Armed Forces Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

3rd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Armed Forces Bill, has consented to place his interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Antrobus) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make a short statement on the position regarding legislative consent on the Bill. I am pleased to inform the House that legislative consent has been secured from both the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd, and I thank Ministers and officials in both Governments for their constructive engagement throughout the Bill’s passage.

Despite engagement with Northern Ireland Ministers and officials, it has not been possible to secure an agreed position from the Northern Ireland Executive. I therefore regret to inform the House that legislative consent has not been secured from the Northern Ireland Assembly.

However, having carefully considered the position, the Government have concluded that there are compelling reasons to proceed with the Bill without consent. First, the proposed extension of the covenant duty in Clause 2 seeks to ensure that the public bodies within its scope give due regard to the needs of serving personnel, veterans and their families, including the bereaved, when exercising relevant functions. Excluding Northern Ireland would leave a gap in the coverage of the extended duty, resulting in different statutory requirements depending on where members of the Armed Forces community live.

Secondly, excluding Northern Ireland from the relevant service justice provisions would create a gap in the protection available for victims. For these reasons, while we regret that consent has not been secured, we consider it necessary to proceed, so that the benefits and protections of these provisions extend across the whole of the United Kingdom. I beg to move that this Bill now be read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Moved by

[Baroness Antrobus]

1: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Removal of immigration fees(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations under section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014 (power to impose fees in connection with immigration or nationality functions) to secure that qualifying service persons, and qualifying family members, are exempted from any requirement that would otherwise apply to pay immigration fees. (2) Before the end of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out—(a) the estimated cost to public funds of implementing the regulations mentioned in subsection (1), and(b) a timetable for the implementation of those regulations.(3) In this section—“immigration fees” means any fees payable in connection with an application of a kind specified in—(a) row 1.3D.1 of Table 1 in Schedule 1 to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/330) (fees for an application for entry clearance and indefinite leave to enter under Appendix HM Armed Forces to the immigration rules),(b) row 1.4.4A of that Table (fees for an application for entry clearance under Appendix Gurkha and Hong Kong military unit veteran discharged before 1 July 1997 to the immigration rules),(c) row 3.1.1 of that Table (fees for an application for entry clearance and indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom as the dependant of an HM Armed Forces service leaver or a member of HM Armed Forces), or(d) row 8.1.1 of Table 8 in Schedule 2 to those Regulations (fees for an application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom);“qualifying family member” means a person who meets the requirements for making an application for settlement under Armed Forces immigration rules as the partner or child of—(a) a qualifying service person, or(b) a current member of HM Armed Forces;“qualifying service person” means a person who meets the requirements for making an application for settlement under Armed Forces immigration rules as—(a) a service leaver from HM Armed Forces,(b) a former member of the Brigade of Gurkhas, or(c) a former member of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps or Hong Kong Squadron of the Royal Navy.(4) In subsection (3)—(a) references to “Armed Forces immigration rules” are to—(i) Appendix HM Armed Forces to the immigration rules, or(ii) Appendix Gurkha and Hong Kong military unit veteran discharged before 1 July 1997 to the immigration rules,and “immigration rules” means rules made under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (as amended from time to time);(b) the terms “partner”, “child”, “service leaver” and “HM Armed Forces” have the same meanings as in the rules mentioned in paragraph (a).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would provide for a requirement for certain fees for making immigration-related applications to be waived in the case of certain members of the Armed Forces together with their partners and children and would also require a report to be made to Parliament about the implementation of that requirement within six months of Royal Assent.

[Baroness Antrobus (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment fulfils the undertaking I gave on Report to bring forward a government amendment on settlement fees for non-UK Armed Forces personnel and their families, in support of our manifesto commitment.

I am particularly grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for his persistence in pursuing this issue and for his constructive engagement. He has championed the interests of those who serve and their families with great commitment, and I am pleased that we have been able to respond to the concerns he raised in previous debates.

This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations, so that eligible applicants under the relevant Armed Forces settlement routes are exempt from the applicable settlement fees. It also requires the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within six months of Royal Assent, setting out the estimated cost to public funds of implementing the fee waiver and a timetable for implementation. This will give Parliament a clear account of how and when the waiver will be delivered. It puts a duty to deliver the fee waiver into law and provides for parliamentary scrutiny of its implementation.

Turning to Amendment 2, I recognise that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, is seeking a timetable for the delivery of the fee exemption and for this to be implemented within the first half of the next financial year. I confirm that the Government will implement the exemption before the end of September 2027. This will apply to service personnel with four years’ reckonable service. I hope that this assurance provides the certainty that the noble and gallant Lord seeks, so he will feel that he can withdraw his amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment 2 (to Amendment 1)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted that the Bill has reached this stage and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, for stepping in magnificently at the last minute. Personally, I am disappointed that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is not within the Armed Forces covenant, but I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and officials for engaging. I thank the noble Lord for his letter to me of 1 October and request that a copy of it be put in the Library, because it commits to a review of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s status within the Civil Service and Sponsored Reserves arrangements, which will be implemented in 2027.

[Baroness Antrobus (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their extremely kind comments. To address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, I will ensure that the letter regarding the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is put in the Library. I will pass on the kind words for my noble friend the Minister, but he should be back very soon so noble Lords across the House will be able to engage with him. As I have said before, I am very happy to see the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, back. Obviously, I am concerned that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, is not here, and I fear that I will be next.

Let us press on with passing the Bill. I am very grateful for the co-operation of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. It was rather last minute, but he has been exceptionally collaborative and helpful, up to and including this morning, and the Government have committed to implementation by the end of September 2027.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Antrobus]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for not combining everything earlier—I was trying to follow the rules on speaking. I thank both Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and their officials for the meetings between Committee and Report and earlier during the passage of the Bill on some complicated issues. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie: I do not think that we were divided by politics on this Bill, and it has been really important that we were able to progress things. If my noble friend Lady Smith were here, she would say that she was particularly pleased that she was successful in your Lordships’ House on the single occupancy housing arrangements, which have strengthened the Armed Forces covenant. She hopes that that might be continued, with the support of the Government, at the other end. With that, I conclude the comments from these Benches.