problem has to be fixed for all people in the United Kingdom, which is why the changes were taken on board as part of the SEND work. We received a great amount of care and support from the Department, and I hope that the work will prove beneficial. Where I see a bit of a failing is that, in taking that on, the Department could perhaps have noted that work, so that service families could have seen that it had been part of the considerations. That was a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot made to the Minister, and I hope that it will be addressed in the next iteration of the SEND work.

[Mr Francois]

The difference is that, while people in civilian life sometimes have to move jobs at the behest of their employer, service personnel are ordered to go. They really have no choice: once they have been posted, they have to go. Therefore, in ordering them to go, the state should have a moral obligation to deal with the consequences for special needs children. Does the hon. Member accept that that is a difference between service and civilian life, and that under the principle of “no disadvantage” in the covenant, the state should do the right thing?

[Mr Bailey]

The right hon. Member makes a powerful point, and I agree with him entirely. That is why it is so important we make sure that the armed forces covenant works. The covenant will have to do a lot of work and heavy lifting, just as it will in relation to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, but we will have the legal power and we will have recourse to those Departments. We hope to hear from Ministers today that they will press home the legal advantage they now have in that regard.

Finally, this debate reminds us that the Armed Forces Act 2006 was itself forged in the context of its time. It brought together a number of separate pieces of legislation and created a framework suited to an era in which the size and scope of the armed forces were reducing and many of the strategic assumptions underpinning our national security appeared to be settled. The measures in this Bill are all welcome and necessary, but they remind us that much of the heavy lifting now sits elsewhere. Questions about mobilisations, reserve integration, military aid to the civil authorities, the legal protections offered to service personnel acting on behalf of the state, and wider national resilience sit largely beyond the scope of the Bill, yet those issues are becoming increasingly important as the strategic environment changes around us. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that the legal frameworks governing our armed forces continue to evolve alongside those changes. This Bill makes important improvements, but it should also encourage us to think carefully about the work that remains to be done and ensure that future legislation is ambitious enough to meet the realities of the world as it is, rather than the world as it once was.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wish to speak to new clause 5, which I tabled. I start by thanking all Opposition Members—both in my party and across four other parties—who have supported this amendment. Let the record show that not one person on the Labour Benches supported it.

We often speak in this House about veterans, our shared respect for those who have served and how best to support veterans in their post-military life, be it with careers, housing, mental health or simply the frailty of growing old. With that shared sense of society repaying our collective debt to those who have served must come the moral courage to do the right thing that we expect those who have served to show.

During my Army career, I had the privilege to serve alongside and command soldiers from all over the Commonwealth—Australians and Canadians, South Africans and Jamaicans. As a support weapons platoon commander, a quarter of my anti-tank platoon was Fijian. As hon. Members may expect from a fine rugby playing regiment such as the Duke of Wellington’s, it was unbelievably competitive to get a spot on the wing. I therefore know well the courage and the sacrifice shown by our Commonwealth personnel not only today, but alongside me on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and during operations across the globe long preceding that. We owe those men and women the right to make a life in the country they have risked theirs to defend.

Over four years ago, in April 2022, the previous Government implemented a visa fee waiver for those who have served in the UK armed forces. That waiver also applied to eligible veterans who were yet to regularise their immigration status. Having campaigned for that long before I became an MP, it was hugely welcome to see the playing field levelled somewhat for Commonwealth veterans. While that was a welcome first step, I personally felt that it was not enough.

We in this Chamber often recognise the sacrifice and the challenges of those families left behind when service personnel deploy. Being a military spouse or child is not easy. This situation is made even harder for the family of a Commonwealth service member, because while we waived the fees for serving personnel in 2022, we did not extend the right to the immediate family and dependants of that service member. That means many Commonwealth veterans are saddled with significant visa fees if they wish to stay in the UK as a family after leaving the armed forces.

From 8 April this year, when the cost increased once again, the base fee for applying for indefinite leave to remain is £3,226 per person. To put into context the speed of that increase, when we waived fees for service members just four years ago, it was £2,389 per person—a near £1,000 increase. That is just for indefinite leave to remain, not citizenship. In the US armed forces, a non-US citizen can achieve full US citizenship upon discharge for the price of the admin fee—just a few dollars. A service member, their spouse and two children now potentially face a cost of just shy of £10,000 for the right to live in the country they have risked their life to defend. I defy anybody to tell me that that is fair.

It is not until the 12-year point that personnel become entitled to a resettlement grant of £15,047. The purpose of the resettlement grant is to do precisely what it says: to give people a head start, be it through a trade course, a deposit for a house or the funds to set up an entrepreneurial new business. None of those options is available to those who need to spend the majority of the grant on just obtaining the right to live in the country.

What on earth are we doing? Why are we fleecing those who have served this country, saddling them with a five-figure burden? The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland lead the charge on this campaign. They have pushed for these changes consistently. They highlight that in delivering this manifesto pledge, the Government would fulfil their obligations under the armed forces covenant by removing those disadvantages and barriers to family life.

Going into the 2024 general election, the Conservative manifesto looked to correct this issue. As part of our pledge to veterans, we announced that a Conservative Government would:

“extend the visa fees waiver introduced to cover Commonwealth personnel, to include their direct dependants.”

The Labour manifesto, too, made that pledge, stating:

“We will also scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years, and their dependents.”

So where are we with that? I have raised the question on a number of occasions. In November 2024, I asked the then Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), what the timetable was for delivering that manifesto pledge. I was told:

“We are working on that. It is in the manifesto, and it will come out in due course.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 22.]

In June 2025, during the Armed Forces Day debate, I asked the then Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), if he could provide an update

“on the work being done to waive visa fees for families and dependants of our Commonwealth personnel”.

He told me:

“We have a manifesto commitment to deliver that. The Defence Secretary has spoken to the Home Secretory about this, and our officials are in dialogue about it. I hope that the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after this area, will be able to announce progress in due course. The hon. Member and I share a strong sense that there is a wrong to be righted here, and those people who serve our country for a good period of time should be able to settle here. I think progress will be made, but I recognise his interest in that happening.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1290-1291.]

That was a year ago.

On 5 January 2026, the new Veterans Minister told me in a written answer that the Government are

“working closely with the Home Office to deliver this commitment”.

She went on to state:

“it is not possible at this stage to provide an implementation date”.

In April, she informed me:

“This Government is committed to waiving visa fees for non-UK veterans”.

In total, I have asked the Government for an update on the progress of the implementation of their manifesto pledge seven times and we are no closer to an implementation date after nearly two years than we were when the Government came to power.

I am not seeking to apportion individual blame here. Having spoken to Ministers individually, including the two on the Front Bench today, I do not doubt that the Defence Front Bench wishes to implement this policy, but there is clearly something that is causing it to stall, be that the Home Office or the machinery of government. There is an opportunity here to drive this policy forward. We should bear in mind that the Ministry of Defence does not even collate the information regarding the number of ILR applications submitted by family members of service personnel. It has literally no idea of the impact the failure to deliver this policy is having.

After two years with no timetable for implementation on the horizon, I have little confidence this is a priority on the MOD’s to-do list. I appreciate that the Government measure working flat-out in months, but this could be measured in continental drift. It simply does not appear to be a priority for the Government. However, my greater fear is that rather than do the right thing today, the Government will churlishly and spitefully vote against new clause 5, “because politics”. Not one Labour MP signed the new clause, despite every single one being asked twice. The Government have whipped their MPs not to support it, just as they will whip their MPs to vote against it.

A vote against new clause 5 is not just a vote against the Labour manifesto that each Labour MP stood on. It is a vote against our veterans. It is a vote against those who have risked their lives to defend this great nation. It is a vote that tells Commonwealth personnel that this Government do not have their back, that joining our armed forces will still see them treated as second-class citizens, with limited options post service. Those Labour MPs with a military presence in their constituencies should ask themselves how they will spin it to the service member who has to pay £10,000 to live here with their family, instead of putting down a deposit on a house or launching a business. They should ask themselves whether, for the sake of playing politics this evening, it is worth holding somebody else back.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. He is making a powerful speech, the majority of which I agree with. Does he recognise, however, that the armed forces covenant places a legal responsibility on all Departments to remove those barriers and impediments to service life? As a service member, I engaged with the Royal British Legion and Cobseo from about 2017 to try to address those barriers and impediments and failed to do so numerous times under the previous Government because of the nature and approach of the Home Office in addressing these problems. Perhaps the problem we have today is not whether the Department wants to address the issue, but a wider cultural problem. Would the hon. Gentleman join with the all-party parliamentary group to ensure that we apply and enforce the armed forces covenant in the way it is designed in order to achieve the outcomes on which we both agree?

15:00

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I do not disagree. I recognise the point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is making and his passion for delivering what he describes. I am a member of said all-party parliamentary group, and I am happy to push in order to try and get this across the line. I also recognise the politics of this. Although I am not sure his party will welcome him apparently somewhat throwing the Home Office under the bus in this instance, I recognise that there are complexities around the ability to deliver from a Home Office perspective. I know that is something that the Conservatives encountered when we were in government, and I imagine it is very much the same situation for the Government now.

I insist that new clause 5 is still a good new clause. It would come in the right place within the Armed Forces Bill. I recognise that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to give the Government some wiggle room to get out of voting for the new clause this evening, but I am convinced that it should be voted on, and that we should push it forward in order to put some pressure on the Home Office.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I just want to amplify what this means for our service people, as I know there is a slight conflation of issues here. As our service people approach the end of their time in service, if they are not a UK passport holder—the majority of those people may be Americans and not Commonwealth personnel—they will not have access to work and to credit during the final six months of their service. This impediment has been in place for decades; as I said, I fought to change it through Cobseo when I was in service, and we are trying to deal with it again now. That is why this matter is broader than the hon. Gentleman’s new clause.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I agree that it is a broader topic than simply covering Commonwealth veterans and their family members from those same Commonwealth countries. There are a number of personnel living here are UK personnel but have spouses and children who may be from overseas, and the same rules apply to them. I do not disagree with the hon. Member; I think we are very much on the same page on a number of issues—it is literally just the technicality of politics that is getting in the way.

We are squeamish when it comes to discussing immigration. No party has yet demonstrated that they have the right answer, but on this specific element of the debate, it is very simple: no matter how high a bar we set for the right to live in this country—whether that is for key workers or high net worth individuals—those who have risked their lives to defend the freedoms that we enjoy deserve to settle here with their families without penalty. That should always be above that high bar. At the heart of our security are the men and women who serve and risk their lives for this country. That is in the Labour manifesto. I urge Government Members to do the right thing today and support new clause 5.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am proud to be a Labour and Co-operative MP for a Cornish constituency with a strong military heritage. More than 30,000 Cornish residents have served or are serving in the armed forces. That is more than 6% of the population—nearly double the national average.

I am also proud to have sat on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. The Committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses, who informed our report, and I am pleased that the majority of the recommendations have been taken forward by the Government. Government amendment 9 deals with paragraph 19 of the Committee’s report:

“We heard concerns that the Bill’s definition of a local authority to which the Covenant will apply does not capture all kinds of local authority”.

Our report recommended that the Government consider whether the definition of “local authority” needs updating. The Ministry of Defence agreed with that conclusion, and an amendment has been tabled, but unitary authorities and single foundation authorities still do not appear to be specifically included in the definition, so I would like the MOD to go back and look at that again.

I am very proud to have contributed a clause to the Bill. Clause 30, which introduces schedule 4, incorporates the proposal in my ten-minute rule Bill to bring Royal Fleet Auxiliary service personnel within the remit of the new Armed Forces Commissioner. I hope this is the start of work on building recognition of the RFA, and on retention and recruitment within the service, which is so valued and valuable.

I would like to speak about housing. I made my home in Cornwall because my then husband was posted to RNAS Culdrose. I know that many families move for the same reason. Even over 20 years ago when I experienced it, military housing was not in a good condition. In 2023-2024, two thirds of service family accommodation was in such a poor state that it was not fit for purpose. Clearly, that is not acceptable.

That is why I am so pleased that this Government are creating the publicly owned defence housing service and providing it with a 10-year investment of £9 billion. That will benefit over 12,000 houses in the south-west, many of which are in Cornwall, by bringing them back into public ownership after the disastrous privatisation in the mid-1990s, after which they degenerated.

I am pleased that the consumer charter includes commitments to improve military housing, such as a better move-in standard, more reliable repairs and a named housing officer. We discussed this on the Select Committee, and our report highlighted that, as private contracts for customer service, maintenance and repairs are to remain in place until 2029, there is a need for robust mechanisms in place to hold contractors to account for their performance.

I turn now to the modernised accommodation offer, which has been promised for many years and would extend entitlement to service family accommodation to those in long-term relationships and those with shared parental responsibilities. It is true—I know it—that a lifetime of service can put a strain on relationships, sometimes culminating in divorce or separation, and in 2024, 5,000 personnel had responsibility for non-resident children. They should have a home where their children can come and stay or live with them some of the time. That was identified as a long-term objective in the housing strategy, but I appreciate that military families will want clarity. The Select Committee brought that up, and the MOD acknowledged it, saying that it will be a commitment for the Department.

Our Committee recommended that within six months of its establishment, the DHS should outline a timetable for widening entitlement to SFA to include those in long-term relationships. The MOD supported the call for the DHS to clarify and accelerate those plans to better reflect the realities of modern military life.

The Committee’s report also covered single living accommodation—in paragraph 52—and recommended that the MOD commit to a costed plan for improving the condition and maintenance of SLA within twelve months of the review’s completion. The MOD agreed with that recommendation too, which is positive.

The Bill extends the armed forces covenant to cover central Government Departments, the devolved Administrations and, hopefully, all councils, as well as new policy areas such as employment and social care, so that no one falls through the gaps. This is very welcome, and I know that the covenant has had a positive impact so far, particularly in Cornwall.

Witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee raised the need for clearer guidance and support, and highlighted lack of consistency in implementation of the covenant across the country. Public bodies are not always clear about what is expected of them.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Given Northern Ireland’s disproportionate contribution to the armed forces over many decades, the Minister’s answer to the question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister)—on the armed forces covenant being made compulsory within councils in Northern Ireland— does not really cut it. Sadly, in Northern Ireland we still have political parties that completely oppose the armed forces covenant and its implementation there, so does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to go further and act to protect our veterans in Northern Ireland?

[Jayne Kirkham]

I agree. To support that, I would say that the MOD is updating and strengthening the statutory guidance—as far as possible, it should cover all parts of the United Kingdom—to include that clear and prominent explanation of what having due regard to the covenant principles means. The guidance should explain how service-related disadvantage may arise in practice and how special provision can be applied within relevant policy areas.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I apologise for interrupting the flow of my hon. Friend’s speech. Linked to her point about the armed forces covenant, she may be aware that one way in which the United States supports its military personnel is through encouraging membership of the world’s biggest credit union, Navy Federal. As she will know, we have military credit unions here in the UK, but more could be done to raise awareness among military personnel of the benefits of helping recruits to manage their finances both during military life and afterwards in civilian life. Does she share my view that it would be good to hear from Ministers what more they are planning to do to help raise awareness of the military credit unions?

[Jayne Kirkham]

As a fellow Co-operative Member, I agree that credit unions can do so much and are very important. I certainly agree that if members of the armed forces could be signposted towards them, that would be beneficial to them.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

As we are talking about services and access, figures show that fewer than 31% of female serving personnel register as veterans, which makes it much more difficult for them to access services, particularly if they have faced problems such as violence or bullying in the armed forces. Does the hon. Member think that more needs to be done to encourage female veterans to come forward?

[Jayne Kirkham]

We discussed in the Select Committee that some people simply did not consider themselves veterans for certain reasons, including those she gave or because they had not served for long. An awareness campaign is important so that people can understand that they are entitled to all these things; on leaving the military, a lot of people do not think about it again and they have no idea that these options are open to them. I certainly agree with the hon. Member.

We have talked a bit about SEND provision, and hon. Members here who sit on the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community know much more about that than me. I simply point out that we know our SEND provision has been broken for a long time and that a White Paper is coming, which should deal with and standardise some of these provisions so that people do not miss out. It will not be a postcode lottery—that is the ideal—and our SEND provision should improve so that whether someone is in Basingstoke, Shawbury or Cornwall, the provision they need will be there and will be transferable.

Finally, and briefly, I would like to attest to the importance of the veteran question in the census, as raised in the Select Committee and in our report. Data from the 2021 census has been vital for the local authorities, including in helping them to find some veterans. It has enabled them to understand where veterans are, the challenges they face, and how best to deliver and design services to meet their needs. Retaining the veteran question in 2031 would allow for standardisation and the ability to track changes in trends. The question has also been essential for veterans’ charities and organisations that rely on the evidence to bid for funding. I very much support its inclusion in the next census.

Cornwall has a proud military heritage. Many families have someone who served or is still serving, making extraordinary sacrifices to keep this country safe. They obviously deserve safe homes, fair treatment and a system that understands the unique demands of military life. I am pleased that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is included in the Bill and that I have played a tiny part in shaping it. I am also pleased that those who keep our armed forces moving around will be properly recognised and protected. As a Government, we promised to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and we are starting to deliver on that.

[Dr Murrison]

I am privileged to be called in this debate. I start by declaring my interests as a reservist and as the author of a book called “Tommy This an’ Tommy That: The military covenant”—which is sadly no longer in print, but is available, I am told, from good charity shops.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). said, the covenant is not about advantaging the men and women of our armed forces, but about not disadvantaging them. It is important to make that clear. Servicemen and servicewomen do not expect to be given anything particularly; they are usually the greatest pragmatists going and do not expect that at all. However, they do expect not to be messed around, if that can be avoided. Much of what is in the Bill, as is always the case now with armed forces Bills, is trying to mitigate some of the disadvantages that they necessarily have to put up with by virtue of the unique circumstances that they find themselves in.

16:46

Clause 30 deals with the Armed Forces Commissioner. It is worthwhile remembering why we have one: there was pressure to have some sort of representation of serving people, which was wisely resisted by the Government, and the Armed Forces Commissioner was a sort of compromise. The commissioner is there to recognise the fact that the men and women of our armed forces do not have trade union representation. That is its purpose. Although the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is very close to my heart—my grandfather served at the beginning of the last century, in its early days, so I am very sympathetic to it, and members of my family have continued to serve in that way—it is nevertheless a civilian merchant operation. I am therefore slightly concerned that this change may confuse the Armed Forces Commissioner and the trade unions, notwithstanding the attempts made in paragraph 4(a) to (c) in proposed new schedule 14ZB to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 to cover off that ambiguity and that grey area.

What about other organisations, including civilian organisations, that work very closely with our armed forces and can deploy with them, such as the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes? An argument could be made for them to be covered as well. It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister has any plans for that—maybe not in this measure, but in future—because that is the logic of that particular extension of the role of the Armed Forces Commissioner.

I thoroughly approve of removing the artificial barrier between the reserves and the regulars—I speak as a reservist and as somebody who perhaps in the past might have had a greater interest in that than I do now. The Haythornthwaite review of armed forces incentivisation is made flesh by the some of the measures in the Bill, in particular zig-zag careers and the ability to move from one part of defence to another and back again. It is complete madness that people have to leave, going through the rigmarole of filling out the forms that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who is no longer in his place, and the medical and all the rest of it. It makes no sense, it is hugely wasteful and it puts people off, encouraging them simply to leave.

In the Bill, there is a clear distinction between commissioned and non-commissioned. I sometimes think we get too wrapped up in all that, when simplicity is usually the best course of action. It would be good to hear from the Minister why he feels that separate arrangements are needed for officers. I understand that they will not be included in the initial tranche of people going through the system, but will be dealt with at some future date, if my reading of the Bill is correct. If it is not, I am sure the Minister will tell me.

My only concern about recall for service—it is certainly not at all a philosophical one—is that it makes service more onerous. At a time when we want volunteers in our system to join the armed forces with either the regulars or the reserves, extending their recall liability from six to 18 years and from 55 to 65 years of age might not be a particularly attractive proposition for many who do not necessarily want to commit to that kind of thing, notwithstanding the fact that many of our allies have something rather similar.

On the subject of our allies, it would be useful in encouraging a strategic reserve—at the moment I am afraid it is more hypothetical than actual—to emulate perhaps the Nordics, who insist that their reservists come back for a day or two a year in order to have a kit muster, a bit of a briefing and a bit of bonding. In that way they seem to hold people in, in a way that we simply do not. In this country, we still have the assumption that people will do their time as a regular, and then they will leave and not look back. I am sure the Minister would agree that that needs to change, and that it is a cultural rather than a management or structural issue at the moment. Until we get into the mindset that service is, if not for life, then ideally for a working life, I fear we will not be able to provide the Government with the sort of person-power that is necessary to sustain future operations in a pre-war environment.

Many hon. and right hon. Members today have talked about the service justice parts of the Bill, and in many ways those are among the most important elements of it. It is worthwhile saying that, certainly during my time as a Minister, there was difficulty populating court martial boards. The Minister gave a slightly different impression and, if the position has improved, that is a good thing, but broadening the base certainly makes it much more administratively straightforward to ensure that people are available on the days concerned and that the courts martial do not have to be interrupted. There is nothing worse for victims than finding that, for whatever reason, a court martial board that they thought was going to be held on a particular day cannot be constituted. I very much welcome the extension of eligibility to OR-7 staff sergeants and chief petty officers; that seems to make complete sense, and in any event I hope it will encourage people’s sense of confidence in the system.

I have problems with the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 90, which implies that civilian structures are better than service ones. That simply is not the case. The service justice system is much quicker. There is nothing worse for victims than having to hang on for months, or potentially years, to have their day in court. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, which is why it is perfectly reasonable to have the court martial option open, particularly for victims, but in any event as a matter to be determined under the prosecutor’s protocol, which seems to operate perfectly well at the moment. I would be very reluctant to see that changed.

Clauses 38 and 39 hark back to 1688 and Parliament’s desire to control the size of the British Army. Of course, in those days there was not really a navy to speak of—certainly not in the way we would think of it today—and there most certainly was not an air force, so having to split the numbers down by service was not an issue then. It was simply a question of the number of men we had under arms. While I understand the purpose of the changes that the Minister is proposing in clauses 38 and 39—that is to say, aggregating numbers and simply presenting the results to Parliament—it will reduce the granularity of data available to us.

I am not clear that there will be much cost involved in providing us with the much more granular data on numbers of reservists, regulars and other members of the three armed forces that we have at the moment. I want to preserve that, while at the same time understanding that what really matters overall is the total size of our armed forces, which we all want to ensure is brought up to spec.

I commend this Bill; overall, it does things that we all want to see and, as is the tradition with Bills of this sort, there is no great controversy between the two sides of the House. I wish it well.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I begin by offering my deepest thoughts and prayers to the family, friends and colleagues of the British soldier who tragically died in Iraq on Sunday.

The world we live in today is more perilous, volatile and unpredictable than at any point in our living memory. We saw that last night, when Russia fired more than 650 drones and 73 missiles into Ukraine, killing 13 people and injuring more than 100, including a little girl aged only 11. In this fragmented world, a strong, modern, highly capable military is not a luxury; if we are to secure Britain’s future, it is a necessity. National security must always come above all else. That is why I strongly welcome the decisive steps that this Labour Government continue to take to rebuild our defence after it was hollowed out by the Conservative party, and why I support the Bill and the Government amendments tabled to it.

Week after week, this Labour Government are getting on with the job of investing in our defence. Just yesterday, the Government announced a vital new munitions deal, supporting 700 jobs in Belfast. Last week, the Government signed a joint missile programme with Poland and a new Swedish fighter jet deal to strengthen Ukraine and boost British jobs. We do those things not simply because those are security agreements and deals, but because it is the moral duty of this Government. Doing so also creates highly skilled jobs right across the United Kingdom, including for the people of my Paisley and Renfrewshire South constituency.

The substance of the Bill begins the urgent work of undoing years of systemic damage. I will focus my comments on two areas where the legislation delivers the deepest, most vital changes: defence housing and justice for victims of abuse. First, I warmly welcome the armed forces covenant, for which the Royal British Legion has been calling for more than a decade, and which is finally being delivered in full by this Labour Government. In the words of the Royal British Legion, our armed forces covenant “will ensure the needs of the Armed Forces community are considered when making decisions”. It goes on to say that it welcomes our decision to fully implement the covenant in law. This matters immensely, because it delivers directly on our manifesto commitments to our armed services.

The brave men and women who dedicate their lives to defending our country deserve far more than our gratitude. They deserve the peace of mind that while they are serving our country around the world, their families are safe in secure, high-quality homes. Instead, we inherited a shocking legacy. Between April 2022 and December 2023, service family accommodation fell into disrepair: more than 20,000 heating failures were reported in military homes, nearly 7,000 properties completely lost hot water and more than 1,100 families were forced out of their homes entirely due to severe maintenance issues. Is it any wonder, then, that the previous Government missed their military recruitment targets every single year that they were in office? If we cannot guarantee a soldier that their child will not grow up in a house without a working heating system, how can we expect them to stay in the ranks?

That is why I welcome this Government’s commitment to a £9 billion investment in defence housing, the measures set out in the Bill to establish the Defence Housing Service, and the generational renewal of military housing, which will see nine in 10 military homes modernised or upgraded. The Royal British Legion has rightly welcomed the Defence Housing Service, calling it crucial to ensuring that armed forces personnel and their families are provided with the high-quality housing they deserve. The strategy will directly benefit our forces, including those living in the 43 service accommodation homes in my constituency. That is no less than our personnel and their families deserve.

Secondly, I strongly welcome the Bill’s protections for victims of sexual harm and domestic abuse. Every single victim of sexual harm deserves justice, yet for too long, the experiences of too many victims have been ignored. The Bill will change that. By introducing a strict legal duty on commanding officers to report serious offences to civilian authorities and the service police, we are ensuring that there can be no scope for anyone to look the other way. We are ensuring that, when those heinous crimes have been committed, nobody can say, “I didn’t know.”

The Bill will give the service police increased powers for their investigations and the service courts more powers to deal with perpetrators and improve the experience of victims. We are bringing our system into line with the civilian sector by introducing service domestic abuse protection orders and service stalking protection orders, and by strengthening sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders. By doing that, we are ensuring that we protect victims and target predatory behaviour head-on, and ensuring that survivors get the unwavering support and justice that they deserve.

The Bill proves that this Labour Government are cleaning up the legacy of neglect left by the Conservatives. We are getting on with the task of building a military fit for the future, and with restoring absolute dignity to our armed forces, and I commend the Bill to the Committee.

17:00

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I speak in support of amendment 88, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). It would require the Secretary of State to review the way that former service personnel are communicated with about their pension entitlements, and I support that wholeheartedly.

I want to use this opportunity to raise again in this Chamber an injustice that goes far deeper than communication; it goes to the heart of what this country owes its veterans. I want to share with the House, for the sixth or seventh time, the story of legendary Eastbournian Pauline Cole. Pauline was a staff sergeant, and served this country with distinction during the conflict in Aden in the ’60s. As a direct result of her service, she suffered solar skin damage, resulting in cancer and post-traumatic stress disorder. After years of tribunals, the Government recognised her sacrifice and awarded her military compensation in the form of a war disablement pension.

Before receiving that compensation, Pauline had been in receipt of £76.96 a week in pension credit. After receiving that compensation, her pension credit collapsed to just £9.23 a week. That is because military compensation is considered income for the purposes of calculating pension credit, even though compensation awarded in a civil context is disregarded from such calculations. Indeed, military compensation is disregarded from universal credit calculations, but not from pension credit. In this case, the Government gave with one hand and took with the other. In order to sustain herself on that new income, Pauline was forced to seek lower-cost accommodation, and moved out of her Eastbourne home to somewhere else in the county of Sussex.

I raised the case with the Pensions Minister. Pauline came with me to the Department for Work and Pensions. I have raised the matter in this Chamber at Prime Minister’s questions, and Pauline sat in the Gallery. Sadly, she passed away a few months after having to move, in November 2025, never having seen this issue corrected. I have pledged to continue this fight around pension communications and pension entitlement in her honour, together with her sons Simon and Les Haffenden.

The Royal British Legion has been clear that the current state of affairs is, in its view, a violation of the armed forces covenant. When I raised this injustice with the Government via the DWP, they said that the Government have no plans to change this policy. When I asked a written parliamentary question on what it would cost to exempt military compensation from pension credit entitlements, the answer was that

“no formal assessment has been made.”

The Government say that they cannot afford to fix this, but they have not undertaken to find out what fixing it would even cost. They cannot hide behind affordability when they have never looked at the price tag.

The Government have shown that they can act differently: after the Etherton review on LGBT veterans, the Minister confirmed that those compensation payments would, as is right, be exempt from tax and would not affect benefits. The Government have accepted the principle; it just has not been applied to Pauline, or the thousands of veterans like her. It must be applied to them, and that must be communicated to all of them.

I urge the Minister to begin correcting this injustice by undertaking a financial assessment of this change, and communicating that to veterans in receipt of the war disablement pension. I urge him to meet me and Pauline’s sons, Simon and Les Haffenden, who are continuing the campaign, so that we can discuss provisions to correct this injustice before the Bill’s Report, and can ensure that no veteran is ever again penalised for serving our country.

[Luke Akehurst]

It has been a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee set up to scrutinise this important legislation, which, as Members will know, renews our mandate for a standing Army and takes important strides on the covenant, service housing and service justice. The thrust of my speech will be against new clause 2, which is an attempt by the Opposition to play a political game with the timing of the publication of the crucial defence investment plan.

First, I pay tribute to the armed forces community across my constituency. As I said on Second Reading, North Durham is home to a large number of veterans and families of serving personnel. As their Member of Parliament, I want to use my voice to stand up for those people in our community who are serving, or have served, our country. That is why I was so keen to play a role in the passage of this Bill. The Select Committee also allowed me to highlight the work of the combined cadet force at Park View school in Chester-le-Street. I welcome the provisions to better integrate cadets into our armed forces by transforming the reserve forces and cadets associations into a non-departmental public body.

I turn to new clause 2. I would like to think that there is no one—with the possible exception of my hon. Friends the Ministers at the Ministry of Defence—who wants the defence investment plan tabled more than me. As I said in the defence estimates debate in this place on 4 March to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry:

“My message to the Minister is to take back into the Whitehall system the support on both sides of the House for seeing the defence investment plan sooner rather than later”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 895.]

We cannot afford more delay, because in the event of a war with a dangerous opponent, every month we delay could, in just a few years’ time, be a month in which our troops do not have the right kit in their hands.

As a north-east MP, I am aware of the strong industrial case for providing certainty about the footprint of our defence spending, so that we can drive investment towards communities like the one I represent. Many of my constituents are proud to travel to work for BAE Systems in Washington, where they make munitions for the British armed forces and our gallant allies in Ukraine, or work at Pearson Engineering in Newcastle, making essential components for armoured vehicle programmes, such as the turrets for Challenger 3. My constituents also hope that future MOD contracts will lead to the north-east of England becoming a major centre for the space industry. We need to get this right. We only have one shot at dealing with the equipment implications of the strategic defence review. We do not have an infinite pot of money. In fact, all of us know that the state of the public finances that this Government inherited in 2024 means that the pot of money for many pressing priorities, including defence, is decidedly, and sadly, finite, so we must make the right decisions about where to allocate resources.

As I have now said three times to the House, the political commitment of this Labour Government to finding the funding for defence equipment and procurement should not be doubted, given the early decision to cut the overseas development budget by half in order to increase defence spending. That was extremely painful and politically contentious, given that the aid budget is close to the hearts of many Labour Members, but it was the right thing for the Labour Government to do. That represented a historic commitment to the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. Given that, no one should be in any doubt of this Government’s preparedness to make the further tough political decisions needed to properly fund the defence of the nation.

Indeed, I am hopeful that the DIP will be published before the plan would be that new clause 2 is trying to bounce the Government into. The Defence Secretary confirmed yesterday in the House that the Prime Minister is determined to publish the DIP before the NATO summit, which starts on 7 July. The plan in new clause 2 would be left until the end of the year, which is when the Bill will complete its passage. The Conservatives lost the political and moral right to dictate the timetable for how we best prepare for conflict after the British people ejected them from office, following over a decade of the tragic underfunding of our armed forces. Indeed, in their first year in government, the Conservative party cut defence spending by £2 billion. That is in stark contrast to this Government, who are spending over £11 billion more on defence than in the last year of the previous Government. Rather than tacking a timetable on to the Bill—a Bill that will play a hugely important role in improving how the state delivers for our armed forces community—I will be supporting the Government in publishing a well-thought-out DIP, that is not rushed but is published as soon as possible, so that we can start directing investment towards those industries that will play a key role in defending our nation in the coming years.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It was a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee, and I thank the Clerks and all those who made it run so smoothly.

Today I will focus on one area.

“I certainly think it is bizarre that there is not an English commissioner. That is 85% of the veteran population, while the other 15% have three commissioners to represent them. I would certainly support that.”

Those are not my words, but those of retired Lieutenant Commander Susie Hamilton, the Veterans Commissioner for Scotland, in response to a question from the Minister for the Armed Forces on the Select Committee earlier this year, regarding whether there should be a veterans commissioner for England. The view shared by all three commissioners for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland is that the circa 1.4 million veterans who live in England lack their own veterans commissioner. They believe it is vital that we have parity and consistency across the nations, and an independent statutory advocate for veterans in England, so today I once again call for a national veterans commissioner for England, as proposed in new clause 3.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and apologise for interrupting her flow. The point about consistency across the UK is important, and I support the creation of a veterans commissioner for England. In Scotland, the role is particularly important, because the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans in the Scottish Government is not a veteran, but a career politician. I think he moved from working for the party to working for an MSP, so that is the difference. The commissioner is a really important role in Scotland, as it bridges that gap. Will the hon. Lady join me in encouraging the SNP Government to create a veterans Minister who is himself or herself a veteran?

[Sarah Bool]

All experience of military life is valuable, but speaking as someone without military experience, I still think that something can be brought to the table by those who do not have such experience. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am sure the Scottish Government will have heard it put on record.

The Royal British Legion launched a campaign to create the role of veterans commissioner for England back in 2023. The last Conservative Government accepted that request, and in 2024, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs began recruiting for the position. However, the 2024 general election was called shortly afterwards, and all progress was ceased. In the Select Committee, the response to that request was, “We now have an Armed Forces Commissioner, and Op Valour. That means that the role is not required.” We welcome former Air Commodore Polly Miller-Perkins CBE as the first Armed Forces Commissioner, and I wish her well in her role. However, that role was created to benefit serving personnel and their families. It will investigate general welfare matters in the armed forces. The Service Complaints Ombudsman will be abolished, and its functions and responsibilities will be transferred to the commissioner. Veterans would only be covered by the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner if a complaint related to their time in service, when they were subject to service law. There are, however, time limits for submitting a complaint, so generally that will apply only to veterans who have recently left the armed forces.

We recognise the Government’s £50 million funding for Op Valour, which is the national programme designed to increase veterans’ access to relevant charities, services, and support across the UK. However, if Valour was the answer to all veterans issues, why has the position of Veterans Commissioner remained for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales? There is still fundamental value in establishing a veterans commissioner for England too. It should be a question not of either/or but of both.

What would the veterans commissioner do? They would serve as an independent advocate and voice for veterans and their families in England, signpost veterans and their families to relevant charities and services based on their individual need, produce regular policy recommendations based on unmet need, work closely with Government agencies to develop and refine policies and services, and promote the community, leverage their skills and highlight what they offer to society.

11:30

In addition, this role would be able to assist with the armed forces covenant extension. One of the most critiqued aspects of the armed forces covenant is that it is poorly signposted and inconsistently enforced, and that compliance significantly varies from region to region. Speaking to serving personnel, the issue is that many are not aware of what it offers and do not feel genuine value from it. Enforcement is therefore a key issue.

Indeed, that very point was made last year in the Defence Committee report that stated that the issue was not about how the covenant was legislated for or the nature of the services provided, but about how it was enforced and provided for. Given that the Government seem content to expand the extent of the covenant, we should welcome the role of a veterans commissioner, because it would play a crucial role in accountability and in monitoring the implementation and impact of that extended covenant duty.

Equally, the veterans commissioner could play an important role in implementing the veterans strategy, with its three core themes to celebrate, contribute and support. They could also play an important role in co-ordinating responses of the veterans advisory and pensions committees across England to provide local outreach and independent co-ordination. The veterans advisory and pensions committees are an under-utilised resource and co-ordination by the veterans commissioner could support efforts to enhance their efficacy. Through regular reporting, the veterans commissioner could use this network to identify trends and evidence, and present those findings.

It is the Royal British Legion’s recommendation that the UK Government should introduce a veterans commissioner for England, ensuring that veterans and their families know who to turn to for advocacy and providing someone to campaign for and champion their needs at the heart of Government. I strongly urge the Government to listen.

[Rachel Taylor]

It was an honour to serve on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and to help deliver on our general election promise to extend the armed forces covenant to every area of Government, to better support armed forces personnel and veterans. I was delighted to be joined on the Committee by so many veterans with experience, particularly the Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for South Ribble (Mr Foster), the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) and, not to forget, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst)—I would not want to upset him as he is almost a neighbour. Their input to the Committee and the work that we were able to do, across parties and with good temper, was extremely valuable, and the time spent was worth while.

As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has mentioned, it was extremely helpful to visit veterans and armed forces housing, and to meet members of the armed forces justice system and ask them questions. While our recollections of some of those conversations may differ slightly, it was still extremely useful to see how that system works in contrast to how our non-military justice system works.

I welcome this Government’s commitment to placing a legal duty on public services to consider the circumstances of armed forces personnel and their families. My constituents want veterans to be supported and for those who serve to be able to do so with dignity and respect. It was encouraging to hear evidence from representatives of armed forces charities, the service families federations, officials from the service justice system and personnel from across the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence. They all recognised the importance of the changes we are making to turn the tide after years of under-investment by the Conservatives.

Our armed forces are a source of national pride, and I want younger generations to see the armed forces as a future for themselves and an opportunity to do more for their country and contribute to the security of our nation. To make that a reality, armed forces personnel and their families need our full support and respect as they make daily sacrifices in their service to our country. That is why I am pleased that after years of military families being forced to deal with the lowest level of satisfaction with service family accommodation on record, we have brought 36,000 family homes back into public ownership, with the savings being reinvested in fixing and improving forces housing.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

In my constituency, nearly 1,000 homes have been brought back into public ownership with the creation of the defence housing service. Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 13, which addresses the question of single living accommodation, threatens to undermine the new defence housing service before it has got off the ground? Although single living accommodation needs attention, that attention should be given within the armed forces umbrella.

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank my hon. Friend for her valuable intervention and for sharing her experience, with so many military families living in her constituency, and I agree with her. New clause 13 focuses on single living accommodation, which is often of a relatively temporary nature. Our focus really needs to be on the catastrophic situation in family homes up and down the country, which we both saw on a visit down south.

Service families deserve high-quality housing that meets military operational requirements while providing them with the comfort they need to support their family. The Bill’s establishment of the defence housing service will go a long way to meeting those needs with a generational renewal of more than 40,000 military homes, which will be modernised and upgraded, together with a historic programme of house building, with the potential for more than 100,000 new homes on surplus defence land for civilian and military families, with serving personnel and veterans coming first.

This is the most significant plan in 50 years and a stark contrast with the scandal of the botched Tory privatisation that cost us billions, let military families down and left the country worse off. It was a real eye-opener to see at first hand the standard of accommodation that military families have been putting up with and the work needed to make those properties fit for our heroes and their families.

I am immensely proud that in this Bill, we stand by our pledge to halve violence against women and girls. The service justice system is being modernised so that it can provide better victim support and ensure that the victims of the most serious offences have access to protection orders. Criminal behaviour does not belong in our armed forces. The UK has a strong record of cultivating the highest values and standards in some of the toughest conditions. We are bringing change to service justice, creating a victim-centred approach that will support personnel who are the victims of unacceptable sexual assault, domestic abuse, stalking and harassment.

In a period of significant global instability, our commitment to the security of our country requires us to invest in our armed forces so that we can combat any challenges that we face as a country. Part of that must be about expanding our reserve forces. Individuals, including Members of this House, use their free time to make up an integral part of our armed forces, and I am incredibly proud when constituents of mine tell me that they are part of our reserves.

Bedworth in my constituency hosts the largest and one of the most famous Armistice Day parades in Britain, held always on the 11th day of the 11th month. We truly are a town that never forgets. I pay tribute to all the veterans and service personnel in my constituency and all those who work in the defence industry supply chains. My constituents are proud that this Labour Government are backing our armed forces and improving the lives of our country’s bravest while putting our nation’s security first. I will continue to do what I can to support military families and veterans from my constituency, and I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Before I close, I want to put on record at the start of Pride Month how proud I am to have seen the LGBT financial recognition scheme implemented, with a £75 million investment and a memorial, “An Opened Letter”, dedicated and unveiled by the King in October 2025. I recommend that everyone in this House and across the country makes a visit to the National Memorial Arboretum to see that memorial, which is a powerful reminder of the absolute injustice that was done to hard-working service personnel who were serving their country first to the best of their ability.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

It was a pleasure to be a member of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, and it is an honour to speak on the Armed Forces Bill for a second time. It is to the Government’s credit that the responds to a number of the key challenges that our armed forces face in the 2020s. However, today I want to argue the case for new clause 13, which addresses the need to give every member of our armed forces a safe, decent home whatever their family circumstances. That is something the Liberal Democrats pushed for in the Select Committee, and it is a cause that is very close to my heart. Some who serve live in single living accommodation for decades—for their whole career. Not everyone chooses to be in a relationship, and many live in single living accommodation away from their wives and go home at the weekend, so sometimes they are there for their whole career, not just as a stepping stone until they find a partner and move into quarters.

The Secretary of State has promised

“the biggest renewal of Armed Forces housing in more than 50 years.”

I echo his words—the least British forces personnel deserve is “a decent home”. Last year, the Government rightly agreed with our party that armed forces housing should meet the decent homes standard, and it was encouraging to see that commitment make its way into the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. However, there are two types of armed forces housing: service family accommodation and single living accommodation. In 2021, the Public Accounts Committee estimated that the latter may support as many as 80,000 people, more than half of our armed forces personnel. At that time, more than a third of armed forces personnel were believed to be living in the poorest grade of service housing, and 3% in accommodation so poor that they were exempt from paying rent. Section 101 of the Renters’ Rights Act misses out single living accommodation, despite many new recruits being young and too much of the defence housing estate being in a shocking state of repair. New clause 13 is our opportunity to begin to fix that.

I speak from personal experience, having lived in single living accommodation myself as a still-wet-behind-the-ears young airman posted to Braunton block at what was then RAF Chivenor in North Devon in the late 1980s—it is now RMB Chivenor, a Royal Marine base. The nicest way I can describe that accommodation is to say that it was basic, but before family life happened, it was home to me and my mates for at least the two years I was at Chivenor. My room on that base is still there, and whichever Royal Marine has it today has every right to be housed somewhere without mould or damp while they serve King and country.

We must ensure that by the time the next armed forces Bill comes before this House in 2031, the shameful findings of the last service accommodation report are a thing of the past. That is something that I believe this Government are attempting to do, as we saw on our visits as a Committee. As such, this Armed Forces Bill should amend the phrase “service family accommodation” wherever it appears in relation to the standard of forces housing, so that it also covers single living accommodation and any Ministry of Defence building being used for that purpose. Why should those serving who are single be treated any different from those serving who choose to be with their families?

The Armed Forces Bill will have united support from parties across this House, and so should new clause 13. I urge the Government to be bold, to accept no half-measures and to deliver decent housing for every member of our armed forces.

17:30

[Dr Arthur]

You will be pleased to hear, Chair, that I will be relatively short. I am proud to welcome this Armed Forces Bill. It represents a vital step towards renewing our contract with those who keep us safe. As an MP with Redford barracks, Dreghorn barracks and RAF Kirknewton in my constituency, this Bill is of immense pride to me, but it is also of urgent necessity.

I will focus on new clauses 3 and 5, but I start by welcoming the increased investment that underpins this renewal. Our new £9 billion defence housing strategy will be the biggest renewal of military accommodation in half a century and our forces families will benefit. I can see that already in Edinburgh South West. For too long, the state of service accommodation, as we have heard already, has been a source of deep frustration, but now it is slowly becoming a source of envy in my constituency as people watch these homes being upgraded. I am happy that this landmark strategy will significantly improve the state of service housing up and down the country. I have to thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for stepping in. The MOD was about to sell surplus homes in my constituency on the open market, but he stepped in to make sure that they were instead transferred to the council. Those ex-Army homes are now council homes, which is a fantastic outcome.

New clause 3 relates to support for veterans. The Royal British Legion has rightly highlighted the outstanding vacancy for a veterans commissioner for England, which was advertised just a few days before the last general election. That is something we have to question. In Scotland, we have long seen the clear impact of our veterans commissioner, which I spoke about earlier, and it is only right that England has one too. I urge the Government to think about the issue seriously, but two points have to be considered. First, we have to look at the existing Veterans Commissioners to understand what is working and what is not, and to build on best practice. Secondly, Operation Valour is being rolled out at pace and at scale, so we have to get the interaction right between the Veterans Commissioner and Op Valour. We want action in this area, but we also have to show a little caution to make sure that we get it right first time.

Through new clause 5, we have an opportunity to tear down some of the unfair barriers facing non-UK armed forces personnel. I welcome the intent behind the new clause, which seeks to amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications from spouses and children of current or former service personnel. A constituent recently raised with me the painful administrative hurdles affecting Commonwealth soldiers, veterans and their families who now call Edinburgh, Scotland and the wider UK their home. I met him at a fantastic open evening at the All Nations Christian Fellowship church on Oxgangs Avenue that culminated with some excellent food. He said that Edinburgh was his home now and he told me how proud he was to serve in 3 Rifles. I have never met anybody prouder to serve in our armed forces, despite the fact that he was not born in the UK. He also told me how he had lost some of his friends in Afghanistan. He is an amazing man in all sorts of ways, but I was ashamed to hear that he is expected to pay visa fees for his family to settle in the UK. He has left the forces now and is a proud veteran, but he is on a modest income. The fees he faces are incredible for him. He was not just advocating for himself—he is not a selfish person—but for others in his network too.

It is right that the Government take this issue seriously. If someone is prepared to lay down their life for this country, their family should not face a financial penalty to live in it. We must give these brave individuals a fair and dignified pathway to settlement. I accept that is best led by the Home Office, but this debate has shown that Members from across the House, and certainly those in the Chamber, want to see action—I do not think anybody opposes that. We have to remember that, and we have to demand action. I am hopeful that this Bill will finally deliver the settlement that our military deserves. The promise is there, but we must ensure that it is matched by our delivery of housing, recruitment and fairness.

I want to make three final points. The journey of this Bill will not be completed today; there will be other opportunities to amend it, and I hope that we will find space for the intent behind new clauses 3 and 5.

There is no bigger supporter of devolution than me, but there is nothing worse than being on the wrong side of the border when it comes to accessing services. Military families who move between England and Scotland really feel the difference in childcare. It has different impacts, depending on the children’s age. If someone’s spouse happens to be a teacher, moving from Scotland to England, and vice versa, can be a huge hurdle. As we think about amending this Bill to make lives better for our armed forces personnel, the House should think carefully about families who move between England and the devolved nations, and make sure that we have a safety net in place so that they are never disadvantaged through serving our country.

The last time I mentioned RAF Kirknewton, I made the point that it is the home of 661 Volunteer Gliding Squadron—the net zero fleet of the air force. It flies a fleet of four Grob Viking T1 gliders, and provides excellent experience for the Royal Air Force air cadets. What I did not say is that RAF Kirknewton is also the home of a meticulously recreated world war one Sopwith 1½ Strutter aircraft, which has been built by the Aviation Preservation Society of Scotland. I mention that because the big military installations in my constituency—Redford and Dreghorn barracks, and the airbase—have fences around them, but that does not mean that they are not well connected with the community.

When I am out in Colinton, I meet serving armed forces people at the bus stop, at the school gates and in Colinton Mains Tesco. I do worry about the diet of some of our younger servicemen, but that is perhaps a debate for another day. When Colinton primary school closed due to snow a few years ago, it was the Army that came down and cleared it. Perhaps the parents were desperate to get their kids back to school—we have all been there! When there was a barbeque at the school a couple of years ago, it was the Army that provided it. Service personnel brought with them the rarest piece of military equipment that I have ever seen deployed: the Army’s bouncy castle, which was fully camouflaged. I have no idea what the Army does with it the rest of the year—perhaps there is a written question there somewhere.

In my constituency, particularly around Colinton, the armed forces are fully integrated. This is something that I and local people cherish, and I really hope that this Bill and the covenant are about creating, maintaining and sustaining that kind of culture; all of us here have a duty to maintain that.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I thank everybody involved in bringing the Bill to this point today, particularly Ministers and members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. It has been a serious amount of work, because this is not a typical Armed Forces Bill through which we are performing our constitutional duty in this House to renew our armed forces; it goes much further than that. It pushes forward our armed forces covenant and makes it real across the country, it finally gives our armed forces the housing and justice that they deserve, and it gives our reserves a true role to play in the defence our nation. That is why we have to pass the Bill. Some really important amendments have been tabled, and I particularly want to cover Government amendment 9 on the armed forces covenant, and Government amendments 48, 51 and 54, which relate to the new defence housing service.

First, the armed forces covenant goes to the heart of this country’s commitment to our armed forces. We have talked about it so much for so many years, but in reality is it justly applied across the country? This Bill goes to the heart of that question, and tries to put the covenant into practice. When we talk about our armed forces, we are talking about a community of those who have served of 4.5 million people, including 2 million veterans who are alive today. Yet for many of them, support has depended less on the principles, and more on a postcode lottery. For too long, the covenant has been the right idea, but too often the wrong experience on the ground.

We have had the principle of no disadvantage, yet delivery has been uneven and inconsistent. Let us take my county of Hertfordshire as an example. It has 11 councils, including four in my constituency. I can tell hon. Members from my own experience that the way those councils apply the covenant varies tremendously. Amendment 9 is so important because it applies the covenant to the new combined authorities, which we will soon have in my county. By expanding that legal duty, we are recognising the simple truth that the decisions that shape people’s lives—in housing, planning, local services—are not all taken in one place, and if the covenant is going to work, it has to exist everywhere that those decisions are made.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on his speech. The Minister knows this, because he has practical experience and knowledge of Northern Ireland, but we want to see the covenant in its totality there. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) is right that want it to be the same, whether in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Portadown—or Newtownards in my constituency.

There are anomalies in Northern Ireland. For instance, a veteran who has served in and has now left the forces should be getting priority housing. That does not happen, but it should happen, because conditions in Northern Ireland are different from here on the mainland. There are other shortcomings and shortfalls too. In my council area of Ards and North Down, a fellow called Councillor Trevor Cummings is responsible for veterans, and he works very hard to make the covenant happen. The point I am trying to make is that there needs to be fairness everywhere. The hon. Member for Stevenage is right to say that—I support him 100%. Perhaps the Minister, when he comes back in, will give us some reassurance in that regard.

[Kevin Bonavia]

As ever, the hon. Member speaks up not just for his constituents, but for the welfare of the armed forces community in Northern Ireland, and I am sure this Government will treat them with the respect they deserve.

In my area, Stevenage borough council has signed the armed forces covenant. However, this is not just about a piece of paper; it is about working to turn that commitment into something real. We are working with the armed forces community, including with initiatives such as the Muster Point—a grassroots mutual support veterans organisation, where veterans talk to each other. The group brings cases to the council and think, “Let’s work out a solution to make sure that this person is not left behind”, making sure that council staff understand the needs of the veterans who come to them. That work in Stevenage is led locally by our armed forces champion, Councillor Claire Parris, who works with veterans at the Muster Point—like Stu Mendelson, Steve Black and many others who have visited this place, including earlier today—to ensure they are not left behind, and that places like this and others across the country are truly for them too.

The reality, though, is that such joined-up, practical delivery has not been consistent across the country. For too long, service families have been told that the covenant exists, only to find that their experience depends on the postcode in which they live. When we look at the Bill, and at amendment 9, the question is not whether we need more frameworks, new office holders or more statements; the question is whether we finally ensure the covenant works everywhere in this country of ours, not just in the places where there is strong local leadership. The duty in this Bill embeds the covenant across the system and ensures that the approach in my constituency of Stevenage is not the exception, but the standard. After years during which the covenant was talked about but not consistently delivered, this Bill will start to make that consistency real.

Secondly, I turn to amendments 48, 51 and 54 on service housing. As we have heard in this debate, for too long service families were expected to put up with conditions that simply would not be tolerated anywhere else. Two thirds of service family accommodation needs major work, repair satisfaction has collapsed to as low as 16% and tens of thousands of complaints have been made year upon year.

Let us be honest about how we got here. That is the legacy of a failed housing model, a botched privatisation that left families living in substandard homes while taxpayers continued to foot the bill. This Government are now putting that right, making a £9 billion investment in our service housing, upgrading or rebuilding tens of thousands of homes and, crucially, bringing homes back into public ownership so that we can finally take back control of standards and delivery. It is not just about comfort; it is about capability too. When only four in 10 personnel are satisfied with service life and morale has fallen to record lows, housing is not a side issue. It is central to retention, readiness and the future of the armed forces.

17:49

I have not served in the armed forces, but like many other Members I have had the privilege of being part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, through which we get to visit bases around the country, as I did with the RAF last year. The personnel we met are proud—they are proud not just of their service, but of their families—but they want homes for those families as well, and the homes that they have vary massively. We have seen some great examples of what can be done, but we have also seen examples of things that have not been dealt with for generations. We owe it to them to ensure a future for them and their families in that accommodation.

The creation of the defence housing service is a decisive break with the past. It puts forces families first, and it gives the Government the tools to act and to start the job of properly rebuilding the estate. Members of this House, and indeed the wider British public, are rightly proud of our armed forces and our veterans, but we need to demonstrate that pride in meaningful action. That is what the Bill will do.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mrs Cummins, for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. As an MP who represents the west coast of Scotland—a large part of my seat is on the River Clyde—I felt it was important to contribute to this debate. In my constituency, there are quite a number of serving and retired servicemembers, and we have many families who settled in the constituency to work in the war effort during the second world war. It is a constituency with strong connections to the armed forces, and the veterans charity Erskine was founded there in the former Erskine veterans hospital.

The measures in the Bill will be welcomed across Great Britain. I was fortunate enough to join local service personnel to learn about the armed forces covenant shortly after my election and I have been greatly encouraged to learn of local employers signing it and embracing it. It is well past time that the Government did the same. I know, too, that the provisions on service family housing will be broadly welcomed across the country. I look forward to seeing the benefits of concerted efforts to improve housing for families in my constituency. Housing in our communities is so important, not just in providing a place to sleep, but for access to the local community, schools, health services and so on.

Our communities are open and generous, and they appreciate the sacrifices made by service personnel. I look forward to welcoming more retired and serving service personnel to Paisley and Renfrewshire North.

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in support of the Bill and the Government amendments tabled today, which improve housing, strengthen protections for serving personnel and their families, and ensure that our armed forces are prepared for the challenges of an increasingly uncertain world. Much of this debate rightly focuses on structures, powers and processes, but the strength of our armed forces ultimately comes down to the brave men and women who choose to serve our country, and the families who support them.

In South East Cornwall, we see that every day through the close connection between our communities and the Royal Navy. People arrive from across the UK to begin their service careers at HMS Raleigh, and many leave with lifelong friendships, skills and a deep sense of purpose.

The recruits of Gould 25/37 successfully passed out from their initial naval training just recently. I know the whole House will join me in congratulating them on this significant achievement and in wishing them every success as they begin their careers in service to our country. One recruit marked the occasion in particularly memorable fashion, by proposing to his now fiancée; I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating Cameron and Lexi on their engagement and in wishing them a long and happy future together. Their engagement is a reminder that places such as HMS Raleigh are not simply training establishments; for many, they are where futures are built and the values of service, commitment and community are lived every day.

As we consider the Bill, we must remember that behind every policy and every provision are the people who make our armed forces great. That is why I particularly welcome Government amendments to clause 3, which creates a new defence housing service, as I think about that young couple and the home they hope to build together. We cannot hope to strengthen recruitment, retention and national readiness if service personnel and their families are living in unacceptable accommodation.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, I have many serving folks in my patch. We have a particular issue in Plymouth related to South West Water, which I know she also deals with. Unlike their neighbours, when there are outages, people in service accommodation cannot immediately access compensation pay. While their neighbours who are not in service accommodation pay South West Water directly, those in service accommodation go through a kind of third-party service and therefore do not get that compensation immediately. The Minister is well aware of the matter, because he helped me out with some related casework last year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must look at that in the Bill, to ensure that people in service accommodation get compensation just as quickly as their neighbours and are not disadvantaged by being in the forces?

[Anna Gelderd]

I agree that we must work together on these important issues. We cannot hope to strengthen our recruitment, retention and national readiness if the accommodation is unacceptable. The Bill delivers a landmark programme of investment to build, renew and repair military homes and put forces families first. The Tory privatisation of military housing cost taxpayers billions, while leaving many service personnel and their families in accommodation that simply was not good enough.

I also welcome amendments to clause 2 on the expansion of the armed forces covenant, which will extend to recognise that service life presents unique challenges, including frequent relocations, disruption to education, difficulties accessing healthcare and impacts on family life. Ensuring that public bodies properly recognise those challenges is an important step towards delivering the support that serving personnel, veterans and their families truly deserve. This issue matters to our armed forces. We know that military morale fell to deeply concerning levels under the previous Government—something that should worry every Member of this House.

I represent a constituency with proud military communities, and I know the challenges faced by serving families and children with special educational needs and disabilities. Frequent moves can disrupt education and support networks at the very moment when stability is most needed. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome the work being undertaken in partnership with the Department for Education to improve continuity and support.

I am also particularly pleased to welcome the amendments to clause 7 to strengthen protections against sexual violence, domestic abuse, stalking and harassment. Violence against women and girls remains one of the greatest challenges facing our society. No one should ever face abuse, intimidation or violence, and certainly not those who serve our community in this way.

In a few weeks’ time, I will have the privilege of attending another passing-out parade at HMS Raleigh. The Minister has previously joined me to meet veterans in Torpoint, home to one of the country’s largest veteran populations; I hope he will accept my invitation to revisit South East Cornwall at the earliest opportunity, to meet the recruits who represent the bright future of our armed forces and to discuss the vital role that my constituency continues to play in supporting our nation’s defence.

This Bill recognises that a strong armed forces depends on strong people, strong families and strong communities such as mine, and I am proud to support it. I look forward to seeing the difference that these measures will make for those who serve.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

On Second Reading, I spoke about the armed forces covenant and the importance of translating our gratitude to those who serve into practical support. Today, I am proud to speak in support of the Government’s housing measures in clause 3 and the associated amendments, which address perhaps the most tangible test of whether we are keeping our side of the bargain with our armed forces community: the homes they live in.

As the Member for Aldershot, the home of the British Army, I represent around 1,800 service family homes—one of the largest concentrations anywhere in the United Kingdom. The success of these reforms will thus be felt directly by thousands of military families in my constituency. For those families, the quality of their accommodation is not an abstract policy issue; it affects family life, children’s wellbeing, retention, morale and operational effectiveness.

For years, too many service families have lived in homes that fall short of the standards that they deserve. I hear from families who face persistent maintenance problems, personnel who are frustrated by repair systems that feel difficult to navigate and parents who simply want a safe, decent home in which to raise their children. I therefore welcome the action that the Government are taking on defence housing. I welcome the £9 billion investment, the refurbishment of nine out of 10 these houses, and the housing officers who will be on the streets of Aldershot as a result of this Government. The creation of a new defence housing service, alongside the wider defence housing strategy, represents a serious and necessary step forward, and the commitment to long-term investment, clearer accountability and better standards will matter enormously to constituencies such as mine.

Welcoming those measures does not mean lowering our ambitions, but rather the opposite. If we are to rebuild trust with service families, the reforms must be felt in everyday life—in repairs completed quickly, damp and mould dealt with properly and a system that listens, responds and follows through. I gently urge Ministers to ensure that the defence housing service has the authority, funding and accountability it needs to succeed, with service families placed at the heart of its design and delivery.

Defence housing is not just about families, however; single living accommodation matters too. For many serving personnel, particularly younger personnel or those living away from their families, single living accommodation is their home. It shapes their daily lives, morale and wellbeing and their sense of whether they are valued by the country they serve. That is why I welcome the Government’s review of single living accommodation and the overseas estate. It is right that we look carefully at the standard of accommodation being provided to those who serve, whether they live with their family or in single accommodation. As the strategic defence review recognised, accommodation is not simply an estates issues, but a retention issue, a recruitment issue and a readiness issue. The test for us now is delivery.

Before I conclude, I want to reflect on a letter I recently received from a constituent who is the father of a serving RAF member. He wrote to me about helping his son move into accommodation at the start of a new posting—his first. As any parent would be, he was proud that his son had chosen to serve his country and proud to see him beginning the next chapter of his career; but when he saw the room that his son had been allocated, that pride turned to concern. The room was small, outdated and in poor condition; there was no heating, and basic facilities were inadequate. His son had to leave behind many of his possessions that made him feel at home, because there simply was not the space. What struck me most was the father’s description, not of the building itself, but of leaving his son behind.

As policymakers, it is easy for us to talk about estates, stock, programmes and investment. Those things matter, but perhaps the best test is a simpler one. When we make decisions about military housing, we should ask ourselves first: if those were our sons or daughters, would we be content to leave them there? Would we feel reassured driving away? Would we believe that they were being treated with the dignity and respect that their service deserved, and would we feel that the nation was keeping its promise to them? If the answers are no, then we must do better.

That is why I welcome the action that this Government are taking and the commitment to improve service family accommodation and review single living accommodation. I hope that Ministers will continue to push forward with urgency and ambition, because those who serve our country deserve decent homes and their families deserve peace of mind. Their service deserves our respect, and our gratitude must be matched by action.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

18:00

[Mr Francois]

Having addressed our amendments towards the opening of the debate, I will now speak to the new clauses. New clause 3 would create a veterans’ commissioner for England. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) made a good case for doing so during the Select Committee on the Bill, and did so again this afternoon. She received cross-party support—certainly in principle—from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who made an extremely thoughtful contribution. He also gave my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) some support for new clause 5, which I will come to in a moment.

When I was debating the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill—now the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025—with the Minister some months ago, he gave a commitment that the veterans’ commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be mirrored by the appointment of a veterans’ commissioner for England. However, that has still not come to pass. Could he explain to the Committee where the Government now sit on this issue? When can we expect them to honour their pledge to create a veterans’ commissioner for England? Have they begun any interview process, to at least begin to identify a suitable candidate for the role? The Government gave their word on this. The Committee would be grateful for an update from the Minister on where the Government are with this matter.

I turn to new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, which has the support of over 20 hon. Members. The essence of the new clause is that no fees should be charged to serving or previously serving members of the armed forces, or their family members, who are applying for indefinite leave to remain under the immigration rules appendix for His Majesty’s armed forces. In practical terms, the new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 so that when members of the armed forces apply for ILR, in return for their willingness to serve the Crown, the attendant fees would be waived. This is a particular issue for Gurkha families, and foreign and Commonwealth personnel who are serving, or have served, in the armed forces.

[Rachel Taylor]

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Gurkha community. I want to pay tribute to the Queen’s Gurkha Regiment and the 30th Signal Regiment, based just outside my constituency. The Gurkhas who served are an essential and integral part of our community; they offer great value, and integrate into the community. I thank him for mentioning them, and for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to those Gurkhas who live in or around my constituency.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I think she may have been here just a few months ago when we had a debate about the history of the Gurkhas in British service. I echo everything she said about the bravest of the brave. I therefore look forward to her supporting the new clause in the Division Lobby this evening.

The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland have campaigned on this matter for a number of years. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon for taking up the cudgels so effectively on their behalf this afternoon. As he argued powerfully, Governments of both colours have indicated in the past that they were minded to make this change. Indeed, it is worth reiterating that this proposal was in both the Conservatives’ and Labour’s 2024 general election manifestos, but the change has yet to come to pass. Having re-examined the issue within His Majesty’s Opposition and consulted shadow departmental colleagues, I am pleased to tell the Committee that should my hon. Friend seek to press the new clause—and should you grant that request, Madam Chairman—we on the Opposition Front Bench will support it. We encourage all hon. Members to do so, too. There would be a cost to the process, but we believe that, in return for service to this country, the Ministry of Defence should absorb that cost in its wider budget. The annual cost would be a very modest outgoing, given the scale of the defence budget. In other words, the Department would bear the cost, not those who have served or their families. People should not be disadvantaged for having offered to serve this country in uniform.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon put the case very well, and I will not try the House’s patience by repeating it. Suffice it to say that I believe that there is a strong moral case for doing this, and I very much hope that the Government might be prepared to accept the amendment. If they are not, I hope that my hon. Friend will press his amendment to a vote, and in that case, I hope that the whole House will find it in their heart to support it.

New clauses 1 and 6 relate to the European convention on human rights and its effect on armed forces personnel, including, potentially, reservists who might be mobilised under the auspices of the Bill. How did we get to a situation in which the convention has spread to the battlefield, not just in Europe, but globally? The history is significant here; it lies behind why we tabled the two new clauses. This all came about because of something called the al-Jedda case, which was heard before the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords a couple of years or so before the United Kingdom Supreme Court was created back in 2009. The al-Jedda case was about the treatment of a prisoner detained in Iraq during Operation Telic, and was brought by a now disgraced lawyer called Phil Shiner. His name will be known to anyone who has ever served in the British Army. For the record, Shiner was subsequently convicted of fraud and struck off as a practising solicitor.

Phil Shiner instructed legal counsel to put forward his case to the House of Lords. The lead appellant in that case, before he became a Member of Parliament, was one Keir Starmer QC. The Minister for Veterans and People got into some trouble over that, because when we highlighted the matter in the Commons, she was adamant that he had not been working for Shiner. Unfortunately for the Minister, we had the court records from the House of Lords, which showed very clearly that Keir Starmer, as he then was, was the lead appellant appointed and instructed—that word is used in the records—by Phil Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers. The Minister had the embarrassment of having to come to the Commons in February to correct the record and admit that our version of events, as explained to the Commons, was true.

Phil Shiner was a persistent man, particularly when money was at stake, so several years after losing in the House of Lords, he took the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. To be clear, Keir Starmer was not acting in that action. Shiner won, so the Strasbourg Court ruled that the European convention on human rights would then apply to any theatre in which British armed forces personnel were serving. Through that judgment, an industry was effectively created, which Shiner then massively exploited. He brought literally hundreds of cases against current and past British armed forces personnel. Many of the cases were funded by British taxpayers through legal aid, and were completely and utterly fabricated for money. It was the use of the ECHR that allowed him to do that.

In other debates in the Chamber, we have heard senior Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, say that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution. Self-evidently, there must be, because otherwise why was Shiner struck off and convicted of fraud by a court of law? There can be—in fact, there were—hundreds of vexatious prosecutions against British military personnel. It was, for the record, Johnny Mercer, a former Member of this House, when he served on the Defence Committee some years ago, who led a sub-Committee investigation into this issue. Its very powerful report helped to bring Shiner to book, no doubt saving the taxpayer a lot of money, and leading to Shiner’s career ending in disgrace.

To come to the present day, what if there were a ceasefire in Ukraine? Let us posit a situation in which, under the auspices of the coalition of the willing, British service personnel were deployed to Ukraine. If, by some happenstance, they became involved in a firefight with Russian troops who had made an incursion across the line of ceasefire, who is to say that years—maybe decades—later, those personnel would not end up in a court of law for obeying what they believed to be perfectly legitimate orders, after some second-guessing by a human rights lawyer, perhaps with Russian assistance?

In short, we cannot allow this Government’s obsession with human rights to put our armed forces at risk, either now, in the future or historically, and potentially force them to fight ruthless opponents with one arm tied behind their back. This issue will not go away, and at some point, the Government will be forced to address it, be it through the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill or some other mechanism. The purpose of these new clauses is to force them to address it today.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I should like to quote a few words from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), speaking just a couple of months ago in this Chamber:

“This month marks 20 years since I returned from serving on Operation Telic 7 in Iraq. While I was there, we patrolled Basra in Snatch Land Rovers, and 34 British soldiers died in Snatch Land Rovers. They were called “mobile coffins” and “suicide wagons” for a reason. In 2006, it was highlighted to the Government that those vehicles were unsuitable, and it was not until years later that they were replaced.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2026; Vol. 783, c. 842.]

It was not the ECHR that put British soldiers’ lives at risk in Iraq, but it was the ECHR that provided the legal basis for the families of those victims to seek justice. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is looking through the wrong end of the telescope on this one. By seeking to remove us from the ECHR, he is potentially putting British service people at greater risk, rather than offering them protection.

[Mr Francois]

It is extremely sad that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to conflate two completely different issues, and I suspect that anyone who actually served on Operation Telic would understand that.

Having made that point, let me turn to the Opposition’s new clause 2, which would require the Secretary of State for Defence to lay a defence investment plan before Parliament within a month of the passage of this Act, if it had still not been published by then, which, for reasons I will come to in a minute, is not as fantastical as it might seem. For context, today is the one-year anniversary of the publication of the Government’s much-vaunted strategic defence review. There is a lot of good in the document, but one of the criticisms made at the time was that much of the programmatic detail on which new equipment the Government intended to purchase for our armed forces was omitted. For instance, the Government talked about buying “up to” 12 new nuclear attack submarines. That could mean two.

All that detail was going to be provided in the defence investment plan, but one year on, it has still not been published. This has drawn serious criticism from right across the defence industry, and also from the authors of the SDR. Indeed, the lead author, Lord Robertson, a lifelong Labour man to his fingertips, has accused the Prime Minister of “corrosive complacency” because of the ongoing delay in saying how the Government will fund the strategic defence review and its attendant equipment requirements. When we were in government, we used to publish a 10-year plan for the purchase of military equipment, universally known as the equipment plan.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment. The plan allowed industry to make rational decisions about where to invest, helped to improve the morale of our armed forces by letting them know about the new equipment they could expect to come into service, and had an important deterrent effect on our potential adversaries by laying out exactly what we intended to buy for the defence of the realm. All those things have now been put at risk by a year of the Government’s endless prevarication and inaction.

18:14

[Mr Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that on Labour’s arrival in government, the National Audit Office stated that the previous Government and the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) had left an equipment plan with a £7 billion to £28 billion gap? Is that correct?

[Mr Francois]

As a matter of fact, that is not how I interpret what the NAO said—not at all.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

No, the hon. Gentleman has had his go.

The Committee may remember that we were promised that the DIP would be published in the autumn; then, we were faithfully promised it by Christmas; and then we were absolutely, definitely going to get it in the new year. But here we are in June—and, incredibly, still no DIP.

[Dr Murrison]

Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at the report published by techUK, which represents a lot of small and medium-sized companies in the defence tech sector, and seen what it has to say, objectively, about the number of jobs that are being lost in the sector, the lack of investment in the sector, the pressure that its members are coming under and the sector’s lack of viability given this continued, unbearable delay? It needs certainty. When are we going to have it?

[Mr Francois]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We would all like to know when we are going to have it, but the reason we do not have it is simple. It is not that the staff work has not been completed—it has. It is not that the programmes have not been costed—they have. The fundamental problem is that while Ministers say they are working flat out and knocking themselves out on it, and are reduced to euphemisms about how hard they are working, it was actually done months ago. The problem is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer adamantly refuses to sign it, because if she signed it, she would have to say how she is going to pay for it. That is why MOD Ministers are completely hide-bound: the Prime Minister will not force the Chancellor to sign the equipment plan for the armed forces of the United Kingdom. The delay is becoming a farce. Indeed, we are now being widely criticised by our international partners, including, just the other day, the chairman of the NATO Military Committee.

At Defence questions, the Secretary of State was adamant that the Prime Minister wanted the DIP published by the NATO summit. That raises two questions: which NATO summit, and which Prime Minister? Assuming he means the summit in Ankara on 7 to 8 July, this vital document will be delayed for yet another month. What is worse, last year there were £2.6 billion of in-year operational cuts to the defence budget, and this year there are £3.5 billion of in-year cuts.

We will press new clause 2 to force a vote on a backstop plan to produce the DIP, to remind His Majesty’s Treasury that the first duty of government, above all others, is the defence of the realm. We cannot defend the realm with a lot of bluster and an equipment plan that does not exist.

[Al Carns]

I thank all Members who have spoken today for their contributions and for upholding cross-party support for our armed forces. The Bill takes significant steps to improve the conditions of service life, and renews the contract between our nation and those who serve. It delivers on a manifesto promise to extend the armed forces covenant to every area of Government—from three to 12 policy areas. We will go further, backed by a £9 billion defence housing strategy, to build, renew and repair tens of thousands of military homes. We are modernising and improving victim support and ensuring that the service justice system can protect the victims of the most serious offences from further harm. We will expand the reserve pool by changing the maximum age limit at which some personnel can be recalled, so that we would, if needed, be able to call on some of the most experienced volunteer reservists. These are significant but necessary changes to boost preparedness in an era of ever-increasing threat.

I will now address some of the major issues highlighted in the debate, starting with new clause 5. I have served all over the world with Gurkhas, Fijians and broader Commonwealth troops. They serve our country, and they serve it with honour and courage. The very least we can do is help them and their dependants by scrapping visa fees after four years of service. This is not about politics or a difference of opinion; it is about language and bounding the commitment in legislation in the correct way.

There is already a settlement fee waiver in place for serving personnel, introduced in 2022, to recognise the burden of settlement fees at the point of discharge for those who have served for six or more years or been medically discharged due to their service. However, that fee waiver did not extend to dependants or recognise serving personnel who become eligible for settlement after four years of service. That is why this Government have committed to scrap visa fees for non UK veterans who have served for four years or more and their dependants, and Home Office and Ministry of Defence Ministers are working closely together to deliver it; my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People met the relevant Home Office Minister just recently. We remain firmly committed to this manifesto pledge and will deliver it fully.

I understand the intention behind new clause 5 and the desire to make progress quickly. However, as drafted, it would not clearly achieve the intent set out in the explanatory statement, which appears to be narrower. While the explanatory statement refers to “spouses or children”, the new clause itself appears to waive fees for serving personnel, previously serving personnel and “their family members”, using broad and undefined categories that would create significant uncertainty and a lack of clarity about who precisely was within scope. It also contains no clear link to length of service or a time limit after discharge. Taken together, that risks creating a broader and unclear statutory entitlement with unintended consequences, rather than a targeted and coherent measure that families and dependants can easily understand.

In addition, section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014 provides that fee exceptions should be set out in secondary legislation. By introducing a fee exception into the 2014 Act, new clause 5 would cut across that existing statutory framework and reduce clarity in the fee structure by creating an alternative mechanism for controlling fees. The Government are committed to delivering the manifesto commitment in full, and it is important that Ministers retain the ability to determine the appropriate scope, eligibility and delivery approach so that it is implemented fairly.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I recognise that the Minister wants to deliver this manifesto commitment as much as I do. However, after two years we have made little progress, mostly due to the machinery of government within the Home Office. This new clause was tabled some time ago, and the Government have had ample opportunity to refine the detail of it in order to make it acceptable to be voted on this evening and passed by the Government. Why have the Government taken no steps to work with me to get this measure across the line, given that it is a manifesto pledge of the Government? Can he also give some indication of when the pledge will be delivered, if the Government choose wrongfully to vote against my new clause this evening?

[Al Carns]

We need to move this legislation forward in the right manner and as fast as possible. I recommend that the hon. Member continues to push this case. My hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People and I have heard him loud and clear, we have heard the armed forces community loud and clear, and we are committed to delivering this in line with the intent.

[Mr Francois]

Will the Minister give way?

[Al Carns]

I will make some progress.

New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to lay a defence investment plan before both Houses of Parliament. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the defence investment plan will be published before the NATO summit, and we are working hard to finalise it. I recommend that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) reads the NAO report which says that when we came into government, we were left a huge deficit and 47 out of 49 major programmes were not on budget or on time.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Have the Minister and the Veterans Minister now seen the defence investment plan?

[Al Carns]

I commend that fantastic question. Yes, I have seen the defence investment plan. Importantly, we are primarily focused on learning the lessons from Ukraine and acting upon them—something that the last Government failed to do at the right scale, hence why I left the military.

New clauses 1 and 6 seek to exempt members of the reserve forces deployed on operations from the ECHR, and would require any future Secretary of State to consider whether to make a derogation under article 15. The UK has binding international obligations under the ECHR, including in limited extraterritorial circumstances where we exercise control over individuals or areas. Those obligations have implications for the way UK forces, including reserve forces, conduct UK operations. I will not shy away from the fact that we hold our armed forces to the very highest legal standards, and time and again they deliver.

New clause 1 seeks to change domestic law, but it would not remove our international obligations. The UK cannot opt out on a case-by-case basis; doing so would simply shift cases to Strasbourg. New clause 6 is also unnecessary as the Secretary of State can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR. I will read that again: new clause 6 is also unnecessary as the Secretary of State can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR, meaning that the provision does not provide them with any additional powers. I do not want to be in the same club as Belarus or Russia.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Ukraine has derogated from the ECHR. Does that put it in the same bracket as Belarus and Russia?

[Al Carns]

I remind Conservative Members that clause 12 of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, introduced by the previous Government, would have required any future Secretary of State to consider whether to make a derogation under article 15 in relation to significant overseas operations. The previous Government removed elements of clause 12 during the Bill’s final stages, because concerns were raised that the provision risked damaging the UK’s reputation for upholding the rule of law and being committed to human rights. It was the previous Government who did that. Clause 12 was also seen as unnecessary in that the Government can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR, meaning that the provision did not add any additional legal powers.

New clause 3 seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to appoint a national veterans commissioner for England, and it sets out the functions for the proposed office holder. I acknowledge the sentiment behind the new clause, which is to ensure that those who have served receive the recognition and support they deserve. The Veterans Commissioners for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not statutory offices, so such a role would not in itself require legislation. We are putting in place the Valour programme, which will first look at digital. There will be a Valour lead and a digital headquarters, and there will then be Valour officers and centres. Once that is in place, we will need to consider whether we need a veterans commissioner for England, how that docks into the Valour programme, and how it docks into the Veterans Commissioners in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. We will update the House in due course once that is in place.

[Mr Francois]

On new clause 5, we do not yet have the date for the second day on this Bill for Report and Third Reading, but it seems likely that it will be before the summer recess on 16 July. Taking the Minister at his word, and knowing where his heart lies on this issue, will he give the House an assurance that when we get that second day—whenever it is—and we table a similar amendment on Report, he will be able to come back to us with some progress, including with the Home Office?

[Al Carns]

We will provide an update on progress once we have spoken to the Home Office and when the Bill comes back to the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who makes fantastic efforts with the Defence Committee, highlighted the binding commitment across Whitehall Departments that the covenant will be expanded from three to 12 different policy areas. That is a fantastic move for the armed forces community, and it places a duty of care on Government to consider the armed forces in almost everything we do.

The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) highlighted recruitment and retention. I remind him that we have seen a 12% increase in recruitment and a 9% decrease in outflow. We have put in retention payments for critical roles and made two inflation-busting pay rises. Morale is up and satisfaction with housing is up, as indeed is satisfaction with pay.

When it comes to using the civilian justice system or the service justice system, the onus must be on giving the victim the choice over their preference—that has come through time and again. The Atherton report was in 2021, and a huge amount of change has been put in place. I have spoken to a variety of different individuals across defence, and they always return to ensuring that there is preference at the point of choice.

[James MacCleary]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Al Carns]

No, I will make some progress.

The advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and his support for the armed forces has been remarkable. The Minister for Veterans and People has met Ministers from the Department for Education and the Home Office to discuss both the points that my hon. Friend raised. His support for the covenant, and for ensuring that other Government Departments abide with it, is essential.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) that we will bring the language up to date to reflect the unitary and single authorities. I thank her for her support in ensuring that the RFA comes under the Armed Forces Commissioner. That was truly outstanding work. I also remind the House that the credit union service for the participation of service personnel and MOD civil servants celebrated its 10-year anniversary last year—so the offer to take part in the credit union service is already there.

11:30

The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), with his extensive experience, highlighted that the Bill increases the recall age of reserves to 65 years. Although it should not be a surprise, I remind him that there is an opt-in for those who have already left the armed forces and an opt-out for those who are serving. The option is definitely there, but he is right that we need to put in place mechanisms for tracking and involving reserves, and to change the culture around how we treat our strategic reserve.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for highlighting the barbaric invasion of Ukraine by Russia, in particular the continual bombardment of Kyiv, and for championing the defence housing strategy, through which nine out of 10 houses will get modernisation—that is 40,000 houses across the entire estate. We have also put in a place a consumer standard and are going to refurbish a minimum of 10,000 houses across the estate.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) set out his valiant and impressive support for Pauline, who was a fantastic example of the veterans community; we will continue to take his argument forward in Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) supported delivering the DIP before the NATO summit. We will move forward with that.

The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) highlighted the utility of an English veterans commissioner and how that could connect into Valour. As she said, the role of veterans commissioner is not a statutory office, so legislation is not required but could provide utility in the future; I think this point is about how the role docks into Valour overall.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) was correct to talk about the importance of getting the relationship between Valour and the English veterans commissioner right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) was right to highlight the postcode lottery of the covenant. We have now extended the covenant to over 12 areas of policy to ensure that people can be held to account. Equally, although the covenant can be accepted, in some cases it will indeed be applied differently.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) was right to champion veterans across the entire country, from Scotland to Northern Ireland, Wales and England, and to set out the support they give back to the country once they have left the armed forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) mentioned Cameron and Lexi. I congratulate Cameron on proposing after completing initial training—I can tell the House that after I completed my initial training, I was in no fit state to propose to anyone!

The right hon. Members for Rayleigh and Wickford and for South West Wiltshire asked whether it is right to include veteran officers on boards to increase the depth and wealth of experience on courts martial. Since 2021, we have increased the potential pool of board members and OR-7s—the equivalent of Royal Marine colour sergeants, staff sergeants, chief petty officers and flight sergeants—are now able to sit on boards. We have mixed service boards to ensure that there are women and men on every board. Both reserves and regulars may sit on boards. I remind Members that we have 331 one stars in the military, so there is no shortage of senior ranks to sit on those boards, although convincing them to do so may be the problem.

This Bill is a great step forward for the armed forces. It renews our armed forces at a time of heightened geopolitical tension. It delivers a defence housing service—a once-in-a-generation chance to deal with the acute problem, and with the systemic failure of the last 14 years. The covenant expands from three to 12 policy areas, and it is the heart of our country’s commitment to our armed forces communities and to our veterans, and it allows us to hold other Government Departments to account to ensure that they deliver.

The service justice system will provide better protections and better services to all who serve with our armed forces. The amendments to reserves will simplify the system and enhance our strategic reserve, should we need it at a time of crisis. There are also smaller amendments, such as freedoms to counter drones and protect our wrecks across our oceans.

I will finish where I started: by thanking everyone across the entire House, the Committee, the Clerks and the staff for pulling the Bill together and making it a success.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Armed forces covenant

Amendments made: 8, page 3, line 35, after “borough council,” insert—

“(iv) the Greater London Authority,”.

This amendment and Amendment 9 specify further local authorities in England which must have regard to the matters which comprise the armed forces covenant when exercising certain functions.

Amendment 9, page 3, line 36, at end insert—

“(vii) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or

(viii) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”—(Al Carns.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Defence housing and other property

Amendments made: 10, page 10, line 9, leave out “or Wales” and insert “, Wales or Scotland”.

This amendment and related Government amendments to clause 3, clause 52 and Schedule 1 enable the compulsory acquisition of land in Scotland (as well as in England and Wales) by the Defence Housing Service, for purposes connected with its functions, or by the Secretary of State for other defence purposes. See Amendment 11 for corresponding powers in relation to Northern Ireland.

Amendment 11, page 10, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) Where the Defence Housing Service proposes to acquire land in Northern Ireland otherwise than by agreement—

(a) it may apply to the Secretary of State for an order vesting the land in the Defence Housing Service, and

(b) on an application under paragraph (a), the Secretary of State may make such an order.

(1B) References in this section to the acquisition of land or rights over land include the vesting of the land or rights under an order made under subsection (1A).”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 12, page 10, line 11, leave out “power under subsection (1)” and insert—

“powers under subsections (1) and (1A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 11.

Amendment 13, page 10, line 14, leave out

“power under subsection (1) includes”

and insert—

“powers under subsections (1) and (1A) include”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 11.

Amendment 14, page 10, line 18, after “subsection (1)” insert “or (1A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 11.

Amendment 15, page 10, line 22, leave out

“power under subsection (1) includes”

and insert—

“powers under subsections (1) and (1A) include”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 11.

Amendment 16, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

“in England, Wales or Scotland”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 17, page 10, line 30, after “space or” insert—

“(in relation to England or Wales)”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 18, page 10, line 34, leave out

“Part 4 of Schedule 11A makes”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 19, page 10, line 36, at end insert “is made by—

(a) Part 4 of Schedule 11A, in relation to England and Wales;

(b) Part 5 of that Schedule, in relation to Scotland;

(c) Part 6 of that Schedule, in relation to Northern Ireland.”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 20, page 11, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 7 and insert—

““common” and “open space”—

(a) in relation to England or Wales, have the same meanings as in section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;

(b) in relation to Scotland, have the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (see section 277(1) of that Act);

“Crown land” —

(a) in relation to England or Wales, has the same meaning as in Part 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (see section 293 of that Act);

(b) in relation to Scotland, is to be construed in accordance with Part 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in Part 12 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/1220 (N.I. 11));

“fuel or field garden allotment” has the same meaning as in section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;

“land” , in relation to Northern Ireland, has the meaning given by section 45(1)(a) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.));

“statutory undertaker” —

(a) in relation to England or Wales, has the same meaning as in section 16 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;

(b) in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (see section 214 of that Act);

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (c.11 (N.I.)).”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 21, page 11, line 9, leave out “or Wales” and insert “, Wales or Scotland”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 22, page 11, line 11, leave out

“, within the meaning given by section 343E(8)”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 23, page 11, line 12, leave out “Part 4” and insert “Parts 4 and 5”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 24, page 11, line 16, at end insert—

“(3) If the Secretary of State—

(a) requires land in Northern Ireland for defence purposes, and

(b) proposes to acquire the land otherwise than by agreement,

the Secretary of State may make an order vesting the land in the Secretary of State.

(4) Subsections (3) to (10) of section 343H apply in relation to (or to matters connected with) the compulsory acquisition of land by the Secretary of State by means of an order under subsection (3) as they apply in relation to (or to matters connected with) the compulsory acquisition of land by the Defence Housing Service.

(5) Part 7 of Schedule 11A makes further provision in relation to the compulsory acquisition of land by the Secretary of State by means of an order under subsection (3).

(6) In this section “defence purposes” has the meaning given by section 343E(8).”—(Al Carns.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Interference with uncrewed devices

Amendment made: 25, page 17, line 21, leave out from “under” to end of line 25 and insert—

“section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (conduct endangering ships, structures or individuals);”.—(Al Carns.)

This amendment removes an unnecessary entry from the list of “relevant offences” for the purposes of the new powers relating to drones etc under clause 4 of the Bill.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Service restraining orders: enforcement etc by civilian courts

Amendments made: 26, page 19, line 1, at end insert—

“(A1) In section 229(1) of AFA 2006, omit paragraph (b) and the “and” before it.”

This amendment is to ensure that a service restraining order may be made by a service court when convicting or acquitting a person of an offence, even if the person has left the armed forces by the time of the conviction or acquittal.

Amendment 27, page 19, leave out line 17.

This amendment leaves out an unnecessary consequential amendment of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Amendment 28, page 19, line 20, at end insert—

“(and subsection (2A) is to be read accordingly)”.

This amendment clarifies the effect of a consequential modification of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Amendment 29, page 19, line 23, at end insert—

“(and subsection (2A) is to be read accordingly)”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 28.

Amendment 30, page 20, line 39, at end insert—

“(3) After section 234AZA of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 insert—

“234AZB Service restraining orders

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person is subject to an order made by the Court Martial or the Service Civilian Court under section 229 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (a “service restraining order”), and

(b) the person is no longer subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline.

(2) Subject as follows, the service restraining order is to be treated as a non-harassment order made against the person by a sheriff court—

(a) in a case falling within section 234A(1)(a), if the service restraining order was made on conviction of the person for an offence;

(b) in a case falling within section 234A(1)(b) or (c), if the service restraining order was made on acquittal of the person for an offence.

(3) Section 234A applies as if—

(a) subsection (3) were omitted;

(b) in subsection (6)—

(i) the reference to the prosecutor at whose instance the order is made were to the procurator fiscal;

(ii) the reference to the court which made the order were to any sheriff court.

(4) In this section, the following terms have the same meanings as in the Armed Forces Act 2006—

“civilian subject to service discipline” (see section 370 of that Act);

“subject to service law” (see section 374 of that Act).”

(4) In section 109 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 (offences relating to protective orders made outwith Scotland), in subsection (4) (relevant UK orders)—

(a) in paragraph (b), at the end insert “but not an order treated as having been made under that section by virtue of section 5B of that Act (service restraining orders)”;

(b) in paragraph (e), at the end insert “but not an order treated as having been made under that section by virtue of section 363A of that Act (service restraining orders)”.

(5) After Article 7A of the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1180 (N.I. 9)) insert—

“Service restraining orders

(1) This Article applies where—

(a) a person is subject to an order made by the Court Martial or the Service Civilian Court under section 229 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (a “service restraining order”), and

(b) the person is no longer subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline.

(2) Paragraphs (3A) to (7) of Article 7 apply to the service restraining order as they apply to an order under that Article, with the following modifications—

(a) the reference in paragraph (3A) to the prosecution, and the reference in paragraph (4) to the prosecutor, are to be read as references to the Chief Constable;

(b) the reference in paragraph (4) to the court which made the order is to be read as a reference to the Crown Court.

(3) In this Article, the following terms have the same meanings as in the Armed Forces Act 2006—

“civilian subject to service discipline” (see section 370 of that Act);

“subject to service law” (see section 374 of that Act).””—(Al Carns.)

This amendment provides for service restraining orders to be enforceable as equivalent orders in Scotland and Northern Ireland in certain circumstances. The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 is also amended to avoid overlapping enforcement regimes.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Entry for purposes of obtaining evidence etc

Amendment made: 31, page 29, line 12, at end insert—

“(d) sections 93ZB(1)(a), 93ZC(1) and 93ZD(4).”—(Al Carns.)

This amendment ensures that types of premises which can be searched without a warrant for electronically tracked stolen goods (under provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006 inserted by the Crime and Policing Act 2026) are the same as those for which search warrants can be issued.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Power to impose post-charge conditions on persons not in service detention

Amendment made: 32, page 34, line 32, at end insert—

“(A1) In section 50 of AFA 2006 (jurisdiction of the Court Martial), in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) an offence under section 109A (breach of requirement relating to attendance at hearing);”.”—(Al Carns.)

This amendment is consequential on the offence created by the amendments made by clause 21 (power to impose post-charge conditions on persons not in service detention), so as to ensure the Court Martial will have jurisdiction in relation to the offence.

Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Guidance on exercise of criminal jurisdiction

Amendments made: 33, page 43, line 23, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) Guidance under this section must include guidance about—

(a) the information to be given so as to explain the similarities and differences between—

(i) proceedings in a service court and in a civilian court, and

(ii) the conduct of investigations in connection with the bringing of such proceedings;

(b) the manner in which information is to be given;

(c) the keeping of records in relation to—

(i) information given to victims, and

(ii) their views on whether they would prefer an offence to be tried in a service court or a civilian court.

(3A) Guidance of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(b) must in particular address the need to ensure that information is given—

(a) in an objective and impartial manner, and

(b) in a way that takes into account the particular circumstances of the offence and the needs of the victim.

(3B) Guidance under this section may include guidance about any other matters that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for furthering the purpose mentioned in subsection (2).”

This amendment provides further clarification as to what guidance given under new section 320D of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (inserted by clause 25) should contain.

Amendment 34, page 44, line 3, at end insert—

“(aa) the Lord Advocate;”.—(Al Carns.)

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Lord Advocate, as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland, before issuing guidance about the information to be given to victims of alleged offences triable in either a service court or a civilian court.

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 26 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Exceptions for spent cautions when taking administrative action

Amendments made: 35, page 49, line 9, at end insert—

“(1) The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is amended as follows.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 37.

Amendment 36, page 49, line 10, leave out

“to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 37.

Amendment 37, page 50, line 2, at end insert—

“(3) In Schedule 3 (protection for spent alternatives to prosecution: Scotland), after paragraph 7 insert—

7A “(1) Paragraph 4 does not apply in relation to any question asked by or on behalf of a person, in the course of their duties as a superior officer in relation to a member of His Majesty’s forces (“A”), where—

(a) the question is asked in connection with the taking of administrative action in relation to A, and

(b) A is informed at the time the question is asked that, by virtue of this paragraph, alternatives to prosecution that have become spent and ancillary circumstances are to be disclosed.

(2) Paragraph 5(1) does not apply in relation to any obligation to disclose an alternative to prosecution that has become spent, or any ancillary circumstances, imposed for purposes related to the taking of administrative action.

(3) Paragraph 5(2) does not apply in relation to the taking of administrative action in connection with an alternative to prosecution that has become spent or any ancillary circumstances.

(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) do not apply in relation to an alternative to prosecution given to a person at a time when they were not a member of His Majesty’s forces.

(5) In this paragraph—

(a) “superior officer” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act, read together with section 377(3) of that Act);

(b) “administrative action” means action (other than service disciplinary proceedings) that—

(i) is taken by a superior officer acting under their powers of command in accordance with King’s Regulations, and

(ii) is taken for the purpose of rehabilitating, censoring or sanctioning another member of His Majesty’s forces of inferior rank in order to safeguard or restore the operational effectiveness and efficiency of those forces;

(c) references to the taking of administrative action include the making of any decision as to whether to take such action.””—(Al Carns.)

This amendment provides that provisions requiring the disclosure of spent cautions in connection with the taking of administrative action, as set out in clause 29 of the Bill, will also apply in relation to Scotland in respect of alternatives to prosecution that have become spent.

Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 30 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Recall for service

Amendments made: 38, page 51, line 39, at end insert—

“(ai) in the words before paragraph (a), after “(1)(b)” insert “or (c)”;”.

This amendment and Amendment 39 omit exemptions from recall liability under Part 7 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 based on the amount of time which has passed since a person’s discharge from service or transfer to the reserves.

Amendment 39, page 52, leave out lines 2 to 13 and insert—

“(ii) omit paragraphs (b) and (c);”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 38.

Amendment 40, page 52, leave out lines 14 to 18 and insert—

“(c) omit subsection (3);”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 38 and 39.

Amendment 41, page 52, line 19, leave out from “for” to end of line 20 and insert

““subsections (1) and (2)” substitute “subsection (1)”.”—(Al Carns.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 38 and 39.

Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 34 to 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Governance and administration of Ministry of Defence Police

Amendment made: 42, page 59, line 17, after “proceedings)” insert

“—

(a) in the heading, after “disciplinary” insert “and other”;”.—(Al Carns.)

This is a clarifying amendment to the heading of section 4 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987.

Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 43 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Extent in the United Kingdom

Amendments made: 43, page 62, line 33, leave out

“Chapter 2 of Part 16C of, and”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 44, page 62, line 35, at end insert—

“(ba) section 7(1) and (2);”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.

Amendment 45, page 63, leave out line 4 and insert—

“(3) The following provisions extend to Scotland only—

(a) section 3 and Schedule 1, so far as they insert Part 5 of Schedule 11A to AFA 2006;

(b) section 7(3) and (4);

(c) section 28(3) and (4).”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10. This amendment is also consequential on Amendment 30.

Amendment 46, page 63, leave out line 5 and insert—

“(4) The following provisions extend to Northern Ireland only—

(a) section 3 and Schedule 1, so far as they insert Parts 6 and 7 of Schedule 11A to AFA 2006;

(b) section 7(5);

(c) section 48.”—(Al Carns.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10. This amendment is also consequential on Amendment 30.

Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Extent in the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and British overseas territories

Amendment made: 47, page 63, line 18, leave out “Part 4” and insert “Parts 4 to 7”.—(Al Carns.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Commencement and transitional provision

Amendment made: 48, page 64, line 16, at end insert—

“(aa) section 3 and Schedule 1;”.—(Al Carns.)

This amendment provides for clause 3 and Schedule 1, which establish the Defence Housing Service, to come into force on Royal Assent.

Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 4

Service image deletion orders

“(1) After section 232G of AFA 2006 insert—

“Service image deletion orders

232H Service image deletion orders

(1) A service image deletion order is an order which—

(a) is made in respect of an offender for an offence,

(b) relates to a photograph or film which is in the offender’s possession or under their control, and

(c) requires the offender to take steps specified in the order to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the photograph or film is put beyond use.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), a photograph or film is put beyond use if—

(a) in the case of a physical item, it is destroyed;

(b) in the case of data stored by any means by or on behalf of the offender, it is deleted;

(c) in the case of content on an internet service, it is removed from the service or permanently hidden.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

(a) something is “deleted” if it is irrecoverable;

(b) “content”, in relation to an internet service, has the meaning given by section 236(1) of the Online Safety Act 2023;

(c) “internet service” has the meaning given by section 228 of that Act (and section 204(1) of that Act applies).

232I Service Image deletion orders: availability

(1) This section applies where a person commits an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is an offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—

(a) section 66AA (sharing semen-defaced images);

(b) section 66AB (taking or recording intimate photograph or film);

(c) section 66AE (creating a copy of intimate photograph or film shared temporarily);

(d) section 66B (sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film);

(e) section 66E (creating a purported intimate image of adult);

(f) section 66F (requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult);

(g) section 67A(2B) (recording a person breast-feeding child).

(2) This section also applies where a person’s attempt, agreement or encouragement or assistance, or a person’s aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, in relation to an offence specified in any of paragraphs (a) to (g) of subsection (1) is an offence under section 42 by reason of section 43, 45, 46 or 47.

(3) The Court Martial or the Service Civilian Court—

(a) may make a service image deletion order in respect of a photograph or film to which the offence relates, and

(b) must give reasons if there is an image to which the offence relates in respect of which it does not make a service image deletion order.

(4) The court may make a service image deletion order in relation to any other photograph or film—

(a) which shows, or appears to show, the subject of the photograph or film to which the offence relates in an intimate state,

(b) which is a semen-defaced image of the subject of the photograph or film to which the offence relates, or

(c) which shows the subject of the photograph or film to which the offence relates breast-feeding a child.

(5) The following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 apply for the purposes of this section—

(a) section 66AA(2) (meaning of “semen-defaced image”);

(b) section 66D(5) to (9) (meaning of “showing, or appearing to show, another person in an intimate state”);

(c) section 67A(3A) and (3B) (meaning of references to a person breast-feeding a child) ignoring, for these purposes, references to the intention of the person who recorded the photograph or film.

(6) In relation to an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is an offence under section 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a photograph or film is a photograph or film to which the offence relates for the purposes of this section if—

(a) it appears to be of a person who was the subject of the request to which the offence relates (whether or not it is what was requested), and

(b) it was in the offender’s possession, or under the offender’s control, as a result of that request.

(7) A service image deletion order is not available if the offence was committed before the day on which section (Service image deletion orders) of the Armed Forces Act 2026 comes into force.

232J Period for complying with requirements

(1) A service image deletion order must specify, in respect of each step the order requires the offender to take, the date by which the step must be taken (and different dates may be specified in respect of different steps).

(2) Where the order requires the offender to take a step in relation to a photograph or film that would result in the offender being unable to recover the photograph or film—

(a) the order must not require the step to be taken before the end of the relevant appeal period in relation to the conviction or order, and

(b) where an appeal against the conviction or order is brought or an application for leave to bring such an appeal is made, the offender is not required to take the step until the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn or the application for leave is refused.

(3) In subsection (2) the “relevant appeal period” is—

(a) in relation to an appeal from a decision of the Court Martial, the period within which an application for leave to appeal must be lodged (but ignoring any power for that period to be extended);

(b) in relation to an appeal from a decision of the Service Civilian Court, the initial period for bringing an appeal mentioned in section 285(3)(b) (28 days from date of sentence).

232K Offence of failing to comply with a service image deletion order

(1) It is an offence for a person in respect of whom a service image deletion order made under section 232I is in force to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement included in the order.

(2) A person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, who commits an offence under this section is, if guilty of the offence, liable to any punishment mentioned in the Table in section 164, but a sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of the offence must not exceed five years.

(3) A person who is no longer subject to service law, or a civilian who is no longer subject to service discipline, who commits an offence under this section is, if guilty of the offence, liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).

232L Service image deletion orders: interpretation

(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 232H to 232K.

(2) “Photograph” includes the negative as well as the positive version.

(3) “Film” means a moving image.

(4) References to a photograph or film also include—

(a) an image, whether made or altered by computer graphics or in any other way, which appears to be a photograph or film,

(b) a copy of a photograph, film or image within paragraph (a), and

(c) data stored by any means which is capable of conversion into a photograph, film or image within paragraph (a).”

(2) In consequence of the amendment made by subsection (1), in section 50 of AFA 2006 (jurisdiction of the Court Martial), in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) insert—

“(ca) an offence under section 232K (failure to comply with a service image deletion order) committed by a person within subsection (2) of that section;”.”—(Al Carns.)

This new clause makes provision for image deletion orders in the service justice system of a similar kind as introduced into the civilian justice system by Chapter 4A of Part 7 of the Sentencing Code (which was inserted by section 102 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Laying of the Defence Investment Plan

“Within one month of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Mr Francois.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament within a month of the passage of this Act.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

18:44

Division 7

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 171

Noes: 302

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

I call Ben Obese-Jecty to move new clause 5 formally.

[Hon. Members]

Where is he?

[Mr Francois]

I will move it, Ma’am!

New Clause 5

Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or dependants of serving or discharged member of the armed forces

“(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 68, after subsection (11) insert—

“11A Fees may not be charged

No fees may be charged in respect of a serving or previously serving member of the armed forces or their family members applying for indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules Appendix HM Armed Forces.”” —(Mr Francois.)

This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

18:58

Division 8

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 170

Noes: 301

19:10

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).

New Clause 6

Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights

“After section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 insert—

‘14A Duty to consider derogation in relation to overseas operations

(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must consider whether it is appropriate for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1) of the Convention.

(2) In this section—

“overseas operations” means operations of Her Majesty’s forces outside the British Islands in the course of which members of those forces may come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance;

“Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).’” —(Mr Francois.)

This new clause reinstates a duty, removed during passage of the Overseas Operations Act 2021, requiring the Secretary of State to consider derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights during significant overseas operations.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

19:11

Division 9

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 99

Noes: 371

New Clause 13

Single living accommodation standards

“(1) The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 101 (The standard of MOD accommodation), after “service family accommodation”, in each place it occurs, insert “and single living accommodation”.

(3) In subsection (10), at the appropriate place insert—

““single living accommodation”” means any building or part of a building which is provided for the use of a person subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline as living accommodation, but which is not service family accommodation;”.” —(James MacCleary.)

This new clause amends the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 to ensure defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

19:24

Division 10

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 80

Noes: 298

Schedule 1

Defence Housing and Other Property

Amendments made: 49, page 65, line 15, leave out “sub-paragraph (3)” and insert “sub-paragraphs (3) and (8)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 54.

Amendment 50, page 65, line 29, after “sub-paragraphs” insert “(4A),”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 51.

Amendment 51, page 65, line 31, at end insert—

“(4A) Property held by the Defence Housing Service for defence purposes (as defined by section 343E(8)) is to be treated as if it were property of the Crown.”

This amendment provides that any property that is held by the Defence Housing Service for defence purposes is to be regarded as Crown property.

Amendment 52, page 66, line 2, at end insert

“(if it would not otherwise be so treated by virtue of sub-paragraph (4A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 51.

Amendment 53, page 66, line 4, leave out “for defence purposes”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 51.

Amendment 54, page 66, line 12, at end insert—

“(8) Where property held by the Defence Housing Service is to be treated as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown by virtue of this paragraph, the Defence Housing Service has the same immunities, privileges and exemptions in respect of its holding of that property as would apply if it were property held by or on behalf of the Crown.”

This amendment clarifies that the Defence Housing Service will be treated in the same way as a Crown body in respect of its holding of any property that is to be treated as Crown property.

Amendment 55, page 73, line 6, leave out “for Defence Housing and other purposes: supplementary provision” and insert

“by Defence Housing Service or Secretary of State: England and Wales”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 56, page 80, line 39, at end insert—

“Part 5

Compulsory purchase by Defence Housing Service or Secretary of State: Scotland

Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947

41 The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 applies to the compulsory acquisition of land by the Defence Housing Service under section 343H as if—

(a) the Defence Housing Service were a local authority within the meaning of that Act, and

(b) this paragraph had been in force immediately before the commencement of that Act.

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

42 (1) The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 specified in sub-paragraph (2) apply in relation to land acquired compulsorily by the Defence Housing Service under section 343H as they apply in relation to land acquired compulsorily by statutory undertakers.

(2) The provisions are—

(a) section 197 (provisions as to churches and burial grounds);

(b) section 198 (use and development of land for open spaces);

(c) sections 224 to 227 (extinguishment of rights of way, and rights as to apparatus, of statutory undertakers).

Part 6

Compulsory purchase by Defence Housing Service: Northern Ireland

Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972

43 (1) Schedule 6 to the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (c. 9 (N.I.)) applies to the compulsory acquisition of land by the Defence Housing Service by means of an order under section 343H(1A) of this Act as it applies to the acquisition of land by means of an order under section 97 of that Act, subject as follows.

(2) References to that Schedule are to be read as references to that Schedule as modified by this paragraph.

(3) References to the council which proposes to acquire land otherwise than by agreement are to be read as references to the Defence Housing Service.

(4) References to the Ministry concerned are to be read as references to the Secretary of State.

(5) Paragraph 5(1)(b) applies as if both references to the powers conferred by the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 were to the powers conferred by section 343H(1A) of this Act.

(6) Paragraph 6(2) applies as if, for the words from ‘fund out of which’ to the end, there were substituted ‘funds of the Defence Housing Service (in this Schedule “the compensation fund”) and discharged by payments made by the Defence Housing Service’.

(7) Paragraph 12(2) applies as if, for ‘the clerk of the council’, there were substituted ‘such person as the Defence Housing Service may designate for the purposes of this Schedule’.

Enactments relating to the assessment of compensation

44 The enactments for the time being in force relating to the assessment of compensation in respect of land vested in a district council by an order made under Schedule 6 to the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 apply, subject to any necessary modifications, in relation to land vested in the Defence Housing Service by an order under section 343H(1A) of this Act.

Part 7

Compulsory purchase by Secretary of State: Northern Ireland

Schedule 6 to the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972

45 (1) Schedule 6 to the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (c. 9 (N.I.)) applies to the compulsory acquisition of land by the Secretary of State by means of an order under section 343I(4) of this Act as it applies to the acquisition of land by means of an order under section 97 of that Act, subject as follows.

(2) References to that Schedule are to be read as references to that Schedule as modified by this paragraph.

(3) References (however expressed) to—

(a) the council which proposes to acquire land otherwise than by agreement, and

(b) the Ministry concerned,

are to be read as references to the Secretary of State.

(4) Paragraphs 1, 19 and 20(2) are to be treated as omitted.

(5) Paragraph 2 applies as if—

(a) for the words before sub-paragraph (a) there were substituted ‘Where the Secretary of State proposes to acquire land otherwise than by agreement, the Secretary of State’s notice of intention to do so—’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (c), for ‘as may be prescribed’ there were substituted ‘as the Secretary of State considers appropriate’;

(c) after sub-paragraph (c), there were inserted ‘and each notice published or served under this paragraph must specify the period within which objections to the proposal may be made to the Secretary of State’.

(6) Paragraph 3 applies as if—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), for the words in brackets there were substituted ‘(if it appears to the Secretary of State necessary to do so)’;

(b) in head (ii) of that sub-paragraph, for ‘refuse’ there were substituted ‘decide not’;

(c) in sub-paragraph (2), ‘the council and’ and ‘or refusing’ were omitted.

(7) Paragraph 4 applies as if the words from ‘and may provide’ to the end were omitted.

(8) Paragraph 5 applies as if—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a)—

(i) ‘in the prescribed form and manner’ were omitted;

(ii) for the words from ‘, having given notice’ to the end there were substituted ‘has given notice to the Secretary of State of the person’s objection to the making of the vesting order’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), both references to the powers conferred by the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 were to the power conferred by section 343I(4) of this Act;

(c) in sub-paragraph (1)(d), ‘in the prescribed form’ were omitted;

(d) in sub-paragraph (2), for ‘as may be prescribed’ there were substituted ‘as the Secretary of State considers appropriate’.

(9) Paragraph 6(2) applies as if, for the words from ‘fund out of which’ to the end, there were substituted ‘Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom (in this Schedule “the compensation fund”), and discharged by the Secretary of State’.

(10) Paragraph 11(3) applies as if ‘in the prescribed form’ were omitted.

(11) Paragraph 12 applies as if—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), ‘such’ and ‘as may be prescribed’ were omitted;

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for the words from ‘clerk’ to ‘directs,’ there were substituted ‘Secretary of State as correct, and publish’.

(12) Paragraph 14(1) applies as if ‘in the prescribed form’ were omitted.

(13) Paragraph 15(1) applies as if for ‘the prescribed form’ there were substituted ‘such form as the Secretary of State may direct’.”—(Al Carns.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

Protection from Domestic Abuse and Stalking

Amendments made: 57, page 88, line 34, leave out “falling within subsection (2)” and insert “aged 18 or over”.

This amendment and Amendment 59 ensure that a service domestic abuse protection order may be made against a person who is before a service court in respect of an offence, even if they have left the armed forces.

Amendment 58, page 88, leave out line 39.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 59, page 89, line 1, leave out from beginning to “and” on line 2 and insert

“An application under subsection (1)(b) may be made only in respect of a person who”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 57.

Amendment 60, page 89, line 35, leave out “236C(3)” and insert “236C(1)(b)”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 61, page 92, line 2, leave out from “may” to “necessary” on line 3 and insert

“by a service domestic abuse protection order impose any requirements that the court considers”.

This amendment is to more closely reflect the wording of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

Amendment 62, page 92, line 16, leave out “and (6)” and insert “to (8)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 63.

Amendment 63, page 92, line 34, at end insert—

“(7) A service domestic abuse protection order may require the defendant to participate in an assessment to determine whether the defendant should be required to participate in a programme of activities.

(8) A service domestic abuse protection order may provide that if, following an assessment required under subsection (7), the person carrying out the assessment determines that the defendant should participate in a programme of activities, then the defendant is required to participate in that programme of activities.”

This amendment reflects amendments of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 made by the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

Amendment 64, page 92, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 25 on page 93

This amendment reflects amendments of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 made by the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

Amendment 65, page 94, line 29, at end insert—

“(za) of its own motion,”.

This amendment reflects amendments of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 made by the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

Amendment 66, page 97, line 37, leave out from “person” to “(the” in line 1 on page 98.

This amendment and Amendment 67 ensure that a service stalking protection order may be made against a person who is before a service court in respect of an offence, even if they have left the armed forces.

Amendment 67, page 98, line 22, after “if” insert

“the defendant is subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline and”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 66.

Amendment 68, page 98, line 32, after “satisfied” insert

“on the balance of probabilities”.

This amendment reflects amendments of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 made by the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

Amendment 69, page 99, line 17, after “satisfied” insert

“on the balance of probabilities”.

This amendment reflects amendments of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 made by the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

Amendment 70, page 100, line 13, after “satisfied” insert

“on the balance of probabilities”.

This amendment reflects amendments of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 made by the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

Amendment 71, page 106, line 35, leave out “a person”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 72, page 107, leave out line 16.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 73, page 107, line 22, leave out “to (4) and (6) (and references to those provisions)” and insert “(3) and (4)”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 74, page 107, leave out lines 27 and 28.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 75, page 107, leave out line 30.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 76, page 108, line 15, leave out “a person”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 77, page 109, line 21, after “applies” insert “, subject to subsection (7A),”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 80.

Amendment 78, page 109, line 23, leave out “a person”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 79, page 109, line 27, leave out “a person”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 80, page 109, line 29, at end insert—

“(7A) Section 9 does not apply in relation to a service stalking protection order or interim service stalking protection order to which a person is subject if section 14 of the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 applies in relation to that order by virtue of section 16A of that Act.”

This amendment ensures that a person subject to notification requirements in Northern Ireland in relation to a service stalking protection order (under changes to Northern Ireland legislation made by Amendment 84) is not also subject to notification requirements in England and Wales.

Amendment 81, page 110, leave out lines 1 to 3.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 84.

Amendment 82, page 110, line 17, leave out “a person”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 83, page 110, line 31, leave out “a person”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 84, page 111, line 6, at end insert—

“Amendment of Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) Act 2022

8A After section 16 of the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 insert—

‘Service stalking protection orders

16A Service stalking protection orders

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person is subject to—

(i) an order made under section 236N of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (a “service stalking protection order”), other than one made on conviction of the person for an offence, or

(ii) an order made under section 236R of that Act (an “interim service stalking protection order”);

(b) the person is no longer subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline, and

(c) the person resides in Northern Ireland.

(2) Sections 10 and 13 to 16 of this Act apply to the service stalking protection order as they apply to a stalking protection order under this Act, with the following modifications—

(a) section 13 applies as if, in subsection (5), the words “the clerk of petty sessions or” were omitted;

(b) section 14 applies as if—

(i) in subsections (1) and (7), references to the date on which the order comes into force were to the date on which the person first resides in Northern Ireland after ceasing to be subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline;

(ii) in subsection (6)(b), the reference to the time the order is made were to the date on which the person first resides in Northern Ireland after ceasing to be subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline.

(3) Sections 11(7) to (9) and 13 to 16 of this Act apply to the interim service stalking protection order as they apply to an interim stalking protection order under this Act, with the following modifications—

(a) section 11(9) applies as if the words from “on the main” to the end of that subsection were omitted;

(b) section 13 applies with the modification specified in subsection (2)(a) above;

(c) section 14 applies with the modifications specified in subsection (2)(b) above.

(4) In this section, the following terms have the same meanings as in the Armed Forces Act 2006—

“civilian subject to service discipline” (see section 370 of that Act);

“subject to service law” (see section 374 of that Act).’” —(Al Carns.)

This amendment provides for a person to be subject to notification requirements in Northern Ireland in relation to a service stalking protection order or an interim service stalking protection order.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5

Call out and Recall for Service: Transitional Classes

Amendments made: 85, page 121, line 25, leave out “subsections (1)(c), (2A) and (3A)” and insert “subsection (1)(c)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 38 and 39.

Amendment 86, page 121, leave out lines 28 to 31 and insert—

“(c) after paragraph (a) of subsection (2) there were inserted—

‘(b) in the case of a person who was discharged or transferred to the reserve from the regular army or the Royal Air Force, after the end of the period of 18 years beginning with the day on which he was so discharged or transferred; or’”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 38 and 39.

Amendment 87, page 121, line 37, at end insert—

“(e) in subsection (4), the reference to subsection (1) were to subsections (1) and (2).”—(Al Carns.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 38 and 39.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill to be considered tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Agriculture

That the draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 10 March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Stephen Morgan.)

The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order No. 41A).

London Borough of Bromley’s membership of the Greater London Authority

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

19:37

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I am delighted to present my petition to the House today, “Keep Bromley in London”. In Bromley, which I represent, our continued membership of the Greater London Authority secures critical economic, social and cultural benefits for residents, including the older person’s freedom pass, Zip travel passes for young people, free school meals in primary schools and investment in our area, including the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre. However, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and Reform UK want to take us out of London and gamble with those crucial benefits. That is why I started the campaign to keep us in. Nearly 10,000 people have now signed the petition, and I am proud to present it here today. The petitioners therefore request

“that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Bromley Council and other relevant bodies to maintain the London Borough of Bromley’s status as an integral part of Greater London, safeguarding the public services, capital investments, and transport infrastructure that residents rely upon.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Beckenham and Penge,

Declares that the London Borough of Bromley’s continued membership in the Greater London Authority (GLA) secures critical economic, social, and cultural benefits for its residents; and further declares that any proposals to remove the Borough from the GLA would threaten vital public services, including transport lifelines like the Over-60s Freedom Pass, free primary school meals, and major investment projects such as the transformation of the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Bromley Council and other relevant bodies to maintain the London Borough of Bromley’s status as an integral part of Greater London, safeguarding the public services, capital investments, and transport infrastructure that residents rely upon.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003203]

Relationship between Social Security Scotland and the DWP

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gen Kitchen.)

19:39

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

In addition to all your work in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and so much behind the scenes, you are also a constituency MP. Like me, like the Minister, and like the other Members here this evening, you will be written to by your constituents, and I am sure that you and your team will know how incredibly frustrating it is when we cannot get Government systems right. That is why we are here this evening, and I hope the Minister will provide some constructive responses about departmental improvements.

The issue I want the Minister to address is the fact that Department for Work and Pensions systems are continually failing to understand and correctly account for Scottish carers who have an underlying entitlement to the Scottish carer support payment, but who do not receive the payment itself because of income—for example their state pension or part-time work. I am currently supporting two constituents who see continual wrongful deductions. One has passed state pension age, and the other receives employment and support allowance. They do not receive any payments for the carer support payment from Social Security Scotland, but the DWP continues to make those deductions from their universal credit—I hope colleagues are keeping up.

I want to pause at this point and reflect on how long it has taken for us to know what is causing the confusing and distressing deductions from my constituents’ payments. My fantastic caseworker Neve has spent literally months trying to unravel payments and deductions, while being told different things by different DWP and Social Security Scotland caseworkers. I have met the Minister for Social Security and Disability in relation to one of those cases, and he is aware from previous correspondence of the myriad communication problems that we had in one particular case, with DWP officers calling my constituent and causing considerable distress.

My constituent was inadvertently misled—I like to think it was inadvertent—about where and when voicemails could be left, and there was a general refusal to engage with my office, despite requests to do so because my constituent, in addition to having learning difficulties and being a carer for his family, was also going through cancer treatment. Those are all underlying issues within the Department for Work and Pensions and do not specifically relate to Social Security Scotland, but we see similar confusion with almost every case that comes through our office, and we need it to be sorted.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate—I spoke to her about it beforehand, just as I spoke to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Northern Ireland we see the same breakdown in communication, the same bureaucratic black holes, and the same administrative friction when trying to cross-reference entitlements between devolved local structures and the central DWP database. Vulnerable carers and elderly citizens transitioning to the state pension are being left without income, simply because fragmented public services cannot talk to one another. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must ensure that the most vulnerable in our care are protected with greater success, UK-wide?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I agree with the hon. Member, and it is important to remember that on many occasions we are talking about our most vulnerable constituents. No doubt there is an onus on us as MPs, and indeed on the Government in Westminster, but Administrations in other parts of the UK also have a responsibility to ensure that they are working as constructively as possible.

I understand that the Department has recently recruited more complaints handlers, which I hope will go some way to improving things. I have a case that we raised in March, and we were told this week that it has not yet been assigned to anyone. I am deeply concerned about the state of the DWP, and by extension the welfare of the vulnerable constituents who the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just referred to.

There are two key issues with the carer support payment that the DWP needs to help address. First, DWP staff need to be trained in what that payment is, how it works, and why keeping the underlying entitlement to it is important. That includes early stage call handlers, in addition to the specialist teams to whom difficult cases are allocated. I hope that the Minister, and the Minister for Social Security and Disability, are fully across this, but let me put on the record that the carer support payment is the benefit that replaced carer’s allowance in Scotland—we know there have been major issues with carer’s allowance in other parts of the UK.

Like carer’s allowance, earnings over a certain level remove someone’s eligibility to the payments. Carer support payment can also be awarded as an underlying entitlement that acts as a gateway for additional support. That should be a familiar concept. We see it with the DWP carer’s allowance, but also with other support such as child benefit. Parents are encouraged to apply for child benefit even if they are not eligible for the payment, because it is a gateway to the non-working parent getting national insurance credits.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you can imagine how frustrating it is when DWP case handlers give advice, as they have done to us, that the issue with deductions would be resolved by asking Social Security Scotland to remove the underlying entitlement. It fails to demonstrate any understanding of how many benefits work, and frankly demonstrates a willingness to let people be worse off because the DWP’s own rules are complicated to apply.

Secondly, DWP systems need to be set up to process correctly the information being provided to them by Social Security Scotland. I will not claim that Social Security Scotland is perfect by any stretch, and it is not within the purview of this place, but I would like to see more joined-up working from all sides. However, I have been assured, as much as I can be, by Social Security Scotland that its computer system is communicating properly with the DWP, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

However, from the DWP side I have been varyingly told that its system shows a claimant in receipt of a payment of carer support payment, despite them never having received it, and that it is DWP policy to deduct carer support payment as standard unless explicitly told otherwise by Social Security Scotland. Worryingly, while acknowledging an issue in March, the Minister for Social Security and Disability told us in writing that wrongful deductions

“may cause confusion to customers and that they are exploring ways to make the process clearer”.

My view is that yes, DWP mistakes can be confusing, especially given the communication issues that I have already outlined; but that statement misses the point by stating the problem is the claimant’s understanding. We need a system that does not make these systemic errors in the first place, and I would argue that that is very squarely for the Department, not claimants, to sort out.

Just finally last week, the specialist DWP complaints team has either worked out, or come clean with us and owned up to, the systemic error impacting many Scottish carers. It wants to find a fix, but it does not have a timescale in which that will be achieved. Until then, it will be up to a claimant to realise that there is a problem and ask the DWP to correct the deduction each month. Let me repeat that: the DWP wants the claimant to ask the DWP to correct the deduction each month. We all know that unpaid carers are among the most overstretched groups in our society, yet the DWP is telling them to take on the burden of correcting its failures every single month. Carers Week is next week, and I do not think that that is the message that we want to be sending from this place, or indeed from the DWP.

That may all sound a bit dry and complicated, but benefit applications, overlapping payments and underlying entitlements have a real human impact on the lives of our constituents. Having their universal credit payment reduced to nil when they have food to buy and bills to pay is very difficult. There is no buffer to help them out while they battle with the DWP to find out why. I have seen constituents relying on credit cards for basics, or going without, to the detriment of their own health. The stress and distress that this situation causes are immense. The DWP’s computer error is the reason one constituent has been suicidal, and it is causing extreme anxiety to another. They are not alone, and fundamentally this is not their fault.

I will make a final addition to my remarks before I come to a conclusion. I had mainly prepared for this debate when we received an update this morning on one of the cases. My constituent had received a letter saying that he would be receiving a back payment of the best part of £3,000. He was confused—we were confused. My office had spelled out as clearly as it could to the DWP that he just needed his universal credit paid back for the period of December 2025 to February 2026, in which carer support payment had been incorrectly deducted. Being given a confusing payment of too much money can be just as distressing as receiving too little. I cannot stress enough the fear of relying on the DWP, spending the money and then being told that it has to be repaid—I am sure that we all, as constituency MPs, recognise that.

As it turns out, the DWP had got it wrong again. Despite everything it had been told, despite the months of investigating the claim, it thought that my constituent had never received carer support payment, which he had until December, and had repaid him for the whole period of the deduction. Now a further investigation has to be carried out, and then my constituent will have to pay back more than two thirds of what he has just been paid, so he needs to keep that money until then. I am sorry, but I find that unacceptable. What on earth is going on?

My constituents spotted the problem, came to my office and after months of back and forth we have understood it, but there are more than 30,000 carers across Scotland who have this underlying entitlement and could be missing out on universal credit as a result. It has been a battle to get to where we are today, and I would not be surprised if many carers in Scotland gave up their underlying entitlement to this payment if they were told by the DWP that that was the best thing to do—but there are consequences to that decision. I therefore hope the Minister can use his time to set out what the Department is doing to ensure that its staff properly know about and understand Scottish benefits.

What engagement is the Minister’s Department having with the Scottish Government to ensure that we can get working together? As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, how will the Department ensure that that happens on a UK-wide basis? What is the current understanding of the underlying error? What steps are being taken to fix it? What will the timescale be for that? Crucially, what steps are being taken to identify carers who are being underpaid or wrongly advised to drop their entitlement, and to offer proper support while those errors are rectified?

19:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

Let me begin by saying that I hope the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) saw me taking extensive notes. The speech I was planning to give is perhaps not as bespoke to the issues that she raises as she would like, so at the outset I will make it clear that if she wants to escalate specific cases to me, I am very happy to have a look at them. She has clearly been escalating cases through the usual channels to departmental complaints teams and so on.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I want to put on record that the Minister for Social Security and Disability has been very keen to work with me to understand the problems we have, and I have been very grateful for the support. We are looking at the fact that the issues are still happening, and I am grateful to the Minister for taking an interest in that.

[Andrew Western]

I understand that. I am the Minister with responsibility for the relationship with the Scottish Government and, therefore, Social Security Scotland, so if the hon. Lady would be kind enough to let me know about the issues, too, I would be very happy to see what we can do to seek a resolution. I think it would be helpful to set out a little bit of the background and context to this issue, before saying what I am able to say about the peculiarities of the system that she highlights, and the impact that they have had on some of her constituents.

We should all expect our welfare system to deliver for people as a safety net in difficult times, and to give people the opportunity to build better lives, wherever in the UK they happen to live, so it is only right that we pay attention to this issue. The hon. Lady is a powerful advocate for her constituents, but wherever colleagues are around the country, they should expect an effective and efficient service from the Department, as should their constituents.

Following the devolution of significant social security powers through the Scotland Act 2016, responsibility for the delivery of welfare support to people in Scotland is shared between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. That means that many people in Scotland receive social security support from both the UK Government, provided by the DWP, and from the Scottish Government, delivered by Social Security Scotland.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on raising a very important issue that our constituents face. Does the Minister agree that the prolonged confusion and delay in Social Security Scotland taking over the administration of devolved benefits from the DWP has contributed to a sense of confusion among people about who is responsible for providing the support that they receive?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not want to get into a tit-for-tat, in terms of determining responsibility between the Westminster Government and the Scottish Government, but it is certainly fair to say that the agency agreements we have entered into have been extended, in some cases on more than one occasion. That can lead to it taking a protracted amount of time for us to deliver as we would hope, and in the most aligned way possible.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on the debate she has had tonight. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Elaine Stewart) on her new position in the Department. Does the Minister agree that at £600 million—or the cost of 5,000 motorhomes—the set-up of Social Security Scotland is a national scandal?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend tempts me. I agree that it is not alone in being a national scandal up in Scotland—if, indeed, that is what it is. For the purposes of seeking to maintain a constructive relationship with my counterparts in Scotland, I may swerve the broader steer of that question. The focus should always be on ensuring that both systems work for those who use them, and that people get a clear, reliable and efficient service, even if they receive support from both DWP and Social Security Scotland.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for giving way—he is always constructive and helpful, and we look forward to his contribution and his answers, which I am sure will help the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and others. I know the debate is about Scotland, but as I have mentioned, we are having similar problems in Northern Ireland. If we highlight our problems to the Minister, will he take them on as well?

[Andrew Western]

I certainly will. As I said earlier, I am the Minister responsible for devolution, and I have regular conversations with Gordon Lyons, the Minister for Communities. I am very happy to pick up any specifics, where there are kinks that need to be ironed out. I am happy to do that for any Member.

By March this year, DWP had completed its role in the transfer to Social Security Scotland of customers in receipt of four major devolved benefits. That involved around 730,000 benefit awards for personal independence payment, disability living allowance, carer’s allowance and attendance allowance customers. This was a hugely important undertaking, not only because of the number of people affected, but because of how vital that support so often is to people. It required close operational co-ordination, robust data sharing, careful communication with customers, and a shared commitment to ensuring continuity of support. I hear what the hon. Member for North East Fife says about her constituents’ experience of that transfer. Her point is well made, but crucially, in broad terms, it did deliver for people in Scotland; payments continued without interruption at point of transfer, and people were supported and kept informed throughout. That was a significant achievement by both organisations, and a clear demonstration of what effective, co-operative working can deliver.

Throughout that complex process, it was very important that Scottish customers should know how to access information, and who to contact about devolved benefits. DWP operational staff also needed to know how to signpost and support customers correctly—I will take away the hon. Lady’s point about strengthening training, because if that has not been delivered to full effect, we need to make sure that that happens going forward. To achieve this, DWP and Social Security Scotland worked together on customer communications, ensuring the messaging was clear and consistent wherever possible, with detailed information on the changes to devolved benefits published on both gov.uk and gov.scot. DWP operational guidance has been updated to ensure that DWP colleagues are aware of those changes, and of where procedures have been updated. Colleagues received specific guidance on handling customer queries about Social Security Scotland’s benefits and payments. Both organisations agreed that each would signpost to the other where appropriate, but should avoid providing guidance or advice on each other’s benefits. The hon. Lady also made a point about the level within the organisation that that training had been cascaded to. I will check and confirm that for her, to make sure it has rippled through to all levels.

While both DWP and the Scottish Government’s devolution programmes closed in March this year, nobody should take that as an indication that we do not continue to work together extremely closely. As I have already said, it is vital that co-operative relations continue. That is why DWP has created the Social Security Scotland liaison unit, a new function to support the ongoing relationship with Social Security Scotland. That liaison unit will ensure that future changes to devolved and reserved benefits are co-ordinated, and will support DWP business areas with any Social Security Scotland-facing matters. Alongside the work of that unit, DWP, the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland continue to join up at many levels. Senior leaders agreed to establish a joint forum for Social Security Scotland and DWP operations to exchange feedback, support continuous improvement and jointly resolve issues. The joint operational working group provides an opportunity to discuss the customer experience and the journey our shared customers are navigating to receive the financial support they are entitled to.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. Does he agree that the problem we have identified—and potentially the scale of the problem, given the number of unpaid carers receiving an entitlement to this allowance—should be looked at by that working group?

[Andrew Western]

If it is okay with the hon. Lady, I will come to the broad thrust of the problem she has identified later in my speech. It is quite complex, in that there are also some challenges in this space in England and Wales that were identified by the Sayce review, but I will say a little bit more about that in a moment. There is also continued ministerial engagement between the UK and Scottish Governments through the joint ministerial working group on welfare. That is a long-standing forum, providing oversight of the devolution of social security powers. That is in addition, of course, to bilateral meetings as required, and I am the Government’s representative on that working group.

Turning to the thrust of the hon. Member’s contribution about the plight of her constituents in receipt of carer support payments, she is correct that the number of complaint handlers has increased recently. It is also worth mentioning, for the benefit of all colleagues, that I have personally moved into holding a series of regular meetings on complaints and MP correspondence. It is fair to say that the Department recognises that more must be done urgently to get a grip of that. In the past two weeks, I have had two or three such meetings already, and they will continue until we reach acceptable levels of complaint handling and timeliness of response. In that vein, if she would like to send me the details of the case from March that she referred to, which she has been told is yet to be assigned to a case handler, I would be happy to look into that for her.

This issue has clearly been distressing for a number of the hon. Member’s constituents, and I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that there will sometimes be cases where someone is given the wrong information by either my Department or by Social Security Scotland, or where our IT systems could join up more effectively. Where that happens, we need to work together to put that right.

Where I slightly disagree with the hon. Member is on the suggestion that this issue exists only in Scotland. I think the situation is rather more nuanced. From what she has said, there are clearly some issues that I need to take away and look at, but we have some of the issues that she has identified in England, too; I probably do myself no favours by saying that. I think that we have a broader DWP issue, rather than something I would pin directly on Social Security Scotland. For example, as I have just referenced, the issue with how carer’s allowance and universal credit work together was identified in the Sayce review of carer’s allowance overpayments in England and Wales. In respect of carer’s allowance, we are committed to delivering a change, in line with our plans to modernise DWP services. It will be for me as the Minister for devolution to ensure that the transition to the new arrangements also supports the Scottish mechanisms.

Work to automatically offset benefits, which is where we want to get to, will begin in the next financial year and is intended for completion within this Parliament, but I have heard the specifics of what the hon. Member has said for the first time today, and I will take that issue away. I am not able to make the commitment that this will be quickened up, but I want to see whether there is anything we can do. We will work specifically on CSP with Social Security Scotland, and will look at any issues around data sharing and the processes necessary for alignment that are specific to Scotland.

Briefly, the implementation of the social security powers in the Scotland Act 2016 has been a significant programme of work, underpinned by strong co-operation between the DWP and Social Security Scotland at every level. Ongoing work will be required to keep the two systems working effectively together, but my Department is committed to doing that work, in the spirit of a productive, customer-focused relationship with the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland.

The hon. Member has outlined many issues today—as I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I am happy to look at those in Northern Ireland, where he has them, too. Where issues arise, we will work together—in this case, as Social Security Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions—to learn the lessons from navigating the complexities of creating a shared social security landscape. We will find solutions that are respectful of devolution, that maintain our commitment to working together constructively, and that always keeping in mind what really matters, which is the people who, the Department for Work and Pensions and Social Security Scotland are here to help, and their experience of our services.

Question put and agreed to.

20:03

House adjourned.