Armed Forces Bill

Ian Roome Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

It is a privilege to speak on the Armed Forces Bill, which will shape the direction of this country’s armed forces for the next half-decade.

The war in Ukraine should be a wake-up call to all of us, and the world has not looked so dangerous since the end of the cold war. The strategic defence review talks about a whole-of-society approach to making Britain more resilient. The Bill makes no firm commitments on troop numbers or combat, but it does begin to fix some glaring 21st-century gaps in our readiness to defend this country. I have spoken with senior officers who worry that we are poorly prepared to fix the recruitment crisis, stop cyber-attacks or prevent sabotage here in the UK. Some threats will not arrive over the horizon, because they are here already. Giving our forces the tools and authority that they need to protect key infrastructure against drone attacks, as specified in clause 4, to organise reserves and recall, and to support the next generation of recruits, will be critical.

For me, protecting our armed forces personnel is closest to my heart, and that is why it is so important that the Bill enshrines the armed forces covenant into law across Government, and why the new Defence Housing Service needs to be a success. More than three quarters of our armed forces live in service accommodation. I have done it myself, but I was still horrified by the findings of the service accommodation report published by the Defence Select Committee in December 2024, which detailed everything from rodent infestations to damp, mould and crumbling facilities. The Bill lays the groundwork for the Ministry of Defence to begin to fix that disaster.

I am pleased that the Government have agreed with the Liberal Democrat position that the decent homes standard should be applied to all forces accommodation, and the Bill gives the Defence Housing Service wide-ranging powers to do more. It is the very least that we owe to those in uniform. I hope that when the Secretary of State reports on the progress of the Defence Housing Service from the Dispatch Box, as specified in schedule 1, he will never again have to say that we let our armed forces down so badly.

The Bill clarifies the role of the new Armed Forces Commissioner and gives courts martial the authority to support those who may be suffering from mental health disorders. The requirement in clause 17 for commanding officers to report welfare allegations that have not yet been flagged, even outside their own chain of command, is another important addition that, in my opinion, is decades overdue.

The Bill also introduces measures to bring the powers of the tri-service military police up to date. It creates a stronger framework to stamp out sexual assault, stalking and other offences committed in uniform and by civilians subject to service discipline. I know that the terrible case of Artillery Gunner Jaysley Beck will have been at the forefront of everyone’s minds when the Bill was drafted. I hope that she, and many like her, will be our first thought when those clauses are studied in Committee.

The stakes are suddenly very high. This Bill needs to be our best work. We must safeguard every one of our armed forces personnel more than at any point in the last 30 years. They will keep this country safe, and the House owes them our unwavering support in return.

Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

Ian Roome Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[David Reed]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention; she is an expert in these areas.

National Governments have legal teams to help them interpret the concept of due regard and apply it evenly across their Departments. When we get down to the local council level—I think we have all experienced this—that might be more inconsistent because the skills might not be there to bolster that support. We need to make it clearer. It might not be a case of changing the nature of due regard but of making it more explicit so that councils can interpret it.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the Defence Committee report on the armed forces covenant, which is based on evidence from witnesses. It says:

“As the current duty of ‘due regard’ is inconsistently interpreted, the extended duty must be accompanied by clear guidance so that the duty is clearly understood and is not treated as a tick-box exercise.”

It goes on to say:

“We heard many examples where the Covenant was not working as designed, resulting in people who have served being financially disadvantaged, unable to access medical care, or unable to find an appropriate school for their children as a result of their service.”

That was all due to the wishy-washy interpretation of due regard.

[The Chair]

That is a long intervention, and we have an amendment on that subject.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and that is exactly the point I am making. We need to encourage the best from all our services, local authorities, police, education, courts and so on. We should not lose the approach of striving for the best, in favour of having a national minimum, because that becomes a drive to the bottom. We need to allow organisations to design their own approach with their local community to do the best they can for the armed forces—veterans and serving personnel—within their communities.

[Ian Roome]

It is nice to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Amendment 5 would add a new section to the armed forces covenant provisions that were introduced in the Armed Forces Act 2006 to try to make access to services more consistent. This Bill requires specified persons to have due regard to the covenant for specified matters, such as the fair provision of childcare, healthcare and social care, housing and other services listed in clause 2. Some of those specified persons are national bodies, but others are local authorities, educational bodies and health bodies, many of which are much more localised.

Without a national benchmark for supporting armed forces families, we risk that due regard to the covenant will still be interpreted in very different ways by, say, neighbouring local councils. I fear that some might see it just as a paper exercise. That could be unfair on armed forces personnel in some parts of the country, but would make life especially hard for those being reposted every two years. For example, Devon has one, two or three overlapping levels of local government, depending on where someone lives. Our NHS hospital trusts, police, fire authorities and other services have different boundaries too.

The problem of a postcode lottery was identified as a weakness in the original covenant. If someone is in uniform, they could easily be reposted from a big city to RAF Lossiemouth or RNAS Culdrose—a completely different kind of community. The Defence Committee’s report on the armed forces covenant found that some councils have priority housing rules for veterans, while others still require a local connection. That can be unfair on service families who move around a lot.

[Mike Martin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, since the heart of the covenant is about establishing parity and equity of service provision for all serving personnel and veterans, we must establish exactly what that means as a minimum? Without establishing what services must be provided—as a floor, not a ceiling—how can we have equity across the country?

[Ian Roome]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Published guidance can be interpreted differently from authority to authority. It is about how they put that into action.

Local NHS services have a mad patchwork of transfer rules depending on where someone moves from across the country, which can make access to medical care difficult, as I am sure some of us have experienced—I have, because I have a large garrison in my constituency, and I receive casework from serving personnel about the difference that they have experienced around the country. That is part of what we are trying to fix.

We should expect the Secretary of State to put specific protocols in writing for local bodies across the country. That would be fairer to our service personnel, but it would also make the Government’s responsibilities clearer—it would end our discussion now, where we are asking what due regard means—if local bodies fail to uphold what is being asked for in the Bill. The amendment would require a standardised set of protocols to be produced by the Secretary of State within six months of the Bill passing, require local bodies to act accordingly, and require the protocols to be brought back to Parliament when the procedures need to be revised.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

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

I want to focus my remarks on amendment 8, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East set out, seeks to provide a clear and practical definition of due regard in the Bill. If Parliament is placing a legal duty on public bodies to have due regard to the armed forces covenant, it is only right that it should be clear what that duty requires in practice.

The Bill places a duty on specified public bodies to have due regard to the principles of the armed forces covenant when exercising certain functions, as set out in proposed new section 343AZA(5) of the Armed Forces Act 2006, including in areas such as healthcare, housing, education, transport and pensions. However, the term “due regard” itself is not defined in the Bill or elsewhere, which creates a very real risk of inconsistent interpretation or application.

Amendment 8 would resolve that uncertainty by defining due regard as requiring public bodies to

“think about and place an appropriate amount of weight on the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when they consider all the key factors relevant to how they carry out their functions.”

That would not represent a change of policy; it would merely clarify how the duty is to operate. It would make explicit what many would assume is already intended, but which is not currently set out in the Bill.

The armed forces covenant itself is well understood by many. It reflects the principle that those who have served our armed forces, and their families, should not be put at a disadvantage compared with other citizens in accessing public services. It also recognises that, in some cases, special consideration may be appropriate. I think those principles are widely supported not just in this place but among the wider public. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that they are also reflected in the decision-making processes of public bodies.

The effectiveness of the duty to have due regard to the covenant depends in large part on how due regard is understood and applied. In the absence of a definition, there is scope for variation. Some public bodies may interpret the duty as requiring active and meaningful consideration of the covenant in their decision-making processes; others may take a more limited approach, treating it as a procedural requirement that can be satisfied with relatively minimal engagement. That variation matters in practice.

Members of the armed forces and their families frequently move between different parts of the country, and they rely on services provided by local authorities, healthcare systems and other public bodies. A lack of consistency in how the covenant is applied can result in uneven access to support in those circumstances. Let us take the example of a service family who move from one area to another. They may encounter different approaches to school admissions, healthcare provision and housing allocation. If due regard is interpreted differently in every area, the level of support available may itself vary significantly.

Amendment 8 would support a more consistent and coherent approach. By defining due regard clearly, it would establish a common standard that can be applied across different public bodies. The proposed definition is deliberately balanced: it would require public bodies to think about the covenant and give it appropriate weight, but it would not require a particular outcome in any given case, and it would not override other relevant considerations. It would simply ensure that decision makers exercise judgment and balance competing factors. At the same time, it would ensure that the covenant is not overlooked or treated as an afterthought. It requires active consideration—that is the way it must be interpreted.

The reference to appropriate weight would make it clear that the covenant must be taken seriously, even if it is not determinative. That reflects the approach taken in other areas of public law where due regard is applied, in which contexts the courts have been very clear that the duty involves more than simple awareness; it requires informed and timely consideration of the relevant principles as part of the decision-making process. Amendment 8 would adopt that well-established understanding and apply it in the context of the armed forces covenant, providing a much clearer framework within which public bodies can operate.

It is worth reminding ourselves that clarity is important not only for public bodies, but for those affected by their decisions. Members of the armed forces community need to know what they can reasonably expect when engaging with public services. A clearly defined duty would help provide that assurance to them and their families. It would also support accountability. Where a duty is clearly defined, it is easier to assess whether it has been properly discharged. With the proposed definition in place, Parliament and others would be better placed to scrutinise how public bodies are applying the covenant in practice. Without a definition, that scrutiny becomes much more difficult; it is less clear what standard is being applied, and therefore harder to identify when that standard has not been met. Amendment 8 would strengthen both the operation of the duty and the ability to hold public bodies to account for its delivery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

While I may not have served in local government, I absolutely acknowledge that we drown in bureaucracy across the UK. I would say that, compared with primary legislation, a councillor is far more likely to listen to and acknowledge an individual who has experience of armed forces service and who tries to enforce, educate and communicate the requirement to comply with the covenant.

There are two things that are going to bring about change. The first is armed forces champions across local councils, who do a fantastic job. They can be paid and there are no terms of reference; the role has not been standardised. The second thing, which will really change things over time, is the Valour programme, under which local field officers will help communicate and educate on compliance with the covenant over time, and help those councillors who perhaps do not understand it to deliver in line with it more effectively.

[Ian Roome]

I was a local armed forces champion. I was in local government for 22 years and ended up being council leader before entering this place. I can tell the Committee that, in practice, I was going around and screaming my head off to make sure that people were listening but, as it was not mandatory, they could just refer to due regard and make their interpretation of the guidance. I was a local armed forces champion for eight years, right up until I entered this place in July 2024, and I struggled to get veterans the help they needed. I just want the Minister to take that on board.

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service, both in the military and in local government, and as an armed forces champion. The honest reality is that as the duty is broadened from three areas to 12 plus two, local councils will be held to account to deliver for the armed forces community—and not just for veterans, but for families and others. The statutory guidance will be really clear. Combine that with field officers, under Op Valour, holding councils to account, with clear terms of reference that are standardised across the UK, and I think we will see a massive improvement in services, not just for veterans but for the broader armed forces community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

The public sector equality duty has been in force for 15 years and its duty of due regard is working well; we seek to replicate that as we move forward. From my perspective, the amendment risks constraining rather than strengthening that approach. As I have said many times, this is a step in the right direction. It broadens the policy areas covered by the covenant, which is a fantastic step and should be seen very positively across the armed forces, their families, our veteran community and the bereaved.

I thank the hon. Members for North Devon and for Tunbridge Wells for amendment 5, which proposes a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to

“prepare and publish a national protocol for consistent access to public services”

for personnel and their families. While I recognise the importance of consistent and reliable access to public services for the armed forces community, again I respectfully cannot accept the amendment. A national protocol setting out standardised procedures and expectations could create a minimal level of requirement that organisations might seek to meet without going any further. It therefore risks unintentionally limiting the steps taken by those organisations to support the armed forces.

[Ian Roome]

Will the Minister outline what the minimum requirement is currently?

[Al Carns]

The minimum requirement at the moment is to stay in line with the covenant principles. That needs to be balanced with the broader local issues that each local authority is facing. That will never be standardised because our local communities are different, from Cornwall to the north-east, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is the harsh truth of the postcode lottery: the covenant will broaden out to a variety of policy areas but the way to solve its implementation is through communication and education, rather than tying ourselves up in bureaucracy and legislation.

[Ian Roome]

We heard in the Defence Committee that a lot of people currently serving in the armed forces have never even heard of the armed forces covenant; they do not know what it is. We are discussing how to educate the public, but a lot of people serving have never heard of the armed forces covenant. Does the Minister think that the education needs to start within the Ministry of Defence on how it handles the armed forces covenant?

[Al Carns]

I completely agree. I served for 24 years, and I did not know what the covenant was until I left and became the Minister for Veterans and People. That is the honest reality. I am sure that others who are serving also do not know what the covenant is. There is an educational requirement within the military, but also—I say this ever so gently—they are so focused on their operational roles and responsibilities that they are not necessarily interested in what comes next, or in understanding the benefits of the covenant to their families and loved ones while they are serving, which is a crying shame. I completely agree that we must make a more conscious effort to ensure that the covenant is understood by those serving, those who have left, and importantly—perhaps in some cases more so than for any other group—the families of veterans or of those serving. There is a huge amount of support out there, but it is often untapped because of the lack of education.

The legal duty is set up so that bodies can make decisions that are right for the local context and circumstances, including the devolved Governments. I would argue that a one-size-fits-all approach could inadvertently hinder tailored solutions that best meet the needs of armed forces personnel and their families. Instead, the covenant duty is supported by robust statutory guidance that acts as a clear point of reference for public bodies. Therefore, further expectations are unnecessary. This guidance ensures that the needs of the armed forces community are properly considered, while allowing for local discretion and responsiveness. Furthermore, transparency and accountability are maintained through the armed forces covenant annual report, which monitors progress and highlights areas for improvement.

In summary, mandating a national protocol risks imposing unnecessary rigidity and could limit the ability of public bodies to respond effectively to local circumstances—a point that I keep coming back to. We believe the current approach strikes the right balance between consistency, flexibility and accountability. I hope that reassures hon. Members, and I ask them not to press amendments 8 and 5.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Roome]

When I was a council leader, we signed up to the armed forces covenant scheme, which set some principles for councils. Can the Minister give any indication of how many councils up and down the country have actually signed up to the armed forces covenant scheme?

[Al Carns]

That is a really good question. I will come back to the Committee with the exact detail, but lots of councils have engaged and have gold, silver and bronze standards. Some of them are exceptional. Some of them—this goes back to the point about the postcode lottery—do not necessarily need to sign up, because their community does not have a huge number of veterans or armed forces. I will endeavour to come back to the Committee with the detail.

There is already an established statutory duty to report to Parliament on the delivery of the covenant. There is therefore no need to establish a new reporting mechanism. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East is welcome to come and have a discussion with the Minister for Veterans and People and me about what that report looks like so that we can move it in the right direction. However, we believe that a proportionate, flexible approach, supported by guidance and ongoing engagement, is the best way to ensure that local authorities deliver meaningful support to the armed forces community without unnecessary administrative burdens.

I hope I have clarified the situation, reassured the Committee and offered up a brief for the Minister for Veterans and People and me on the annual report and what it consists of. I ask the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East to withdraw amendment 13.

Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting)

Ian Roome Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Al Carns]

Clauses 10 and 11, in reality, thicken out the service justice system and align it with the civilian justice system, providing greater freedoms and protections for anybody who is a victim within this system. I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Service policing protocol

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 6, 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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Ian Roome]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Amendment 6 would introduce a requirement for 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 currently inserts into the Armed Forces Act 2006 a new section requiring the Secretary of State to issue a “service policing protocol” to co-ordinate the work of the Defence Council, each service police force and the tri-service serious crime unit. That provision aims to better co-ordinate those organisations’ vital work and to protect against improper interference in their criminal investigations.

This amendment would insert an additional section requiring the provost marshal to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the relevant civilian police force. That is important because, although cases involving this kind of accusation may be heard faster under military investigation, many fear that these cases continue to be adversely influenced by the close-knit community within the armed forces and by the military chain of command. It was a recommendation of the 2021 Atherton report, in which more than 2,000 female service personnel and veterans said that they had been victims of bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual assault during their service in our armed forces. Some reported a culture where cases are minimised, evidence is lost and perpetrators are protected. Transferring that role to independent civilian police would remove the risk of a conflict of interest that can happen when the military investigates itself.

In the shocking case of Royal Artillery Gunner Jaysley Beck, who tragically took her own life in 2021, the coroner ruled that the sexual harassment she had suffered should have been referred to the police. The Ministry of Defence aims to see the percentage of women in our armed forces increase from 12% to 30% by 2030, and independent police investigation of sexual crimes would help to rebuild trust and accountability. Under subsection (3), a “relevant offence” would be committing, attempting or conspiring to commit an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 or an offence involving domestic abuse as defined by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The Secretary of State would also have the power to add additional offences should it be deemed necessary.

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank the hon. Member for North Devon for tabling the amendment, and I have just a few things to say. Its impact would be to remove the voice of the victim from the process in deciding the jurisdiction of sexual offences and domestic abuse cases. If a victim does not want their case dealt with in the criminal justice system, it is possible, as is the case with many situations where we see violence against women, that they will withdraw from the process. We have seen lengthy delays in the civilian justice system for dealing with rape and serious sexual offence cases. We have seen many instances of victims removing themselves from the process. The amendment would have the impact of removing the victim’s choice for the matter to be dealt with in the service system, possibly leading to a case where no prosecution was ever pursued. That cannot be right and therefore I cannot support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

The hon. Member raises a very important point. I will have to come back to him with specific details and statistics on that, and I will write to the Committee.

As mentioned before, the amendment potentially risks making the victim withdrawal rate even higher than in the criminal justice system. It also risks the loss or erosion of “golden hour” evidence and the safeguarding of victims in cases of sexual offending or domestic abuse. That is because the amendment does not place a duty on civilian police forces to accept the case. That could make delays in the civilian criminal justice system worse. In 2024, investigations of adult rape-flagged cases in the criminal justice system in England and Wales took 338 days. That is higher than the 148 days seen in the service justice system, even when taking into account the further 72 days until charge is directed.

To reassure the Committee, the Government are committed to making sure that each case, in particular those involving sexual offences or domestic abuse, is dealt with in the right jurisdiction. The prosecutors’ protocols therefore provide for decisions on jurisdiction to be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the views of the victim. That is one of the most important points—the views of the victim and their preference. In the event that agreement cannot be reached in England and Wales, for example, the ultimate decision on jurisdiction lies with the Director of Public Prosecutions in the civilian system, so there is a fall-back mechanism. It is a priority for us that decisions on jurisdiction are made in a timely way and take into account the victim’s preference. That is why clause 25 strengthens the provision of information and support to victims when they are asked their preference on jurisdiction.

There are two points I would like to come to. The first is the horrendous case of Gunner Jaysley Beck and what has been done since that incident, but also the Sarah Atherton review that took place in 2021. Since then, there has been a huge amount of work—under both the previous Government and this Government—to ensure that the service justice system, and indeed military culture, is transforming in the right direction. I will be really clear: when I joined, in 1999, LGBT individuals were still not allowed in the military. The culture has moved. It moved slowly, but it is moving faster, I think, in the last five years and in the last two years than I have seen it move in a long time.

There have been a couple of key milestones in that movement. The first one is zero tolerance to unacceptable sexual behaviour. That zero tolerance has trickled down to every rank in the military. I remember implementing that direction for my staff when I was the chief of staff for the UK carrier strike force. That took place across the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. The Raising our Standards programme is a commitment to tackle unacceptable behaviours and to drive lasting cultural change—again, to try and move in the right direction. Importantly, the violence against women and girls taskforce change programme is now running in Catterick and Plymouth, something I launched when I was the Veterans and People Minister. There is also the tri-service complaint system.

All of those programmes are moving in the right direction to ensure that if anyone is a victim of sexual violence or harassment, they have a place to go to express their concerns. It also ensures that it is dealt with independent of the chain of command and allows the victim to raise issues and get them dealt with in the most effective and appropriate manner.

We are currently working on a formal information sharing agreement. Currently, information is shared with civilian police forces through local engagement during investigations. I am happy to continue dialogue and take that forward to make sure that that is more solidified, clear and standardised across various civilian police and military police elements.

The reality is that clause 25 strengthens the provision of information and support to victims when they are asked for their preferred jurisdiction. Therefore, this Government maintain that case-by-case decisions taking into account the view of the victim—and that is critical, the view of the victim—is the best way forward. I hope that provides necessary reassurance to the hon. Member for North Devon, and on those grounds I ask him to withdraw the amendment. I commend clause 12 to the Committee.

[Ian Roome]

I will withdraw the amendment, but I ask that the Minister takes on board the comments made by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley in his powerful speech, so that this can come out on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Entry for purposes of obtaining evidence etc

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 14 to 16 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I fear that recollections may differ. My interpretation of the evidence that we heard is not that this is a failing system—far from it. I gently suggest to the hon. Member that the civilian Crown courts and magistrates courts may not be the best benchmark against which to compare its performance.

There is a wider issue, which the hon. Gentleman has touched on: this should not be merely about fixing a problem that exists now. There should be some horizon-scanning for the emerging challenges for the armed forces, not only in the present day but in the years ahead, and safety-proofing of the system against those challenges. That is the specific intent behind the amendment.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford and I have spent time making the argument about the more senior pool of officers. That is a fair position to take, because they will be under much greater demands, with extensive challenges. Given the threat levels we face—there was a statement in the main Chamber yesterday about events in the middle east—we are living in a much more unstable world, with much greater demands on our armed forces. One can foresee increasing difficulty in constituting panels for cases, particularly those involving senior officers. It would be a dereliction of duty if, instead of planning for those threats and the challenges that they might pose to our armed forces, the Committee and the House more widely sought only to react to them in future. It is always better to do things proactively in a calm manner and think about the implications, rather than doing things retrospectively and hurriedly because an issue has arisen.

I will dwell a little more on cases involving the higher ranks. When they do arise, it is often necessary for the panel to include officers of either equivalent or higher rank, but the pool of serving officers is by definition limited. As I hope I have described, that can create genuine operational and logistical difficulties in assembling boards that are both appropriately constituted, given the demands on their make-up, and able to proceed without undue delay. Retired officers of the relevant rank represent an obvious and sensible extension of the pool that would help us to proof the system. They would bring not only rank equivalence, but often a broader perspective. Having stepped back from the pressures of immediate command, they might bring a degree of reflective judgment that is particularly valuable in the complex and sensitive cases that invariably involve more senior officers, by virtue of the nature of the offences of which they are accused.

I speak as someone who has developed a healthy respect over the years for the ability of retired officers to express opinions with a greater level of clarity than they may have done in post. That brings a refreshing breadth to the system. There is something about leaving service—I certainly found this myself—that appears to improve one’s ability to identify precisely what everyone else should have done differently. Stepping away from the pressures and challenges of day-to-day service life enables individuals to take a wider and more holistic approach.

I am mindful of the fact that I am probably trying your patience, Mr Efford, so I will wind up shortly. I do not pretend that amendment 9 is perfect in every detail. The hon. Member for South Ribble provided a helpful challenge in relation to whether its scope should be wider. There are certainly questions about eligibility criteria and the mechanism for appointment, although I think that there is an obvious mechanism for identifying potential appointees. Those questions will need careful consideration, but that is not a particularly unusual position to be in at this stage of the legislative process. The purpose of Committee is not necessarily to produce final answers, but to test the direction of travel. I think the direction of travel is sound when it comes to ensuring that the system is foolproof.

This is about the resilience of our justice system and about making better use of experience that already exists in our wider armed forces community. It is about ensuring that the demands of the increasing operational tempo are not inadvertently creating bottlenecks in the very system designed to uphold discipline and fairness. Ultimately, that is the balance that we are trying to strike: on the one hand we want armed forces that are operationally effective, globally deployable and able to meet the demands of a more dangerous and uncertain world, but on the other hand we want a service justice system that is robust, timely and capable of functioning without becoming a constraint on our operational effectiveness. Those two objectives should not be in tension. We need to think carefully about how we design institutions that can support them both.

Clause 20 is an important part of that architecture: it will ensure that the court martial remains properly constituted and legally sound. Amendment 9 would strengthen that approach by ensuring that it remains practically workable under conditions of increasing demand. I urge the Government to accept the amendment, because I suspect that as operational pressures continue to rise and as we ask more of our armed forces across multiple domains, the need for flexibility in our service justice system will only become more rather than less pressing. If we get it right now, we will not only improve efficiency and effectiveness, but strengthen confidence in the system. That is ultimately what we should be trying to achieve in the Bill.

[Ian Roome]

It is important that we take on board the evidence from our visits. Otherwise, what is the point of going on them? That point was brought up when we debated a previous amendment, with reference to the use of the civilian or military justice system.

The hon. and gallant Member for Solihull West and Shirley made an excellent speech about using retired officers. We heard from those who are recruiting that there are delays. We heard during a visit that a senior officer had struggled to find a panel, and the process had been delayed because permission from the then Secretary of State was needed to use an officer of a lower rank. We also heard that it would be much easier to find officers. It is difficult to find officers of an equivalent rank, particularly among the higher ranks, who have not served or trained together or do not know each other, and to be sure that they do not have any relevant interest in protecting someone or perverting the course of justice. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford also made a good point about who constitutes the panel. I support amendment 9, because what is the point of our going on visits if we do not act on what we have been told is an issue?

We also heard a point that has not been mentioned today, which is that those in the non-commissioned ranks, such as warrant officers who have 25 or 30 years’ experience in the job, could also sit on the panels. It is not addressed in the amendment, but we heard evidence that those with years of military service and a lot of experience could be used on the panels too.

[David Reed]

I will add to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford and the hon. Member for North Devon.

The Opposition’s recollections align very closely with those of our Liberal Democrat colleague. Although we did not hear about a system that is breaking, we definitely heard about a system that is under strain. If memory serves—please correct me if I am wrong—we were shown a really good presentation by the people we visited in Portsmouth that demonstrated how the service courts have expanded. We had just a few men before; more rules and regulations have now been introduced, and thankfully women are being included, but extra bureaucracy has been added to the system. As the hon. Member for North Devon articulated, being more senior and not knowing people you have served with from other units is for the birds. We are going to end up with bottlenecks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for tabling amendment 9, which seeks to add retired officers to those who are qualified for court martial membership. However, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and most likely counterproductive.

The first argument made was about capacity and the lack of senior officers to sit on courts martial and hold people to account. As the Committee knows, we keep those things under constant review. The right hon. Member mentioned a case from several years ago that highlighted a lack of capacity to charge senior members. We pushed through secondary legislation in 2024 to amend two of the armed forces court martial rules so that if a defendant was at one star or above, the president of the board would be at one-star level; they did not need to be of higher rank. That was a significant change.

As for lack of capacity, I will throw out a question to the Committee: how many one-stars do we have in the military? We actually have 200 one-stars—let that sink in—and that does not include the reserves. There is no capacity issue here.

Secondly, the amendment could be counterproductive, because it is vital that the board members have up-to-date knowledge and real-time experience of the latest single-service policies. I say that from experience, because sentencing at court martial fulfils a number of purposes, including punishment, maintenance, discipline and deterrence.

[Ian Roome]

The Minister mentions that there are 200 officers at one star and above. Does he have the facts on how many of those 200 one-stars do not know one another?

[Al Carns]

As the hon. Member will know, trying to speak to people about whether they know other people is exceptionally difficult. Trying to capture that in a data record would be even more difficult. The 200 officers in service at the moment do not include the reservist pool, which is quite large—and that is just one-stars, not two-stars, three-stars or four-stars, so the pool is actually far larger.

I will go back to the purpose of sentencing at court martial, because it is an important point. As I say, it includes punishment, maintenance, discipline and deterrence. It must also take into account the best interests of the service and the maintenance of operational effectiveness. I completely agree that experience cannot be taught, but sometimes experience can wane over time. An appreciation of the relevant factors comes with experience, but also with the responsibilities of rank, as the veterans community will understand, and with the exercise of leadership and command over others. In some cases, that will not come with the most up-to-date operational context, which could cause an issue on the court martial board.

Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting)

Ian Roome Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Al Carns]

It may seem unusual that the Armed Forces Act 2006 extends directly to each of the British overseas territories, except for Gibraltar. However, there is a reason for that. The Act originally extended to all the British overseas territories, but it ceased to extend to the British overseas territories in 2011 as a result of a drafting error when it was renewed for the first time by the Armed Forces Act 2011. The Armed Forces Act 2016 corrected the error by extending the 2006 Act to the British overseas territories. Gibraltar was not included because it had instead asked to deal with armed forces matters using legislation passed by the Gibraltar Parliament—the Armed Forces (Gibraltar) Act 2018.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 51 to 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

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.’”—(Ian Roome.)

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Question negatived.

New Clause 3

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.”—(Ian Roome.)

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.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. New clause 3 would place 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. The one-month timeframe would create a hard deadline, and it would align the provision of records with their completing their registration with a GP. The new clause would apply in respect of all regular and reserve personnel and ensure that detailed medical records are made available after discharge, to both the individual and the relevant health body.

Under the new clause, the form those service medical records take would be specified, as is now common with data disclosure, to make health information transparent and accessible. The new clause would also create a formalised handover process for all physical and mental health records to a civilian health body, such as the NHS, as already defined in the Bill in proposed new section 343AZB of the Armed Forces Act 2006. Disclosure would happen with the person’s consent in a structured way, which would help to ensure better awareness of their service history during their future healthcare.

Lost medical records have been the focus of veterans’ campaigns, such as those launched by the UK nuclear test veterans, who say that decades-old records of blood and urine samples taken during the 1950s nuclear tests may have been actively withheld from service personnel to avoid liability over radiation-related illnesses. The new clause would recognise that a service career can be dangerous, so timely transfer of a copy of a person’s medical records at the end of their service should be standard procedure.

[Mr Francois]

The Opposition have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for North Devon is trying to achieve. There has historically been something of a cliff face. The medical requirements of a person serving in the armed forces are primarily attended to by Defence Medical Services; when that person leaves the armed forces and becomes a veteran, they transfer to the national health service. It is probably fair to say that in some cases there is a hiatus in medical information and records when that transfer takes place, and I am sure that it would be possible to improve it. Some GP practices have veterans champions and some practices automatically ask someone who signs on with them, “Are you a veteran?” Unsurprisingly, those practices tend to be better at making sure that medical records are passed on.

The hon. Member raised the specific case of the medical records of nuclear test veterans. I am not impugning the Minister, but I think the Ministry of Defence could try harder to ensure that those specific records are made more freely available.

On the more general point, we could do better at the transfer of records, particularly for those people who have suffered episodes of mental ill health, which are perhaps not immediately obvious. The vast majority of armed forces personnel leave military service in good shape, both physically and mentally, but I know from experience that for some veterans—the Minister has taken a real interest in this—there is, perhaps some years after they have left, what the professionals call a “trigger event”. Perhaps their father is diagnosed with a terminal illness with very few weeks to live and is then gone. That can suddenly bring out in the veteran all sorts of issues, perhaps relating to their service and operations. In those circumstances, unfortunately, people can spiral down very quickly; they might have trouble with their relationships, lose their job or become reliant on drink or drugs. In the worst cases, they might lose their home and end up in a dingy one-bedroom flat in the rough end of town—and in the worst of all cases, sometimes, they even take their own lives.

This is not in any way a partisan point. Governments of all colours have tried to work on the problem, as have charities such as Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion and Veterans Aid—I think of everything that Hugh Milroy has done in this space—but we could do more. Being able to pass across medical records in a timely and accurate way when people leave would help in those circumstances, even though sometimes problems lie hidden, for want of a better phrase, and come out only some years later. For those reasons, I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for North Devon proposes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Member for North Devon for tabling new clause 3, which would require the provision of full medical records within one month to all personnel leaving the armed forces. The Ministry of Defence absolutely recognises the importance of facilitating the transfer of healthcare information to civilian healthcare providers quickly and efficiently when an individual leaves the armed forces.

In short, individual access to medical records is already legislated for under the Data Protection Act 2018, and we are rolling out a system that will transfer most records within a day. The Act allows service personnel to request their own military records, including healthcare records, through a subject access request. There is an expectation that records will be provided within 28 days, extended to three months for more complex cases.

Service personnel are advised to register with an NHS GP at their discharge medical, which takes place one to three months before discharge. On leaving the care of Defence Medical Services, service personnel are provided with a medical care summary and a form named FMed 133. They are advised to provide a copy of their FMed 133—a patient record access request—to their NHS GP.

The information provided to service personnel for their GP on discharge includes physical and mental health diagnoses, medication and allergies, significant past medical history, ongoing referrals and care plans, and details of significant occupational exposure with health implications. Handover discussions are had for complex cases.

When a patient’s full DMS health record is required, it is provided on request from the NHS GP. The FMed 133 provides details of how the NHS GP may request a patient’s full DMS health record. Preparing a patient’s full DMS health record for release to the individual or their GP requires clinical oversight, and compliance with data protection and security protocols must be ensured. Full DMS health records may require redaction of sensitive operational information, and their release must comply with the principles of the General Data Protection Regulation.

[Ian Roome]

The new clause would create a deadline and shorten the timeframe. The Minister has just said that some complicated cases can take up to three months, but it is probably those cases that need the urgency of a 28-day timeframe. I know that in future it may all go digital, but at the moment we cannot confirm that, and I get some really serious and difficult cases in my constituency casework. Does the Minister therefore agree that we really need to improve the timeframe to 28 days?

[Al Carns]

I agree that we need to improve the system, and I am not going to stand here and tell the Committee that it is foolproof. I have heard of many cases where health records have gone missing in the bridge between systems. That is why I want to highlight the new electronic health records system, which is already under contract and will allow the immediate electronic transfer of medical records from DMS to NHS GPs at the end of service.

Digitisation is the big issue here, alongside interoperability between Defence Medical Services systems and those in the NHS. The new system will allow the transfer of NHS records to defence on entry, and their sharing when required, which will have a big impact on recruitment, particularly in reducing the time between a person expressing an interest in joining and the moment they do so, where the transfer of medical records has been an issue in the past.

Records access and transfer can occur within a day, and the new system is planned to be live from December 2027. I hope that reassures the Committee that the new clause is not needed, and on that basis I ask the hon. Member for North Devon to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

When the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East left the military, I am sure he received his FMed 133. If he did, he will recognise that it contained information on physical and mental health diagnoses, medication, allergies, significant past medical history, and ongoing referrals and care plans, as well as detailing significant operational exposures with health implications.

[Ian Roome]

I wish to press new clause 3 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Reed]

I declare an interest: I am also a proud holder of a veterans railcard, as are many of my constituents.

The new clause is modest in scope. It does not create new schemes. Both HM forces railcards and the veterans railcard are already in place. The purpose of the new clause is simply to give a clear statutory basis to ensure that they continue to operate on a national footing with transparent eligibility criteria and proper parliamentary oversight before any future changes are made. That is not an onerous demand on the Government, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has already laid out. It is a straightforward safeguard for those who the schemes are intended to support.

The Minister suggested that legislation is unnecessary because there is no intention to withdraw these railcards. However, having spoken to colleagues who were on the recent transport Bill, I know that similar questions were put to Ministers in that Committee. We have had no support, and this issue has ended up in my casework. Having spoken to other Members of Parliament who have veteran populations in their constituencies—

[Ian Roome]

I put it on record that I am a holder of a veterans railcard. Many of my constituents have veterans railcards and, with the cost of living crisis, they find it a great way to move about. Does the hon. Member agree that we really need to continue with the veterans railcard?

[David Reed]

The hon. Member has a Royal Marines base and a large veteran community in his constituency. This has been an issue, and I want it to be quashed as quickly as possible. If Ministers in the Department for Transport have not been able to confirm it, I really hope that the Minister in this Committee can stand up and say that there is no issue around these points and that the veterans railcard will continue to be in play. Hopefully, we can give it more support through the passage of this Bill so that it has a statutory footing.

Without a statutory foundation, Parliament would have no formal role in protecting the veterans railcard; that is the point I am raising. The position is hard to justify when set alongside other concessions in the rail system: discounts for younger passengers, older people and disabled travellers are already underpinned by legislation. The reasoning for that approach is clear and sensible. It is therefore difficult to see why the same principle should not apply to those who are serving, or have served, in the armed forces.

If the argument rests on trusted Ministers—I look across at the Minister and he is extremely trustful—that is not a standard applied consistently elsewhere, nor is it one that we should be asked to rely on. The new clause is carefully framed and constitutionally sound. It ensures that any future changes are subject to parliamentary scrutiny, which is exactly where decisions belong.

Armed Forces Bill (Sixth sitting)

Ian Roome Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armed Forces Bill

Ian Roome Excerpts

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Armed Forces Bill

Ian Roome Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Calum Miller]

I will not for the moment. I will, if I may, make a bit more progress.

It is equally vital, however, to give our armed forces confidence that the Government are serious about expanding our military capabilities, and we cannot do that without a credible defence investment plan. The outgoing Prime Minister allowed his office to brief that this document would be published before the NATO summit on 7 July. Today, Labour appears more concerned by who gets a seat at the Cabinet table than about actually governing the country. Can I therefore ask the Minister whether that commitment to publish the plan in the next fortnight is made by the Government, or merely by the current occupant of No. 10 Downing Street?

Once the DIP is finally published, it is critical that Ministers can be held to account for its implementation, and for the costs that the delay in its publication has already caused for UK businesses. Small and medium-sized enterprises are desperate to contribute to our national defence, but their survival has been jeopardised by delays to the DIP. New clauses 21 and 22 would guarantee this necessary transparency, requiring the Government to produce two reports a year to provide an update on the delivery of the DIP and a report on the impact of its delay on business.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

We should not let everything that is happening in Westminster today distract us from the urgent need to safeguard our national defence. New clause 22 would highlight the result of the defence investment plan being long overdue. Does my hon. Friend agree that our understanding is that we still expect the defence investment plan to be delivered before the NATO summit and before the selection of a prospective new Labour Prime Minister?

[Calum Miller]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his remarks. As I was underscoring, he is quite right to say that so many in the defence industry are holding on for the announcement of the DIP. There are many companies in the supply chains whose very survival depends on it, and I urge the Government to recommit to publishing the DIP before 7 July.

Turning to the wider Bill, there are several important areas for improvement, and I will start with how we recruit and retain service personnel across our military, how we treat those who have left, and how we strengthen our understanding of the reasons why they have left. This priority requires a long-term plan. That is why our new clause 13 would mandate the publication of a retention strategy, alongside the Bill, outlining the Government’s plan to ensure we can attract and keep talent in the military for longer. Our new clause 14 would also require an independent review to identify and examine factors such as diversity, inclusion, the medical discharge process and the state of defence housing.

On housing, I am pleased that Ministers have heeded Liberal Democrat calls to bring service family accommodation under the decent homes standard. We were troubled, however, to hear that delaying the implementation of this commitment was one of the Treasury’s ruses to help fund the DIP. I am sure the Minister agrees that that would be short-sighted, so I invite her to recommit to achieving the decent homes standard for SFA properties before the standard comes into force. We also want the Government to take the next step by applying the same standard to single living accommodation, too. That is what amendment 13 would do, helping to deliver for about 80,000 single and unaccompanied service personnel.

[Ian Roome]

It is a big misconception that single living accommodation in the forces is primarily for those who are single; it is not. Even at the flag-raising ceremony here in Westminster today, most of those in uniform told me that their wives live in a different part of the country, and they are living in single living accommodation. They are not living in family accommodation, but they do have families. Does my hon. Friend agree that, with this investment, we should be upgrading single living accommodation, too?

[Calum Miller]

I strongly agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, and I see nodding their heads those around the Chamber who, having served in our armed forces, know this accommodation better than me. It is critical that our service personnel, whether they are single, living away from their families or living in family accommodation, have a right to decent housing, and I hope the Government will stand by that commitment.