Armed Forces Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

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

It is a rare privilege to open this debate. This is only the second ever Labour Armed Forces Bill, yet the provenance of this legislation reaches all the way back to the Bill of Rights, and more than three centuries on, granting authority to maintain our armed forces remains one of the most important—if not the most important—formal constitutional responsibilities of Members of this House.

This is a substantial Bill—a reflection of just how much the world has changed over the past five years. It is more dangerous and much less certain, and this new era of threat demands a new era for defence. That is why our Government have committed an extra £5 billion to defence spending this year and committed to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, switching funding directly from overseas aid. It is why we are proposing, through this Bill, to increase our warfighting readiness and homeland security, and why we are putting the men and women in our armed forces at the heart of defence plans.

In the coming years, we will ask more of our service personnel, and it is only right that they expect more of their Government. The Bill takes significant steps to improve service life and strengthen the bond between society and our forces. At the general election, we pledged to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and I am proud to say that we are delivering on that promise: the largest pay increase for our armed forces in more than two decades, expanded wraparound childcare support, an independent Armed Forces Commissioner and a funded plan for a safe, decent home for every forces family. Through this legislation, we continue the work of renewing that commitment, with better housing, better services and better protections for those who serve.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that we have a good turnout in the House tonight to debate the Armed Forces Bill, which affects the quality of life and the service of the brave people who keep us safe? Yet again when we debate this vital subject, not a single Reform Member of Parliament is in the Chamber. Is it not wrong that these people wrap themselves in the flag, but never come along to defend the people who actually protect that flag?

[John Healey]

There is a general support for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on both sides of the House. This Armed Forces Bill, as I will go on to say, commands all-party support, and it is a shame that we have not got all parties in this House to demonstrate that.

The bond between the British people and those sworn to defend them is a proud part of our nation’s security. The purpose of the armed forces covenant is to strengthen that bond. The policy and principles underpinning the covenant were first set out in a Command Paper in 2008 under the last Labour Government, and to this day—this relates to the right hon. Gentleman’s point—the covenant maintains strong cross-party support across this House and across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I know about the right hon. Gentleman’s good news and bad news. We will return to that discussion when we return to Committee stage of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. When we do so, we will have in place strengthened protections for veterans, and that will be a result of the detailed discussions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, military leaders, the Prime Minister and I have had in recent weeks with representatives of the forces and special forces, and with former military chiefs, who have a point of view on this—

[Mr Francois]

Ah! Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

[John Healey]

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman for the last time.

[Mr Francois]

The Secretary of State mentions such a wide spread, but when we debated the remedial order last Wednesday, over 100 Labour MPs abstained, including the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, the Armed Forces Minister and two thirds of the Cabinet. If it is such a good idea, why did the Secretary of State not come here and vote for it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is 100% correct. At such times, it is to be expected that all parties attend the debate—that point has been eloquently made by my hon. Friend. If Reform Members are serious about defence, they should attend defence debates and questions on a regular basis.

Clause 2’s strengthening of the covenant is welcome.

[Mr Francois]

On that point, there are rumours that Reform is going to announce a shadow Cabinet. Constitutionally, there is only one shadow Cabinet, which belongs to the Opposition—even the Lib Dems do not have one. Instead, we are going to call it the drinks cabinet, because Nigel likes a drink, and so does Lee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that drinks cabinet should have a defence spokesman in it?

[Mr Dhesi]

The shadow Defence Minister is right on both counts. There is only one Opposition, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition—obviously, that is the Conservative party at present—and while I certainly would not use the term “drinks cabinet”, the shadow Defence Minister makes a very valid point.

The Secretary of State will remember that in our report, we cautioned that those who are expected to deliver the covenant must be involved in co-designing the new duty, and must be appropriately resourced to deliver it; otherwise, there is a real risk of diluting their existing commitments. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State or Ministers reassured the House on that point. The Secretary of State will also be aware that our inquiry concluded that updating the covenant in law is

“only part of the change that needs to occur.”

During the course of our work, we found that adherence to the existing covenant legal duty is very patchy. Too often, organisations that are subject to that duty do not understand it or, worse yet, disregard it. Understandably, this leads to disillusionment among the forces community, so in his winding-up speech, can the Minister for the Armed Forces please update the House on the Ministry of Defence’s plans to improve implementation?

--- Later in debate ---

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

As a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, I understand that it is rare to see a ten-minute rule Bill progress all the way into law. That is why I was so pleased when I learned that the Armed Forces Bill has incorporated the proposal from my Bill to bring Royal Fleet Auxiliary personnel within the remit of the new Armed Forces Commissioner. When the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 received Royal Assent at the end of last year, it created for the first time an independent statutory voice for service personnel, reporting directly to Parliament. However, the RFA did not get that protection, despite the vital role that its crews play in supporting our armed forces.

Falmouth is home to the Bay-class RFA ships, and I have spent time with their crews in Falmouth docks. RFA personnel are not armed combatants, but they are deployed in warzones and they face danger, and there is no doubt that they are absolutely vital to the UK’s defence, security and maritime power. They have been deployed all over the world on anti-narcotics missions, following earthquakes, providing support during the Ebola crisis, and recently in operations apprehending shadow vessels and protecting our subsea cables. Crews face challenging conditions, including an ageing fleet and staff shortages. Personnel regularly have long sea tours, with less time off per day worked than any other sector. This Government have been working with the RFA and its unions closely on improving terms and conditions, and I hope that will be concluded speedily.

[Mr Francois]

As the Minister who oversaw Operation Gritrock, when RFA Argus was deployed to Freetown as part of Britain’s relief effort to fight Ebola in Sierra Leone, may I endorse everything that the hon. Lady has said and pay a personal tribute to the wonderful work that the RFA did to help combat that wicked virus?

[Jayne Kirkham]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I remember the ship sailing from Falmouth and coming back.

Clause 30 of the Armed Forces Bill now delivers what I argued for and formally brings RFA personnel within the scope of the Armed Forces Commissioner. The reform does not change the RFA’s legal status or distinct identity, which is very important, but it finally gives the men and women who sustain our Royal Navy and Royal Marines an independent route to raise concerns about bullying, unsafe conditions, discrimination or misconduct.

Schedule 4 sets out in detail the new powers and responsibilities of the Commissioner in relation to the RFA. These include promoting welfare, improving public understanding of the RFA’s challenges and investigating systemic issues, such as staffing, crew fatigue and safety. It also gives the Commissioner the authority to enter RFA premises, request evidence and issue recommendations that the Secretary of State has to consider. It is worthy of the contribution that the RFA makes, and I am glad to have helped in a tiny way to secure it. The contract with those who serve should not end at the gates of a naval base or the stern of an auxiliary ship. RFA personnel serve this country with dedication and often without recognition, and it is right that our policy reflects their contribution.

I welcome the wider reforms in the Armed Forces Bill, which will benefit thousands of service personnel and more than 30,000 veterans across Cornwall, many of them in Truro and Falmouth. The Bill extends the covenant across all levels of Government so that no one falls through the gaps, and it strengthens the service justice system to ensure fair treatment and proper accountability. It also provides for the publicly owned Defence Housing Service, which will benefit 12,334 homes in the south-west, many of which are in my constituency.

The provisions in the Bill are accompanied by initiatives such as the fantastic Operation Valour, and there is a bid for my constituency to become a hub. Cornwall has the second highest number of veterans of any local authority area, so we believe that it would make a lot of sense to have that provision there.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) made a point about young people. The Government announced an armed forces gap year plan over Christmas to give Britain’s young people under the age of 21 a taste of the extraordinary skills and training on offer across the Army, the Royal Navy and the RAF. It is a really important scheme.

I had very little experience of the military before I met my ex-husband. Everybody knows about the potential risks, but there are huge positives and opportunities that many are not aware of. People can do all sorts of things in the forces—they can learn to be a pilot, a medic, an engineer or even a champion snowboarder—and they gain connections that last a lifetime. My Navy friends are like family to my son, and I consider myself very lucky to have been part of a forces family.

Cornwall has a proud military heritage. Many families have someone who served or is still serving. They make extraordinary sacrifices to keep this country safe, and they deserve safe homes, fair treatment and a system that understands the unique demands of military life. I am pleased that the RFA 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 now be properly recognised and protected. As a Government, we promised to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and we are delivering on that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow my fellow Essex MP, the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), not least as she has the privilege of representing Merville barracks, which I have visited a number of times down the years and which is the home of our elite unit, the 16 Air Assault Brigade. I have to be careful in saying that, because I have a former royal marine, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), sitting on the Benches behind me.

I thank the Minister for the helpful briefing on the Bill that he arranged for me at the Ministry of Defence last week. I am prepared to admit to the House that there was a slight communications mix-up. When I was originally invited into the Department, I left my phone in my office, thinking I was going into a briefing about events in Iran. I was both surprised and delighted when I was ushered into one of the historical rooms at the MOD to be pleasantly confronted by the entire team of officials responsible for the Bill. I am grateful to them for their subsequent briefing, which was extremely helpful.

The Armed Forces Bill is a very necessary piece of legislation that has to be passed by Parliament at least every five years. By tradition, this quinquennial Bill is relatively non-controversial. In that spirit, as the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), said, just as we did with the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, the Opposition see our role as that of a critical friend to the Bill by engaging in debate with an aim to improving it where possible—although we do, of course, reserve the right to hold the Government to account on a variety of matters. I may take the liberty of returning to two such matters in particular.

Although the Bill’s 55 clauses and seven schedules cover a variety of topics, with everything from drones—a particular hot button for the Minister, and indeed for my line manager—to powers of commanding officers, the Bill mainly encompasses four principal areas: reserves in clauses 31 to 37; defence housing and other property in a lengthy clause 3; the armed forces covenant in an equally lengthy clause 2; and potential changes to the service justice system, which is covered in several clauses, but principally clauses 5 to 16 and 20 to 26. I should like to say a little about each of those areas in turn.

Before I do, though, I place on the record that in this debate on the Armed Forces Bill—a very important piece of legislation regarding the future and welfare of His Majesty’s armed forces—not a single Reform MP has been present in the Chamber, let alone made a speech. If these people want to wrap themselves in the flag, they should at least take the trouble to turn up to support those who actually defend it, both in this country and around the globe. Reform Members have been too busy today spreading misinformation about my party’s attitude to Northern Ireland veterans—another reason, I suspect, that they did not want to come into the Chamber and face the music.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The shadow Minister will remember that one of the first things I did on leaving the Army in 2013 was to write a policy paper for Policy Exchange titled “The Fog of Law” on lawfare—that legal intervention on the battlefield that causes confusion and leads so many down a terrible path, of which Northern Ireland is one example, although there are many others. He will remember that our party has been on this for years, trying to clear the obstacles that have been created by various different constructs such as the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. I am sure he will now be one of the champions, along with the Leader of the Opposition, on finding a proper solution to answer that. Will he agree that this is how real government is done—by doing the hard work over many years to find the real answers that apply, and not simply by shouting at others?

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend is right. There is an old saying in politics that the world is run by those who turn up. Well, Reform did not turn up.

On the reserves, I should first declare an interest. I served as a Territorial Army infantry officer in the 1980s in the 5th Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment, a NATO-roled battalion that formed part of the 49th Infantry Brigade, which in turn was part of the 2nd Infantry Division, whose core mission was essentially to reinforce what was then the British Army of the Rhine, or BAOR, in the event of world war three. Including service in the Officers’ Training Corps prior to joining 5 Royal Anglian, I did some seven years in total. I was on Exercise Lionheart in 1984 as an officer cadet and also exercised in Cyprus and West Berlin as a junior officer.

Nevertheless, I was at no time deployed on active service and so, unlike the Minister, I have no medals at all, because I never did anything that merited one. Despite that, I am still proud to carry the late Queen’s Commission, and I like to believe that had the balloon gone up, our battalion would have done our best to defend the bridge over the Leine river, which was our wartime task.

[Peter Swallow]

Can I just say, as much as we have occasionally sparred across the Chamber, what the right hon. Member just said speaks volumes for the role that our reservists play up and down the country? Whether or not they are deployed or get medals, so many ordinary men and women step forward to say that they would serve this country if push came to shove—and I say that as somebody who has not done it myself, and I hold my hands up to that. That is so important, so I want to pay tribute to what the right hon. Member said and to all our reservists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind intervention. It is true that we have sparred in this Chamber—famously, on one occasion—but I utterly agree with the spirit of his intervention, which I am sure carries the support of the entire House tonight.

There are a number of measures in the Bill to improve reserve service, which was mentioned by multiple Members, including the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). The measures cover the potential transition to war and the regularising of call-up liabilities across all three services. We think that the proposals largely make sense—though I have to confess that I recently turned 60, and seeing that the Minister wants to extend the call-up liability to 65, I had best dust off my old set of webbing at the back of the garage somewhere just in case.

[Richard Foord]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

I want to make a bit of progress, but perhaps later if I have time.

Turning to housing, I should declare a different interest, as this was an area I cared about very much when I served as an MOD Minister. When I left ministerial office in 2016, the then Prime Minister Theresa May commissioned me and a small team to write a report about military recruitment, including terms of service such as service housing. We eventually entitled it “Filling the Ranks”, and it was submitted to the Prime Minister, with a copy to the Defence Secretary, in 2017. The report made 20 recommendations for improving recruitment, ranging from better advertising and further expansion of cadet units through to taking a more realistic approach to minor medical ailments such as mild eczema and temporary childhood asthma. Nineteen of the recommendations were accepted and actioned, to varying degrees, but unfortunately the one that was not was to consider sacking Capita—or according to Private Eye “Crapita”. Unfortunately, I never managed to persuade our Ministers to do that, despite the company’s truly awful record on Army recruitment.

The peer review of “Filling the Ranks” was positive. However, as we were making visits to military establishments and interviewing everyone from privates to very senior officers, including on many of the issues contained in the Bill, in nearly every case within 15 minutes of talking about recruitment, we found ourselves involved in a related conversation about retention. In simple terms, we learned very quickly that there was no point widening the aperture of the recruitment tap if we could not put a retention plug in the sink.

We were, therefore, delighted to be recommissioned to undertake a second report specifically into retention, which we subsequently entitled “Stick or Twist?”, as we thought that that encapsulated the serviceman’s dilemma, and which was eventually submitted to the new Prime Minister—one Boris Johnson—in February 2020, a month before the country went into lockdown. This report touched on a number of facets of the armed forces covenant, which are also part of the Bill. I have copies of both reports here with me.

Quite a few of the recommendations in “Stick or Twist?” were adopted, and the then Defence Secretary Ben Wallace used it to persuade the Treasury to provide some extra tens of millions of pounds to improve childcare facilities at a number of bases around the country. It was worth doing the report if only for that. I should like to pay tribute to the small team that helped me to compile the two reports: Colonel—now Brigadier—Simon Goldstein, himself a former distinguished reservist; and my two researchers Mrs Sophie Doward-Jones and Mr Rory Boden, who worked tirelessly to produce two documents written in a Select Committee style, with all the work that that entails, for the attention of the Prime Minister and Defence Secretary.

Again, however, the most controversial suggestion in “Stick or Twist?” was not adopted. It was a proposal to form a forces housing association and thus bring in expertise from the registered social landlord sector to better manage service families accommodation—SFA. Frankly, at the time this was simply too much for the vested interests in the MOD’s Defence Infrastructure Organisation to accept. Nevertheless, I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Defence Secretary, announced a few months ago our intention to introduce such a body if we return to government. The Armed Forces Bill has much to say on this topic—as indeed have many Members this evening—especially in clause 3, which heralds the creation of a defence housing service. This is conceptually similar in some ways to what was first recommended in “Stick or Twist?” six years ago, but with some important differences. I genuinely look forward to debating the respective merits of the two approaches with the Minister in Committee.

The Bill also touches on the issue of the armed forces covenant, which is a matter that we have discussed in this House on many occasions. In essence, the intention is to spread the authority of the covenant to cover other Government Departments, including Education and the NHS. We have a number of suggestions for how this process might be improved—for instance, in special needs education, which we hope to explore in Committee. I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for what she said about the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham. I had the privilege of visiting the military unit there on two occasions—once in the company of His Royal Highness, the then Prince of Wales, now His Majesty the King—and I echo everything she said about the excellence of that department at that hospital in caring for those who have served their country.

The Bill goes into some detail about potential improvements in the service justice system. This touches in part on a number of quite sensitive areas, not least those highlighted by my former Defence Committee colleague Sarah Atherton in what became known as the Atherton report. We shall again attempt to explore the merits and details of those proposals in Committee.

Before I conclude, I want to refer to the remarks of President Trump about the brave soldiers who fought alongside the United States and other allies in Afghanistan. Would that he had not said such things, especially as our troops also fought with the Americans in Iraq and in the caves of Bora Bora in 2001 after the United States invoked article 5 after 9/11—the only nation ever to do that. We traditionally avoid discussing royal matters in this House, but if it is true that President Trump’s volte face on this was in some way due to royal intervention, all I can say is: God save the King.

We should endeavour to take a broadly positive attitude to the Bill, but I must caution that there are two areas where the traditional consensus might struggle. First, the Government claim to be fully committed to the two principles of the armed forces covenant—namely, that no members of the wider armed forces family, be they regulars, reservists, veterans or their loved ones, should suffer any disadvantage as a result of their military service, and that special treatment may in some cases be appropriate, especially for the wounded or bereaved. All that rings hollow, however, when we see what the Government are currently doing to our brave Northern Ireland veterans—a matter we were debating in the House just last Wednesday evening over Labour’s remedial order to undermine the Conservative legacy Act, which protects our veterans. Over 100 Labour MPs failed to back that order on the night, including, interestingly, the Prime Minister himself, who abstained, as did over half the Cabinet, including the Defence Secretary and even the Armed Forces Minister. The Government have performed 13 U-turns in the past few months alone, and we very much hope for a 14th U-turn over two-tier justice and facilitating lawfare, especially against our own vital special forces, allowing our brave Northern Ireland veterans to live out their lives in peace instead.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

No.

Secondly, with regard to readiness, as the international skies darken, we fail to see how we can improve our deterrence posture through the Government’s imposing £2.6 billion of in-year spending cuts in the MOD’s operating budget this year, thus reducing training exercises, sea days and flying hours, all in the name of short-term cash control. The Government constantly claim that they are increasing defence spending while concurrently slashing our own armed forces’ operational spending and also stalling on the defence investment plan, which we were faithfully promised last autumn. Similarly, we have been promised a defence readiness Bill, which is not ready yet. It is like a serious defence strategy turning into “Waiting for Godot”.

With those two important provisos, we welcome the Bill. I genuinely look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply, including on why he abstained last Wednesday.

Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. This clause is an essential part of each and every Armed Forces Bill, as it provides for the Armed Forces Act 2006 to be renewed for a further five-year period. Without it, the 2006 Act would expire on 14 December 2026.

For constitutional and legal reasons, an Armed Forces Act is required every five years. That requirement for Parliament’s agreement for continuation has its origin in the Bill of Rights of 1689, which provides that the raising of a standing army is against the law unless Parliament consents to it. Primary legislation, an Armed Forces Act, is therefore required every five years, this one to renew the 2006 Act to provide for the armed forces to be recruited and maintained as disciplined bodies. The most recent Armed Forces Act was the 2021 Act, which provided for annual continuation in force of the 2006 Act by an Order in Council, but not beyond the end of 2026. That means that this Armed Forces Bill must receive Royal Assent before 14 December 2026.

Clause 1 replaces section 382 of the 2006 Act with a proposed new section 382 that provides for the 2006 Act to be continued until the end of 2031. It provides specifically for the 2006 Act to expire one year after the Royal Assent of this Bill, but it also provides for it then to be continued annually—rather than expiring—by an Order in Council up to, but not beyond, the end of 2031. As a consequence of clause 1, section 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2021, which inserted existing section 382 and the expiry date of 2026 into the 2006 Act, is repealed.

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

By way of some brief introductory remarks, Mr Offord—

[The Chair]

Order. Let us get it right from the beginning —it is Efford, not Offord.

[Mr Francois]

I am sorry, Mr Efford. I was thinking of a previous Member.

[The Chair]

Mr Offord is your former colleague.

[Mr Francois]

I apologise, Mr Efford. As you say, get it right!

This was not a contentious Bill on Second Reading. As we said during that debate, we think our role is primarily to act as a critical friend to the Bill. That does not mean we will not disagree on anything at all, but it does mean that, now we are in Committee, we will attempt to approach the Bill in a constructive manner. I hope we can do a lot of that in a collegial way.

I want to place on record our thanks and, I am sure, those of all right hon. and hon. Members, to the Clerks and yourself, Mr Efford, for organising some extremely effective evidence sessions—we have already taken a lot of evidence on the Bill—and in particular for organising an extremely effective visit to Portsmouth to look, among other things, at the operation of the service justice system and defence housing. That has all been a positive start and, within reason, we will attempt to continue in the same manner. We have no objection to clause 1 standing part of the Bill.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

In the same vein, we see the Bill as part of our constitutional duty, and one that will help us to deliver the best for our service personnel—an aim that we all share. I echo the shadow Minister’s thanks to the Clerks and you, Mr Efford. I, too, look forward to working collegially across the Committee to ensure that we get the best Bill possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the words that we have used in the amendment are taken verbatim from the Minister’s letter of 9 March 2026? We asked him to provide a definition of due regard; he duly wrote to the Committee very promptly, and we have quoted the first sentence verbatim. These are not random words; this is the Minister’s definition. All we are seeking to do is place it in the Bill.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful, as always, to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because he has hit the nail on the head. This is not something novel; it is merely codifying—formalising in the Bill—what has already been written in evidence to us, which seems eminently sensible.

It is important to consider the practical impact of the amendment on public bodies. The definition would not impose a new or onerous requirement. Public bodies are already accustomed to taking into account statutory duties and policy considerations in their decision-making processes. A requirement to think about the covenant and give it appropriate weight would fit squarely within that existing framework. It would not require extensive additional processes or resources. It would not mandate detailed reporting or specific outcomes. Instead, it would provide a clear instruction about how the covenant should be treated alongside other relevant factors. In practice, that may involve ensuring that decision makers are aware of the covenant and understand its implications. It may involve considering how policies affect members of the armed forces community and whether adjustments are needed to avoid disadvantage. Those seem eminently sensible and wise factors to put in this piece of legislation.

In education, that could mean taking into account the particular challenges faced by a service child who moves schools frequently. In healthcare, it could involve considering continuity of care for families who relocate. In housing, it could involve recognising the impact of service-related mobility on access to accommodation. In each of those cases, the duty does not require a specific result; it requires consideration of the relevant factors, including the covenant, and a balanced decision based on those factors. Amendment 8 would therefore support decision making without constraining flexibility.

We often hear concerns that defining duties in legislation may increase the risk of legal challenge. In my view, in this case, the greater clarity that the amendment would introduce is more likely to reduce that risk and be a protective factor. Where duties are clearly defined, public bodies are better able to understand and comply with them, which reduces the likelihood of disputes arising from uncertainty about what is required. Conversely, where duties are unclear, there is a greater risk of inconsistent application and challenge.

By setting out what due regard means in this context, the amendment would provide a clearer basis for compliance. Importantly, it would reduce ambiguity. It is also relevant that the definition is framed in general terms; it does not describe details or steps that must be followed in every case. That would allow public bodies to apply the duty in a way that is proportionate to the circumstances that they face. That flexibility is important given the range of functions and decisions to which the duty will apply.

The amendment aligns with the overall purpose of the Bill. The intention is to embed the principles of the armed forces covenant in the work of public bodies. A clearly defined duty would support that objective by ensuring that the covenant is considered in a consistent and meaningful way. If the duty is left undefined, there is a risk that its impact will vary significantly between organisations, which would undermine the aim of the Bill. The amendment would strengthen the Bill by supporting a more effective and consistent implementation. It would also reflect the practical realities of service life.

Members of the armed forces and their families frequently experience moves and disruption as part of their service. They rely on public services in different parts of the country and need those services to respond in a consistent and informed way. A clear definition of due regard would help to support that consistency, providing a common framework for decision making that recognises the particular circumstances of the armed forces community. It is not about giving preferential treatment in all cases; it is about ensuring fairness in line with the principles of the covenant. That includes avoiding disadvantage and, where appropriate, providing additional support. The amendment would ensure that those principles are properly taken into account.

Amendment 8 would make a targeted and practical improvement to the Bill. It would support a more consistent application of the armed forces covenant by public bodies, provide greater clarity for decision makers and those affected by their decisions, strengthen accountability, and reduce the risk of inconsistent interpretation. Most importantly, it would help to ensure that the covenant is applied in a way that has a real effect on day-to-day decision making. For those reasons, I view the amendment as a useful and proportionate clarification that would strengthen the operation of the duty as set out in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I agree with the premise of the hon. Member’s point. Where I disagree is in how local authorities may view that and how it may restrict their ability to deliver services across other requirements, in line with local priorities. In my letter to the Committee, I wrote:

“When developing the Armed Forces Covenant Legal Duty, due regard was deliberately chosen to bring about lasting positive change…whilst at the same time retaining some flexibility for public bodies to make decisions that are right for their local context and circumstances.”

That is really important, because some of our constituencies will have different levels of need compared with others. Some may have large veteran populations; others may not. Some may have a large number of cancer patients, for example. Prioritising veterans in a very narrow, bounded line above those individuals may skew a whole list of requirements and needs across other public services, hence my point about communication and education, and then the yearly accountability in line with the covenant, which is critical to ensure a level of accountability.

Government Departments are also demonstrating how covenant considerations are driving change in practice. For example, this Government have gone further than before by removing local connection requirements for access to social housing for all veterans. I would be really interested if the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has examples of where that local connection requirement has not been removed; if he does, I ask him, please, to highlight them to my office so that we can take them on and deal with them, because we removed the requirement last year.

Our experience of the public sector equality duty also shows that a duty of due regard, when properly supported, is sufficient to drive lasting cultural and organisational change, but I do accept that this is the first step to moving in that direction. In addition, the covenant’s statutory guidance, which we can scrutinise in due course, will include a dedicated section explaining what due regard means in practice, including the key issues faced by the armed forces community that bodies must consider. I would welcome the whole House’s view on how that can be improved—if, indeed, it thinks it should be.

[Mr Francois]

I do not think the Minister ever served in local government—he was serving his country in uniform, so I mean no slight by that comment—but I did for four years, albeit in the last century. I remember that primary legislation had more effect than guidance on councils, not least because even then we were drowning in such guidance—there is even more of it to drown in now. Would he accept that having something in primary legislation is more likely to get a councillor to do something about it than if it is included in reams of guidance, which they tend to drown in anyway on a weekly basis?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Francois]

I do not want to labour the point, but in reality, a lot often comes down to the calibre of the armed forces champion in a particular council; I am sure that the hon. Member for North Devon was an excellent one. If such a champion were in a debate in full council—on how to amend housing policy to advantage veterans, say—it would be far more effective for them to be able to point to a section in an Act of Parliament than to paragraph 212B(III) of some Government circular. An argument is far more effective in a council chamber if a person can wave an Act of Parliament; I have seen people do it. Does the Minister not accept that if we are trying to empower armed forces champions to deliver at ground level, having a definition in the Bill would be very helpful?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I promise the Minister that this will be the last time I intervene.

[Mr Francois]

On this point.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Yes, on this particular point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for his intervention. This is about placing a clear, time-bound duty on the Secretary of State to secure continuity of secondary care for dependants within six months. We want their clinical need to transfer horizontally across, as opposed to vertically downwards. That is the nuisance that amendment 10 is intended to address.

Amendment 10 sets out the substance of the regulations that I have suggested that the Secretary of State introduce. They are deliberately straightforward. First, where a patient is already receiving treatment, their status should be preserved when the responsibility for their care is transferred to a different health authority—that is, a horizontal move across. In practical terms, it would mean that a patient should not lose their place in the system because they crossed administrative boundaries. Instead, they should have a seamless transfer of care.

Secondly, the amendment would ensure that patients are not required to obtain a new referral solely by virtue of having moved, which would be ridiculous. The need for a referral is, and should remain, a clinical matter. It should not be triggered by geography and movement. Requiring a new referral in those circumstances adds delay, creates duplication and serves no meaningful clinical purpose.

Thirdly, the amendment calls for clear guidance on the practical steps necessary to support continuity, including the timely and efficient transfer of patient records, the recognition and continuation of existing treatment pathways, and the preservation of procedures that have been booked or recommended. Those are not novel concepts; in many ways, they are already part of good administrative practice. What is lacking is the consistency of application across the country.

It is perhaps worth emphasising what amendment 10 would not do, as much as what it would. It would not confer preferential treatment on service families. It would not seek to move them ahead of others in the queue, nor to secure access to services beyond what is clinically necessary. Its purpose is much more modest: to ensure that service families are not disadvantaged as a result of circumstances beyond their control. That is entirely in keeping with the armed forces covenant, which commits to removing disadvantage, not to creating advantage. In that context, the disadvantage is clear; it arises not from clinical need, but from the intersection of mobility and administrative fragmentation. Addressing it is therefore both entirely justified and absolutely necessary.

There is also a broader point about fairness and the implicit contract between the nation and those who serve. Service personnel accept a range of constraints and obligations that do not apply to the general population. They relinquish a degree of control over where they live, where they move and how they organise their family life. In return, it is entirely reasonable for them to expect that the state will take reasonable steps to ensure that those constraints do not translate into avoidable hardship for their families.

Continuity of healthcare is a particularly important aspect of that understanding. Health is not a peripheral concern; it is central to the wellbeing and stability of service families. Disruption to care can have a cascading effect on education, employment and the overall resilience of the family unit. In that sense, addressing the issue is a matter not only of fairness, but of operational effectiveness. A serviceperson who is worried about the health of their family cannot fully focus on their duties. At a time of critical need, their ability to do so is absolutely essential.

Some may raise questions about the practicalities of implementing such a system, particularly in the context of devolved health systems across the United Kingdom. It is therefore important to be clear about the scope and intent of amendment 10. It would not seek to override devolved competencies or impose a uniform model of service delivery. Rather, it would require that whatever the organisational arrangements are, mechanisms be in place to ensure continuity when patients move between them.

In many respects, the steps required are administrative rather than structural. They involve ensuring that information flows effectively, that existing clinical decisions are recognised, and that waiting positions are honoured, based on clinical need. These are matters of co-ordination, communication and guidance; they do not require wholesale reform of the system.

There are already examples of good practice in this area. In some parts of the country, arrangements have already been put in place to facilitate the transfer of patients between trusts with minimal disruption to their care. The amendment seeks to ensure that such practice becomes the norm rather than the exception.

It is also worth noting that the increasing digitalisation of healthcare records and the development of more integrated healthcare systems provide a foundation upon which this kind of continuity can be built. In many cases, the infrastructure already exists; what is needed is a clearer expectation, backed by regulation, that it should be used to support service families consistently and reliably.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. As he and the Committee know, there is a major reform of NHS England going on. At the ground level, it means that there will be far fewer integrated care boards. In Essex, we are going from three to one, and that approach is mirrored across the country. Is not my hon. Friend’s amendment therefore very timely, because—this should appeal to the Minister—we are trying to slim down NHS bureaucracy and give ICBs more power within the system? Would my hon. Friend’s proposal not tie in extremely well with the reorganisation of integrated care boards, which hold much of the budget within the NHS?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is about not only streamlining the process, but giving more heft to those who wield the power to ensure that we get improved patient outcomes at the end of it. That is what we should all be seeking.

Ultimately, the question before us is very straightforward: are we content to allow a situation to persist in which service families can lose their place in the healthcare system simply because they are required to move in the course of service, or do we consider it reasonable to take targeted steps to prevent that outcome? In my view, the answer is clear. Where treatment has begun, it should continue. Where a place on a waiting list has been earned, it should be respected. Administrative boundaries should not dictate clinical outcomes. They certainly should not impose additional burdens on those who have little choice but to cross them.

The amendment provides a measured and practical mechanism to achieve that objective. It respects the structure of the NHS, acknowledges the reality of devolution and focuses squarely on the removal of a specific and identifiable disadvantage. In doing so, it gives tangible effect to the principles of the covenant. It recognises that our obligations to service families are not merely symbolic; they require a practical expression in the design and operation of public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East is leading for the Opposition on clause 2, I nevertheless want to make a particular point in relation to special educational needs and to adoption and fostering. I want to emphasise some issues related to educational aspects of the armed forces covenant. I shall therefore speak to amendment 11, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends, which relates to the continuity of special educational needs plans, and to amendment 12, tabled by the same Members, which relates to fostering and adoption.

I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members on the Committee will be familiar from their constituency casework with the challenges presented by the special educational needs issue. I therefore rather hope they might have some sympathy with amendment 11, the essence of which is to allow serving families with a child who has been awarded an education, health and care plan, or its equivalent in the other nations of the United Kingdom, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move between bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area of the country to another.

In the modern parlance, I have been on a journey in relation to this issue, so let me explain briefly to the Committee why I feel so strongly about it. Over the past few years, multiple parents have come to my constituency advice surgeries in connection with this issue. In a number of cases, they have been through what I admit is a bureaucratic assault course, sometimes lasting two years or longer, to establish an EHCP for their child or children. Having been through that gruelling experience, which can sometimes even involve attending an appeal hearing in front of a judge, they have often been confronted with the further challenge—even having won such a valuable document, which provides important additional support for their child—that they still cannot find a special needs place. Their child therefore has to be accommodated somehow in mainstream education, even if their condition is such that mainstream education is simply not appropriate in their case.

[Pam Cox]

I cannot help noting that the poor performance of SEN services in Essex is largely down to Conservative-run Essex county council, whose arrangement the right hon. Member and I share.

[Mr Francois]

I was hoping to approach this in a relatively non-partisan manner, but if the hon. Lady wants to mix it, I am happy to do so.

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

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

Let me just reply to the first intervention, and then I will be happy to take another. It is definitely true that there is a backlog in granting EHCPs in Essex, for a number of contractual reasons. To be fair to the county council, it now has a new contract and has invested heavily in catching up, but let me get back to the service personnel aspect.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I have great sympathy with what the right hon. Member is saying. We face this issue all over the country, particularly in Cornwall. However, he will be aware that the amendment may be out of date soon because the Government are introducing new SEN reforms that will introduce national standards, so hopefully it will no longer be needed.

[Mr Francois]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point. Having looked at the White Paper in a fair bit of detail, I have tried to incorporate how the system will change into what I am going to say. There is still a fundamental problem, however, which I hope I can explain to her satisfaction.

I have come to understand at least a bit about the complexities of the situation, including the important fact that some 99% of appeals to SEN tribunals for an EHCP to be granted are eventually approved anyway. That is a phenomenally high percentage. It struck me that the system was expending a tremendous amount of resource in trying to exercise the judgment of Solomon as to whether child A was marginally more entitled to a scarce SEN school place than child B. That can apply to the children of service personnel as well. It therefore seemed to me, after some years of experience, that the only way to cut the Gordian knot was to increase the supply of special needs education. With all the SEN schools in south Essex already heavily oversubscribed, that meant creating a new special needs school from scratch. I spent three years trying to do exactly that.

I am delighted to tell the Committee that Wolsey Park school, the first ever SEN school in the Rochford district, is now under construction and will hopefully open in the spring of next year for 150 children with severe or profound learning difficulties—the most challenging SEN cases—in Rayleigh. There will also be an annexe with a further 100 places on the former Chetwood primary school site in South Woodham Ferrers. The school will be called Wolsey Park, although light-heartedly I thought “Francois academy” had a certain ring to it. Others, unfortunately, disagreed. It should provide high-quality education for those very special children.

As a result of that process, I have been on an educational journey that has taught me quite a lot about the complexities and challenges of the whole area, which of course also applies to service personnel who have a child, or in some cases children, with special educational needs. I know that this can sometimes be an emotive subject, not least for parents, but I hope I can convince the Committee that what I am attempting to do is not any kind of partisan initiative, but will hopefully be to the benefit of all service personnel and their families in this category.

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth raised the new White Paper. In February 2026, the Government published a long-awaited White Paper on this subject, “Every child achieving and thriving”. There are a number of positive suggestions in that document, and I should like to touch on them, as they potentially affect armed forces personnel.

According to the latest estimates, by which I mean the gov.uk statistics concerning SEN and EHCP provision in England for the academic year 2024-25, there are 482,640 children with an education, health and care plan in England. Obviously, the number increases when Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are included in the total; they have different names for the document, but they are essentially quite similar.

The definition of special educational needs, which is included in the SEND code of practice for England, is brief and very clear:

“A child or young person has SEN if they have a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision to be made for him or her.”

At present, that provision, whether it is in a mainstream educational setting or a dedicated SEN school, is often supported in the most challenging cases by an EHCP. The White Paper estimates that around 5.3% of children in England, or just over one in 20, currently qualify for an EHCP. Although I have not seen specific statistics relating to the military community, it seems logical that the proportion is unlikely to be lower, so at least one in 20 service children, and perhaps even more, qualify for an EHCP.

One of the challenges of dealing with SEN children—this point relates directly to amendment 11—is that providing the additional support they require is often relatively resource-intensive. Local education authorities are therefore often reluctant to speedily grant EHCPs because of the financial pressure that it adds to their budgets, even though 99% of those cases tend to be settled in favour of the parents and the child concerned anyway, sometimes after a gruelling and time-consuming appeal process.

Because of the funding pressures placed on local authorities by the growing demand for SEN support and for EHCPs in particular, several years ago the then Conservative Government introduced what was known as the statutory override for local authority budgets. In essence, it meant that although local authorities are required by law to set a balanced budget each year—would that central Government had to live by such discipline!—the one exception whereby they are allowed to run a deficit deliberately is the case of costs arising from SEN education.

As we have local elections approaching, it is fair to say—without being partisan or going into the cases of individual councils—that rising SEN costs have placed a number of local authorities that are also local education authorities, such as county councils or metropolitan or London boroughs, under considerable financial strain in recent years. As a result, under the Conservative Government, the statutory override that was introduced in March 2020 and was initially meant to run until March 2023 was extended to the end of March 2026.

Now I am about to give this Labour Government some credit. The question of what would happen when the statutory override ran out is obviously still pertinent. In June 2025, they announced that the statutory override would stay in place until the end of the financial year 2027-28—so they extended it. Moreover, in autumn 2025, the Treasury announced that the Government would absorb the cost of the statutory override through central budgets—in other words, via general taxation—once the override expires in 2028.

As the Library briefing notes on this subject point out:

“Future funding implications will be managed within the overall government DEL envelope, such that the government would not expect local authorities to need to fund future special educational needs costs from general funds, once the Statutory Override ends at the end of 2027-28.”

In February this year—last month—the Government further announced that they would be writing off 90% of councils’ historic SEND-related deficits, at least up to the year 2025-26. All of that is very costly in terms of general taxation, and I have yet to see a comprehensive estimate of exactly how it will be paid for, but the Committee might feel that, in these very particular and emotive cases, the money is none the less well spent.

[Jayne Kirkham]

Looking at amendment 11’s proposed new section 343AZC of the 2006 Act, I am not sure whether there may be a drafting error. EHCPs are normally given to the child, not the parent, and the proposed new section is drafted as if the plan will be awarded to the parent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I accept the hon. Lady’s point, but in effect the EHCP relates to the child, and the parents have to fight the system to get it. I am very happy to take her advice on board if I bring the amendment back on Report.

Nevertheless—this is why I have placed an emphasis on budgets—the cost of SEN still places a significant in-year pressure on local authorities that are trying to set realistic budgets. Of course, there is the related issue that many Committee members will be familiar with—the cost of home-to-school transport for SEN children, some of whom are driven from home to school, in some cases over quite long distances, often effectively in taxis provided by the local authority.

Amendment 11 relates specifically to the portability of EHCPs, but it is important to understand that in the February 2026 White Paper, the Government delineated three tiers of SEN support, which I will briefly summarise. The first or lower tier is targeted support. That is defined as providing targeted support in the child’s education setting, which is set out in an individual support plan—an ISP, as opposed to an EHCP. That could include small group interventions to develop language skills or pre-teaching key vocabulary to help access the curriculum.

The second tier is targeted plus, through which support from the setting will have input from education and health professionals, and may include access to a support base. That will involve time-limited support in an alternative provision or specialist setting.

The third and highest tier is specialist support, where support is provided through an EHCP, whether in a mainstream or specialist setting. It may also be provided through a specialist base at this level. Once reforms are completed, EHCPs will be provided only at this level of support. In other words, they will be more difficult to get. According to the White Paper, these layers will be guided by national inclusion standards to be developed in the coming years, which will set out what the layers should look like in practice. Again, as so often, we await further Government guidance.

I have deliberately gone into this level of detail because, at the moment, the amendment is drafted only to include EHCPs. To be clear, it is my intention today to deal with this effectively as a probing amendment to promote debate. Depending on the Committee’s reaction, I would like to bring back a refined amendment for discussion in Committee of the whole House or on Report. I am signalling in advance that I might withdraw the amendment today and tweak it to bring in those other levels of support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor]

The right hon. Member makes a very valid point. I invite him to submit his speech to the consultation on the Government’s White Paper on special educational needs. If he is going to withdraw the amendment, perhaps he would consider that, and then we could move on.

[Mr Francois]

Having been a Member of Parliament for 25 years in June, I have learned not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I say that in the nicest possible way, so I will take the hint, and having gone to the trouble of writing the speech, I will definitely submit it.

To continue, if a service family were based at Tidworth and, perhaps after some considerable time, had secured an EHCP from Wiltshire as the local education authority, but were then posted to Catterick, they would potentially have to go through the process all over again in Yorkshire. It could be another two years of agony to get back to where they already were before they moved.

As the Minister pointed out in his helpful letter to the Committee of 9 March, the Department for Education has produced—here is that word again—“guidelines” that should help facilitate the passporting, in effect, of EHCPs from one military garrison or equivalent airbase or naval base to another in a different LEA area, so there is already a process in place to do that. The problem, however, is that those guidelines are facilitative rather than mandatory. In other words, if the receiving LEA—in Yorkshire, in our example—was already under serious financial pressure and already had delays in its system for granting EHCPs, it is possible that, despite the armed forces covenant, the receiving LEA might yet be unreasonable and still force the service family to go back to square one and start all over again. Without taking the Committee for granted in any way, I strongly suspect that Members from all parties would find that situation highly undesirable.

[Mr Foster]

Is it not the case that a civilian family who lived in Wiltshire and moved to Yorkshire would face exactly the same challenges as the service family? The covenant is about service personnel and families not being at a disadvantage compared with their civilian counterparts. Actually, they are already not at a disadvantage because both are dealt with in exactly the same way.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Member is making my point for me. In the civilian context they might not be ordered to move, but in a military context their whole unit might move, so they do not have a choice. If they are going to follow the drum—follow the flag—they have to go from Tidworth to Catterick. If, therefore, the LEA covering Catterick were difficult about it, they would have to start the journey all over again. When I was doing the “Stick or Twist?” report, I spoke to a number of service personnel, so we had anecdotal evidence, although I am afraid not a league table. We certainly spoke to people who were contemplating leaving the military because they were in exactly that situation and simply could not face the challenge of having to move and start all over again. They would rather leave the service of the Crown and keep the bird in the hand—for want of a better phrase—staying with the EHCP that they had, than move to a new location, roll the dice and start all over again. That is the fundamental difference.

An absolute principle of the covenant—as, to be fair, the hon. Member for South Ribble rightly elucidated—is that service personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage as a result of their military service. This is a very specific example of where they do, and we called the report “Stick or Twist?” because, in this case, that is the dilemma that they would face. I have done my best, I hope, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, so I will try to move towards a conclusion without trying your patience, Mr Efford.

In essence, amendment 11 seeks to make provision for the Secretary of State to produce guidelines within six months such that the receiving authority must accept that transfer as legitimate and seek to passport across whatever benefits were provided for in the EHCP, or in the national equivalent in the devolved Administrations. On a point of detail, as an EHCP usually includes a named school for that child to go to, whether mainstream or specialist, the service family should also be given a reasonable period of time in order to help negotiate and select a named school in the receiving area, ideally before their posting comes into effect, so that the child could, as it were, know their fate and begin to establish links in the new school. I hope Committee members appreciate that for children with certain SEN conditions, moving educational settings can be a disturbing experience. That is why I put that provision into the amendment.

I hope the Committee will forgive me for having gone into considerable detail about all this, but special educational needs is perforce a rather complicated subject. Nevertheless, I hope that the Committee can understand what I and my hon. Friends seek to achieve here, and I hope that we might somehow be able to co-opt the Committee on a cross-party basis to bring it through. The spirit is simple: one of the key principles of the armed forces covenant is that service personnel should suffer no disadvantage relative to their civilian counterparts by virtue of their service, and I believe that that should apply equally in the field of special needs education as elsewhere.

Having presented my case, and so as not to try the Committee’s patience, I genuinely look forward to hearing other members of the Committee, especially the Minister when he sums up, and their views of amendment 11. I shall not discuss amendment 12 now, but will let someone else have a go. Perhaps, Mr Efford, you will call me to speak briefly to that amendment later. Other than that, I rest my case.

[The Chair]

I do not see anyone else wishing to speak, so carry on.

[Mr Francois]

I did not want to push my luck, but briefly, amendment 12 is similar in spirit and relates to portability and adoption. In this instance, I want to raise a specific case of two serving officers. They asked not to be identified, but perhaps the Minister will take my word that it is a genuine case; if he wants me to provide the details privately afterwards, I am happy to do so.

This married couple, both serving majors based at Shrivenham, have been looking to adopt. They are both due to be posted to PJHQ—permanent joint headquarters —in Northwood at the conclusion of their course, in under six months. They reached out to their future local authority to start the adoption process, but they were told that they could not start the process unless they had been living in that local authority area for at least a year. Also, they would have to commit to staying in the new local authority area for a minimum of two to three years after they had adopted—a potential total of more than five years. That is clearly not feasible for a military family, used to two-year posting cycles.

Our amendment 12 would therefore simply give military families the same rights as civilian families, who do not have to move wherever the nation needs them. It is very similar in essence to the point about EHCPs, but representations have been made to me by that family and others, so I undertook to draft a parallel amendment that specifically covers fostering and adoption. I hope the Committee can understand the spirit of what I am trying to achieve. With that, I rest my case.

[Al Carns]

I begin by addressing amendment 10. I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for his views on the Bill, and for raising the important issue of continuity of NHS secondary care for armed forces families. Although the amendment is well-intentioned, the Government cannot support it, for a relatively simple reason.

Healthcare, education, adoption and fostering arrangements are devolved matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendment risks overstepping devolved powers, and could breach the Sewel convention by imposing UK-wide operational requirements from Westminster, potentially straining relationships within the devolved Governments. It is counterintuitive.

The amendment also raises significant concerns about clinical prioritisation and patient safety. Requiring patients to retain waiting-list positions regardless of clinical urgency risks distorting NHS prioritisation principles, which are based on clinical need, ensuring fairness and safety. Similarly, transferring care without appropriate referral processes could undermine clinical governance, particularly given variations in treatment pathways and IT systems across NHS regions. For a long time, we have known that that creates a set of complexities that is difficult to navigate.

The armed forces covenant already provides a strong, flexible framework for addressing those challenges. The NHS has embedded the covenant principles into its constitution. It delivers bespoke pathways for the armed forces community, such as Op Restore and Op Courage, and it has a central armed forces commissioning team, which works to retain NHS waiting-list positions where clinically appropriate. I have met them, and they are exceptionally proficient at what they do.

In addition, existing programmes and ongoing electronic record integration already address many of the challenges associated with frequent moves and continuity of care, without the need for additional statutory requirements. A clear example of that collaborative approach is the work that is under way with the devolved Administrations. Wales and Scotland have today confirmed that following the cross-border work that has been led by the Government, they are actively considering updating their policies to better reflect cross-border arrangements and the maintenance of waiting times.

The current approach is based on close co-operation between the MOD, NHS, devolved Governments and local health bodies, supported by the armed forces covenant duty, rather than by rigid primary legislation. That allows for locally tailored solutions that respect clinical priorities and patient safety and avoid unintended consequences, such as disruption and delay. Extensive consultation and co-operation with devolved Administrations and stakeholders is essential to maintaining effective healthcare provision, and that could be undermined by prescriptive regulation and unrealistic deadlines. The objectives of the amendment are therefore largely met through existing statutory guidance and NHS policies, which provide a more flexible and effective framework for supporting armed forces families.

Generally, the difficulties and complexity of triaging patients across devolved Governments, different NHS trusts and secondary care are not lost on me. Separately from discussing the amendment, I would welcome a discussion with the Minister for Veterans and People about how we can continue to improve the existing process. I understand the positive and forward-looking intent behind the amendment.

Amendment 11 seeks to mandate the transfer of special educational needs plans between the devolved Governments. While well-meaning, that approach is unlikely to work in practice. Each nation operates a distinct statutory system for identifying need, assessing children and delivering support. Imposing a legal requirement for portability across those frameworks risks creating delay, duplication and additional bureaucracy for some families.

The more effective route is continued joint working with bodies in scope, building on the existing protections that are already provided by the covenant. The duty requires public bodies to consider the specific impacts of service mobility, including for children with SEND, and to ensure that support remains responsive as families move.

The Government are already taking significant steps in this space. The Department for Education is consulting on SEND reforms that explicitly recognise the challenges faced by service children. A central part of this work is developing digital, streamlined plans that can be easily transferred, reducing delays during moves.

In England, local authorities already have a statutory duty to manage and transfer education, health and care plans when a child moves between areas. The Ministry of Defence has been fully engaged with the Department for Education’s consultation on SEND reform, highlighting the importance of minimising disruption to service personnel and families and ensuring quicker access to support in new locations. Reforms under consideration by this Government include digital EHCPs and individual support plans, which go a long way towards sorting out some of the bureaucracy, and are designed to support smoother transitions for highly mobile children. The MOD is also working with the Department for Education on the Best Start in Life programme and family hubs, providing integrated, accessible support from pregnancy onwards. Guidance to help the hubs to support service families effectively is expected this spring.

--- Later in debate ---

Mandating cross-border portability would cut across devolved legislation. In some cases, it would create further confusion, would risk slowing down some of the work that we are already doing, and would reduce the speed at which it is delivering.

[Mr Francois]

I am not quite convinced by the Minister’s argument. I understand what he is saying, but if Corporal Tommy Atkins, his wife and their special needs child in Wiltshire are posted to Edinburgh castle, Fort George, Leuchars or wherever in Scotland, that is not their fault. The amendment would help to reduce bureaucracy by requiring the receiving LEA to take the EHCP. The fact that it was created in England does not mean that it should not be valid in Scotland. The currency we use is valid in both nations, so I am not quite convinced by the Minister’s argument—and either way, it does not help the service personnel or the child much, does it?

[Al Carns]

We continue to discuss with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales how best to enhance the cross-pollination of EHCPs and individual support plans. We will continue to do so and, in particular, will try to speed up the transition and make it smoother for highly mobile children.

To legislate in the way the shadow Minister suggests, when a White Paper is already out and changes in legislation are coming, could result in the incorrect solution for armed forces families. What I would recommend is a discussion with the Minister for Veterans and People to update the right hon. Member in full and ensure that any ideas or insights that he has are pulled into that work, so that we come up with the best collaborative solution. The Government’s preferred approach is collaboration within existing frameworks, underpinned by the covenant duty, which will deliver the practical benefits without the unintended consequences.

Amendment 12, which seeks to continue adoption and fostering arrangements automatically across local authority boundaries, would raise significant practical difficulties. Each local authority operates with its own procedures, safeguarding requirements and legal frameworks. A single, one-size-fits-all statutory requirement risks creating confusion, administrative burden and potential delays, which is precisely the kind of disruption that the amendment seeks to avoid.

The Ministry of Defence already provides comprehensive guidance for service families through the adoption and fostering defence instruction notice, which embeds the MOD’s role firmly within existing civilian-led systems. These long-standing civilian frameworks already ensure continuity for families when they move. In combination with the strengthened covenant duty, they provide a far more practical and effective approach than the amendment process.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford raised a specific case. I am more than happy to take it offline. If we can help directly where the system has not worked, or help with the process, I will pass it on to the Minister for Veterans and People, and we will get after that problem set.

The covenant’s statutory guidance provides a flexible and practical framework that respects local authority responsibilities while directly addressing the challenges faced by service families. It ensures that individual circumstances can be properly considered without imposing rigid requirements that may not fit every complex case.

For those reasons, the Government consider the amendment unnecessary and duplicative. We remain fully committed to supporting healthcare needs for armed forces families, improving SEN provision and ensuring robust support for those involved in adoption and fostering. We will continue to work collaboratively with delivery partners and improve guidance where needed, rather than impose inflexible statutory mandates that risk unintended consequences. I hope that that provides reassurance. I ask hon. Members not to press amendments 10, 11 or 12.

[The Chair]

Does the shadow Minister wish to press amendment 11?

[Mr Francois]

Let me say briefly that I hope that, if nothing else—

[The Chair]

Order. I was not calling the shadow Minister to make a speech; I was just asking whether he would press amendment 11.

[Mr Francois]

No, Mr Efford, and I was just going to say why not. I tipped my hand earlier and said that I probably would not press it. I will accept the Minister’s kind offer of a meeting to discuss the issues in amendments 11 and 12. I hope I have managed to convince the Committee that I have done my homework, if nothing else. I will not press either amendment.

[David Reed]

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Armed Forces Covenant Action Plans

(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations requiring a local authority to which the Armed Forces Covenant duty applies to prepare and publish an Armed Forces Action Plan.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify that an Armed Forces Action Plan set out—

(a) the steps the authority intends to take to fulfil its duties under the Armed Forces Covenant,

(b) how the authority will assess local need within the Armed Forces community, and

(c) how resources will be allocated to support delivery of those duties.

(3) A relevant local authority must, at least once in each reporting period, publish a report on progress made against its action plan.

(4) In preparing an action plan and report under this section, a relevant local authority must have regard to any guidance or outcomes issued by the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State may issue guidance, including indicative outcomes or measures, for the purposes of supporting consistent implementation and assessment of the Armed Forces Covenant duty.”

This amendment would require local authorities subject to the Covenant duty to prepare and publish an Action Plan setting out how they will deliver the duty.

The amendment, which stands in my name and in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends, would place a clear and consistent obligation on local authorities to produce an armed forces covenant action plan. At present, there is no standardised mechanism for assessing how local authorities are delivering their covenant duties, nor is there a consistent framework for evaluating the effectiveness of delivery in practice. The absence of such a structure makes it difficult to form a clear picture of how the covenant is being implemented across the country. Without a defined framework, delivery is likely to vary among authorities, a point that has been raised today in relation to other amendments.

Some local authorities, particularly those with an established focus on armed forces issues, may continue to provide strong and proactive support. They may already have effective partnerships in place with local services charities, good engagement with their armed forces communities, and a clear understanding of local need. In some areas, local authorities are already producing plans or strategies, often working closely with the local armed forces network and charities. The amendment would build on that existing good practice, rather than starting from scratch.

Other authorities, facing a wide range of competing pressures, may find it more difficult to give their covenant commitments the same level of attention. That is not necessarily due to a lack of willingness; rather, it reflects the reality of limited capacity and competing priorities.

The result can be a variation in provision across different areas, whereby the consistency of available support may depend in part on where an individual lives. That sits uneasily with the intention behind the armed forces covenant, which is to provide a consistent commitment to those who serve or have served and to their families. The amendment is intended to support the duty by helping to ensure that the covenant is delivered in a more consistent and transparent way at a local level.

In practical terms, the absence of a structured approach presents some challenges. First, it can limit the ability of local authorities to assess the scale and nature of their armed forces community. Without a clear expectation that information will be gathered and analysed, there is a risk that need will not be fully identified. That may relate to housing, access to healthcare, employment support or the specific needs of service families who move frequently. It may also include the needs of veterans who are less visible and are therefore less likely to come into contact with services unless there is a proactive effort to reach them. If need is not clearly understood, it becomes more difficult to design services that respond effectively.

Secondly, without a clear planning framework, resource allocations can become less strategic. Decisions may be taken on a reactive basis, responding to immediate issues as they arise rather than being guided by a longer-term assessment of the need. Given the financial pressures facing local authorities, that is understandable. However, it increases the risk that covenant-related activity will not be prioritised consistently, particularly when it is not clearly set out alongside other statutory responsibilities. A more structured approach would allow better co-ordination of support between services, including housing, healthcare and employment support, where needs often overlap and require a joined-up response.

Thirdly, the absence of a requirement to set priorities or to publish reports on progress makes it harder to assess how covenant duties are being delivered in practice. It becomes more difficult for central Government to understand what is happening at a local level; it is also more difficult for local stakeholders, including service charities and armed forces families, to see what support is available and how it is being developed. Those issues were reflected in earlier evidence sessions, in which concerns were raised about the lack of consistent metrics and the difficulty of comparing delivery between authorities.

Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

During the transition from service to being a veteran, even if everything is marvellous, you will suffer a lack of comradeship. You have extremely tight bonds in the military—the team wins the war, because you will do anything for your comrades—but when you come to civilian life, as the Minister has done more recently than I have, you lose those tight bonds and that sense of belonging. That opens you up to other traumas that perhaps you were managing when you were there with your mates, whether that was moral injury or classic, trauma-induced PTSD. You become a veteran, because you choose to leave the service or your contract comes to an end, and that sense of belonging, which is like a salve, disappears and you are exposed to the traumas you have had.

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

I am loath to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he is making an extremely powerful speech. I pay tribute to his service. When I was the Veterans Minister a decade ago, I looked at the issue. One thing that we looked at closely was the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, which is that some veterans leave in very good mental shape—they have an exit medical and they are fine—but a few years later there can be a trigger event, such as the sudden death of a parent, and suddenly all the suppressed anxieties and difficulties seen in combat can come out very quickly. That person can deteriorate extremely fast. Is the hon. Gentleman’s proposed appointment partly intended to address that problem?

[Mike Martin]

The shadow Minister is exactly right. We have used a few metaphors today, including that of mental health as a journey. Another metaphor is that mental health is a garden that has to be tended. Each of us has a responsibility to introspect and check in with ourselves to see how we are doing, but the garden also needs to be tended by gardeners. The oversight position in new clause 2 is the chief gardener, if you like.

We have all heard stories in our constituency casework about how mental health services are being pared to the bone. By offering reports to Parliament, the veterans’ mental health oversight officer would be able to illustrate some of the particular problems that veterans who suffer with mental health problems have. They would report to Parliament and illustrate the problems in a way that would enable Parliament to adequately oversee the issue and make sure that our veterans are cared for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions on clause 2 and the new clauses. They are based on the right intent, and Members are trying to do the best by our serving and ex-serving population.

I will leave the script and step back to look at where we have come on this journey. Under the previous Government, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs sat outside the Ministry of Defence. I sort of understand why that happened in some cases. I analysed this to and fro for a long time before making the decision to bring it back in. With hindsight, after a year and a half, the ability to amalgamate all the different parts of the veterans portfolio, including pensions, injury claims, records and the resource that Defence brings, has brought us far further forward. Would that have happened if the OVA had not been outside in the first place? I cannot comment, but its position in Defence, where it is safeguarded as an organisation, means that it harnesses all the bureaucratic power that Defence can bring to move stuff forward.

I will come in a second to the issues of veterans’ mental health and having a veterans commissioner. But if we step back and look at Afghanistan—where some Committee members here served; I did five tours there—there was a palpable feel among the population that the Government were not doing enough, or that the system was not flat and fast enough to deal with the scale of the problem that Afghanistan was kicking out on rotations. We therefore saw an explosion in the number of veterans charities, and the reality is that we now have more than 1,000 veterans charities in the UK. That number is growing every day. Some are the best, most well-meaning people, doing an amazing job and dealing flat and fast with veterans in our communities at the grassroots level. They do an outstanding job, and we have to harness the best charities. Some big charities, too, do a fantastic job of analysing data and providing the Government with clear advice on how to support veterans. There is also everything in between. I will be clear: there are the most amazing charities, very good charities, average charities and a very small minority that do not deliver as efficiently as perhaps they should.

In the veterans portfolio, how do we help the charities cohere their capacity, the £1 billion market that is the veterans charity sector, to deliver it more effectively? And how do we do that in conjunction with local government, while understanding the good, the bad and the other group that sits to the right of that mark? That will stem from Valour. It has taken small steps, but it is moving forward relatively quickly. The first one was about the establishment of an OC—officer commanding—Valour, the head of Valour. Who will run this programme, which is not just about England, but about England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

The reason why we need one central point of contact is that we have devolved Administrations that do things differently. We have a plethora of datasets that sit within big charitable organisations, sometimes feeding the output of the charities and at other times providing us with good, balanced analysis. The trouble is that we do not have a collective dataset to give us a clear understanding of the various issues across our veterans space. In fact, the RBL did a fantastic study on perception versus reality, on the statistics and the view of the population versus the actual realities for veterans at the grassroots level. It pointed to one thing: with so many charities needing to generate and raise funds, in some cases they had to champion the requirement for money to go to the most needy or individuals in most need of support.

When we look at the realities, most veterans leave the military and do not have an issue. A proportion have medium-level needs, and a proportion have some really acute needs. The reality and the perception, however, are different. Some of that is skewed, because we have created a charitable sector network that must generate an income from championing or sometimes pushing the most injured and the individuals who need the most support to the very front of the limelight. That creates a national narrative that turns veterans into victims, and I tell the Committee now that it is 110% not the case. Some individuals need lots of support, some need some support and other people go on to contribute to society with no impact whatever.

[Mr Francois]

To reinforce what the Minister is saying, Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory, who for many years was the controller of SSAFA, always used to make the point that while clearly some people suffer as a result of their military career, as the Minister admits, the vast bulk emerge in good shape, remain in good shape and benefit immensely from their time in service. I put on record what Lieutenant General Gregory, the head of SSAFA until recently, said, if only to back up absolutely everything the Minister is saying.

[Al Carns]

Sir Andrew is an exceptionally good man, and few are more knowledgeable than him on veterans matters. We have a position where, in some cases, veterans are seen as victims, but we have no central body that understands the totality of veterans issues across the United Kingdom. Head Valour is therefore coming into place in the next month or two, with a new headquarters. What does a headquarters mean? It means pulling in all the data sources to provide us with a comprehensive view of the issues that veterans face in this country—a balanced, analytical view, not one that is sometimes skewed by institutional organisations or other bodies. That is not because it is in their interests to do so, but it might be a passion project. It is about providing a balanced, analytical view, which must be data-led and have the horsepower to do that across all the devolved nations.

There is, of course, no point pooling data feeds if they come in all sorts of different forms. That brings in the Valour centres. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells talked about camaraderie. One of the issues at the moment is that when a veteran has a mental health issue, they have to go to eight different charities before they land on the right one. They usually start with family or a friend, and they will then go from one charity to another, having to bounce around, retelling the story, reliving the trauma. Sometimes, by the time they get three or four down the line, they give up. That is where we have some pretty catastrophic consequences.

The Valour centres are about taking some of the existing centres—we have more than 700, and growing, across the country—finding the very best ones, providing them with long-term Government funding, and standardising the services and engagement. We will ensure that they understand their local networks of the good, the bad and the ugly charities, and can then distribute resources down to them, to provide a set of standard-ish services as best we can—that goes back to the postcode issue. Secondly, we will ensure that the data flows back up to the headquarters in a manner that can be digested and analysed in the most effective way. On top of the Valour centres, field officers in local councils will help to control the centres, as well as to hold councils to account should they not fall in line with the covenant and some of the principles we have talked about today. We are in the foothills; in the future, we should have a far better, greater dataset for us collectively to analyse.

I do not believe that putting one individual in charge of veterans’ mental health would provide us with the systemic jump to deal effectively with that issue. Courage is a programme from the previous Government. We have taken it on and kept it going, because it is working well. For everything we have talked about today—mental health, housing, education, and special educational needs and disabilities—we need the data flowing in, proper analysis and then proper, comprehensive solutions flowing back down. That is one of the reasons why I cannot support new clause 2.

When I was Minister for Veterans and People and dealt with the veterans commissioners, I did not really know whether they were in the right place, in the wrong place or doing the right things. They were brought in from a devolved Government perspective to ensure that we could continue to check and balance the devolved Governments in line with central Westminster policy. Interestingly, 85% of all veterans, which equates to about 1.7 million people, live in England—a veterans commissioner for England would be a huge role.

I have been clear, I think on the record, that once Valour is up and running and we establish the framework for how the hubs will work, we then need to deal with whether we need a veterans commissioner for England. I would suggest that it may be positive, depending on the veterans architecture out there. Why do I say that? At the moment, we have armed forces champions, at different levels and with different terms of reference—some part time, some full time, some employed by councils and some not—and we have Valour field officers going into councils. We have veterans commissioners in the devolved Governments, and then we have the head of Valour, who will have a whole set of data, with the Valour centre network sitting below them. Throwing a commissioner on top of that, at the same time, would perhaps dilute the hierarchy and centralised control. I absolutely understand the utility of having a fourth commissioner in place over time and, although I have to oppose new clause 6, I would like to take on this discussion. I have a feeling that, in the next 24 months or so, we will be moving in the right direction with regard to the measure.

[Mr Francois]

The Minister has made a strong argument. I place on the record my admiration for the three veterans commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all of whom are excellent at what they do. I seem to recall—I do not have the Hansard here—that when we were debating the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, I asked the Minister when we would get an English veterans commissioner, and he was pretty clear that we would get one. The Minister today has intimated that we will probably still get one, so he is being consistent, but can he give us some idea of the timing?

[Al Carns]

Once we analyse the tapestry of veterans support, I would like to come to a solution on the English veterans commissioner to align with and amplify what we do on Valour. I think that Valour will take 36 months to be properly embedded in our local councils, with the structures and data network in place. It has taken us longer than I expected to get the Valour OC in place, but perhaps that is one for the bar downstairs.

Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, I have a few reminders for the Committee. Please switch off or silence electronic devices. No food or drink is permitted during the sitting, other than the water provided. Hansard would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes or pass them to the Hansard colleague in the room.

I remind Members to bob to catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate. The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room and on the Parliament website, shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate.

I also remind Members that amendments may be tabled during the recess. Amendments for consideration on 14 April, our first sitting after the recess, must be tabled no later than 4.30 pm on Thursday 9 April. Amendments for consideration at the sitting on 16 April must be tabled no later than the rise of the House on Monday 13 April.

Clause 3

Defence housing and other property

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

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 3, page 7, line 16, at end insert—

“(4) The Defence Housing Service will operate within a budget which must be set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would ensure that Defence Housing Service’s budget is set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.

Good morning, Mr Efford. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again as we move on to clause 3, which concerns the proposed new Defence Housing Service and associated matters. I will speak to amendment 17 in my name. There are no Liberal Democrats in the room yet, but I am sure they will be joining us at some point.

We have been assisted in examining this topic by our very helpful evidence sessions with Mr David Brewer, the putative head of the new Defence Housing Service, and Ms Natalie Elphicke Ross, a former parliamentary colleague of ours on both sides of the House, who has materially assisted the Government with their review and the creation of their new plan. We acknowledge her efforts.

We also had a very informative Defence Infrastructure Organisation briefing during our visit to Portsmouth, where we visited a number of dwellings in a military patch outside the wire. That included houses representing both before and after, as it were: those that had been refurbished to an obviously good standard, and those that were still awaiting that work. I place on record our thanks to members of the DIO and to the Clerks for what was, as I hope the whole Committee will agree, an extremely informative visit.

Before we get into the meat of the debate, I will take it as read that all members of the Committee share the same objective: an improved quality of service family accommodation for our valued armed forces personnel and their families. Again, for the record, we thank them for their service. We would also like to see good-quality accommodation for senior service personnel. The debate is therefore not so much about the objective, which I think we all share, as about the best way of achieving it. That is where we may have some genuine differences of opinion this morning, but hopefully for the right reasons.

Amendment 17 focuses on the budget for the proposed new Defence Housing Service. Its essence is that the Defence Housing Service’s budget should be clearly set out in any defence investment plan published by the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Good morning! The Liberals are now with us.

There is an obvious historical context for the amendment. I think it is fair to say that down the years, under Governments of both colours—three colours, if we include the coalition Government of 2010 to 2015—there has been a constant tension in the funding of the defence housing estate. On the one hand, there has been a desire to provide capital to upgrade it; on the other hand, there have been general pressures on the defence budget. It has not been unknown for capital expenditure to be deferred from one year to another to free up resourcing for other operational priorities that were deemed more pressing or urgent by Ministers at the time.

The aims and objectives of the new Defence Housing Service are rightly ambitious, which raises questions about how to secure the money and what safeguards there are, if any, against any future Government raiding that substantial pot of cash for other priorities should the circumstances arise. Both Mr Brewer and Ms Elphicke Ross were very clear in their evidence on the subject on 4 March: they said that after considerable discussion with the Treasury, a sum of some £9 billion had been put aside to create the Defence Housing Service and enable it to achieve its objectives laid out in the Bill.

Nevertheless, during the same evidence session, it was established after some detailed—indeed, forensic—questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East that the money had not been formally signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury. That is because the sum is currently included in the defence investment plan, which itself has not been signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury.

As we all know, the defence investment plan has not been published, although Parliament was initially promised it by last autumn. I do not intend to labour—no pun intended—the point this morning, as we debated it at some length in the main Chamber on Tuesday evening. Suffice it to say that when the Government published the strategic defence review in July last year, they deferred many of the crunchy equipment and capability decisions to a subsequent defence investment plan. We were promised that it would be published in the autumn. We were then faithfully promised that it would be published by Christmas. We were then absolutely promised that it would be published fairly shortly thereafter. Here we are on 26 March, the day on which the House rises for the Easter recess, and still it has not been published.

That leads to an additional problem, including for the Defence Housing Service. Part of the DIP, presumably including service accommodation in Scotland and Wales, could be affected by the outcome of the forthcoming Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd elections, at least indirectly. If the DIP is not published extremely shortly, it is likely to be caught by the purdah rules on those national elections. The putative date for the King’s Speech seems to be settling on or around 13 May. That means that the DIP is unlikely to be published until the second half of May, nearly two months from now, by which time the Defence Housing Service is meant to be under way.

In essence, we are debating a plan based on a long-term budget that has not yet been agreed by the Treasury because, bluntly, the Ministry of Defence is at war with it. That is why the DIP has not been published. It is conceivable—although, for the record, I hope that this will not be the case—that whenever final negotiations are eventually concluded, the Treasury may insist on further reductions in the DIP, which in turn could lead to further reductions to the £9 billion currently allocated for the programme. That is why we tabled amendment 17, which states that the budget for the Defence Housing Service must be very clearly set out in the defence investment plan, whenever it is published, not least so that in subsequent iterations of the plan we can see whether the funding allocation is being reduced or increased.

Will the Minister guarantee to the Committee that, as of 26 March 2026, the £9 billion in the forward programme has been formally signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury? In other words, can he guarantee that it is ringfenced in the DIP? If he cannot, can he at least tell us when the DIP will finally be published? A fortnight ago, I said privately to a Labour peer that waiting for the DIP was like waiting for Godot. He replied, “Yes, Mark, but at least Godot finally turned up.” Will the Minister answer those questions so that the Committee can take a view on the surety of the funding on which this admittedly very ambitious plan undoubtedly rests?

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I wish to add some points to bolster the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford.

We were promised the DIP before Christmas, but right hon. and hon. Members do not need me to tell them that it is now the end of March and we still do not have it. It is all well and good talking about a 25% reduction in delivery costs and about improved military housing, but until those promises are reflected in a clear, costed defence investment plan, they will remain words, not guarantees.

That is precisely why my right hon. Friend’s amendment 17 is so important. It states that if the Government are serious about defence housing, the Defence Housing Service’s budget must be set out in the DIP. It would tie the rhetoric on forces housing, new helicopters and new military hardware to an actual budget line. If Ministers truly intend to deliver what they have promised, they should have no difficulty in writing it into a plan.

Let us be clear with our service personnel and their families. We welcome investment when it is real, but we will not pretend that an uncosted statement is the same as a funded commitment. Until the Government publish the defence investment plan and the DHS budget is there in black and white, this House is being asked to take it on trust. That is not good enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I can say that we are working flat out on the absolute shambles we were left by the Conservative party. I can also say, as the Defence Secretary said in the House, that £9 billion will be allocated to the Defence Housing Service. The study has been completed. It is a very effective strategy. It has taken into account a lot of the other details that were excluded in the past. It has pulled them all together and has put in place a comprehensive strategy that will be funded.

[Mr Francois]

I am not saying that in 14 years we got everything right, but we never ended up in a situation in which we could not put a destroyer to sea, to a NATO exercise, with three months’ warning. It was never that bad.

I was told at a dinner last night that the Secretary of State or other Ministers have not allowed this Minister to see the defence investment plan. Surely that cannot be right: he must have seen it. For the avoidance of doubt, could he just pop up and tell us that of course he has seen it, and he has seen the detail of it?

[Al Carns]

My role, when it comes to defence investment, is primarily linked to uncrewed systems. I have been pushing as hard as I can to ensure that there is significant resource and consideration of not just the delivery of capability, but training, tactics and procedures, and the inculcation of drones and autonomous systems into our armed forces.

[Mr Francois]

So you haven’t seen it.

[Al Carns]

I hope that I have provided the necessary reassurance to the right hon. Member. On those grounds, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Francois]

We all know how this works. That was what, in “All the President’s Men”, they would have called a non-denial denial. I am afraid we have had no satisfaction, so we will press amendment 17 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 3, page 7, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) improving the satisfaction of service families with the accommodation provided.”

This amendment would make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 8, line 16, at end insert—

“(6A) The standards in subsection (6) must at a minimum meet the 2006 decent homes standard.”

This amendment requires that the framework agreement governing the new Defence Housing Service must at a minimum meet the 2006 decent homes standard.

Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 9, line 12, at end insert—

“‘2006 decent homes standard’ means the document called ‘A Decent Home: Definition and guidance for implementation’ that was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 7 June 2006.”

This amendment defines the 2006 decent homes standard and is consequential on Amendment 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

The purpose of amendment 14 is to make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service. I will attempt to give credit where it is due. For context, the quality of service quarters, and in particular the maintenance of those quarters—especially maintenance of boilers and heating, dealing with mould, and suchlike—has been a constant bugbear for many service personnel and their families for decades. It is something that I went into considerable detail about in the “Stick or Twist?” report in 2020, to which I shall refer in more detail later this morning.

The previous Conservative Government entered into a new housing management contract—the future defence infrastructure services programme, or FDIS—prior to the last general election. It is probably fair to say that there were quite a number of teething problems when that contract went live. Indeed, I expressed a number of reservations about FDIS in the “Stick or Twist?” report before it came in.

However, the information I have is that after persistent pressure from Ministers—initially Conservative Ministers, especially my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and now Labour Ministers, including the Minister on the Committee, to give credit where it is due—the performance of contractors under the FDIS contract has improved. We heard as much from the families federations—from the customer side of the equation, as it were.

It can also be seen in the ratings, which are recorded annually in the armed forces continuous attitude survey, or AFCAS, which allows us to track customer satisfaction with the quality of maintenance of SFA. There is a specific question on that every year. Again I give credit where it is due for the introduction of a charter for the homes of service personnel and their families. Of course, it is the families who have to put up with the frustration of any failures, particularly if their loved ones are deployed away from base for any operational reason for any period of time. The families back home have to deal with the problems on a day-to-day basis, so if it is getting better, that is clearly to be welcomed.

Clause 3 sets out a number of objectives for the Defence Housing Service and its functions, including

“(a) improving the supply and quality of defence housing,

(b) managing land or other property used (or formerly used) for defence purposes,

(c) securing the regeneration or development of such land or other property, and

(d) supporting in other ways—

(i) the creation, regeneration or development of service communities, and

(ii) the continued wellbeing of those communities.”

I am sure that no one on the Committee will object to any of those objectives. But given the history I just outlined, the essence of amendment 14 is to introduce a fifth objective:

“improving the satisfaction of service families with the accommodation provided.”

Although I have no doubt that those who came up with the proposed Defence Housing Service fully intended to do this, the aim of the amendment is to place that objective firmly on the face of the Bill and, in so doing, establish it as an additional, clearly defined objective of the Defence Housing Service. Then, with the customer charter and assuming that we continue to ask similar questions in the armed forces continuous attitude survey every year, it should be possible to use that objective as an accurate metric to establish whether or not the Defence Housing Service is actually meeting one of its declared functions.

If we amend the Bill as I am suggesting, we could use it to hold the management of the Defence Housing Service and, I dare say, Ministers to account for the performance of the new service. It seems to us that this is quite a common-sense way to proceed. Therefore, I rather hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept this amendment without my having to divide the Committee.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I rise to speak to amendments 3 and 4, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon and I have tabled. Amendment 4 is consequential on amendment 3, so I will speak about them together.

What we are talking about here is a sensible proposal. Indeed, the Government and the Lib Dems have already had many discussions on this proposal, and the Government have already accepted it in a related area of law. I therefore hope the Minister will treat it as a tidying-up exercise on which we can all agree.

Amendments 3 and 4 seek to enshrine the decent homes standard as the minimum standard for the Defence Housing Service. The decent homes standard has been in law for about two decades, and the Government recently incorporated it into the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. Of course, that takes us to the whole point of the armed forces covenant, which is to make sure that service personnel are not prejudiced in any way by their service. If the decent homes standard is good enough for civilian renters, it follows, if we are to apply the covenant as intended, that service personnel should also be afforded the same standard.

What is the decent homes standard? Anyone who has served, as I have, has at some point in time been housed in accommodation that is just beyond belief. I spent some time in accommodation that was actually condemned, which meant that no money was being spent on it because it was going to be demolished at some unspecified point in the future, but I lived in it for the entire time I was there.

At that time, I was single, but of course it is not just those who serve who expect to live in decent homes; their families expect to, as well. In a minute, I will refer to the continuous attitude surveys and what service personnel feel about their service accommodation. However, it is often the pressure on their family—their wife or husband, and the children—that make service personnel think, “I can deal with this, but I do not want my family to have to deal with it.”

What is the decent homes standard? As originally defined, it refers to a home being in

“a reasonable state of repair”.

Obviously, if that standard were applied, it would immediately outlaw things like damp. It also says that a property should have modern “facilities and services” and provide a reasonable degree of “thermal comfort”, so we would probably expect double glazing, rather than the single glazing that I had, although it was 20 years ago.

A more recent document published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in January sets out the new decent homes standard. Amendment 3 seeks to enforce the original 2006 standard, because the document published in January is a White Paper and is not yet Government policy. The new decent homes standard seeks to reflect things like modern energy efficiency standards, as we would expect.

This does not seem much to ask, and the Lib Dems pushed for it during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act. The Government originally voted against it on Report, but then they made the amendment to the legislation. I am not presenting that to the Committee in a partisan way; I merely want to say that we have already had this discussion, and the Government have accepted that it is the appropriate standard for civilian renters. Service personnel are also renting—they pay money for their accommodation, so they are renting—so the standard should be reflected in their housing.

What do service personnel say about their accommodation? I accept that it has improved, as the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said, but there are still problems. Let me give the Committee a few statistics. One in five personnel plans to leave the armed forces, and 25% of those cited the standard of accommodation as a reason for leaving. At a time when we have a retention crisis, it seems that we should be focusing on that. I know the Government are focusing on it, and in tabling this amendment we are trying to help them to fix the problem. Of the 78% of service personnel who live in service accommodation, only half—51%—remain satisfied with the state of their housing. So there are problems, although improvements have been made.

Under the Renters’ Rights Act, which was amended to include the decent homes standard, the MOD was mandated to report to Parliament on the state of service housing. The idea was that it would gradually move defence housing stock up to the decent homes standard. Of course, the problem with how it was laid out in the Act is that no targets or timelines were set, so although the MOD reports to Parliament, there is no way for Parliament to hold the Government to account on the attainment of that standard for service personnel.

Amendments 3 and 4 seek to put that accountability in place and ensure that the MOD has to achieve the standard. When it reports to Parliament, the amendments would ensure there is a mechanism by which Parliament can hold the MOD accountable for attaining the standard for service personnel.

[Mr Francois]

I declare an interest: in the 1990s, I was the acting chairman of housing on what was then Basildon district council—so I was a housing specialist, but admittedly back in the last century. Incidentally, Basildon was once described as the only local authority in Britain where, at council meetings, councillors actively heckled the public gallery. From serving on the council, I can say that it is half true.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of features of the decent homes standard. What in his opinion are the critical two or three parts that, if we were to support his amendment, he would have the Government and the Defence Housing Service ensure above any others? What are the key two or three bits that he would like to press the Government on this morning?

[Mike Martin]

The decent homes standard, as set out in legislation, is a set of principles that can be enforced by the courts, and the courts will make the judgment. When we talk about modern facilities and services, for example, we are talking about what the courts would view as being modern and reasonable. I come back to the fact that we would probably expect double glazing, not single glazing. We would expect central heating, not individual electric fires. We would expect no damp. We would expect a carpet that does not have holes in it. Those are things that the courts would accept as reasonably approaching a decent homes standard, and as reflecting a reasonable state of repair and thermal comfort.

I will conclude now, Mr Efford. Thank you for your patience. What we are seeking to do here is a tidying-up exercise to support the Government in their aim to set service personnel and civilians on an equal level and make sure that service personnel and particularly their families are not prejudiced as a result of their service. If a decent homes standard is good enough for civilian renters, it is good enough for service renters.

[Al Carns]

I believe that amendment 14, moved by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, is unnecessary. It is clear that the Defence Housing Service will have a service ethos at its heart, and we are already way ahead on that. The Committee heard from representatives of the families federations during the evidence sessions, in which Cat Calder from the Army Families Federation said that during the course of the defence housing strategy review, it was

“very much engaged with, listened to and questioned”,

and its views “taken into consideration.” That will continue as the defence housing strategy turns to the Defence Housing Service and the implementation of changes across the entire estate.

I welcome the right hon. Member’s comments about the FDIS statistical change. When I first took over this job, I visited multiple defence housing providers and, indeed, the houses themselves. I line-by-lined the cost of everything from a plunger to the taps to make sure we were extracting the best value for money from those contractual services. The trend was already moving, and I believe it has moved in the right direction. There is always work to do, but we have our foot on that pressure point and will ensure we extract best value for money and best time when it comes to the delivery of services for our families in service housing.

Importantly, throughout the development of the defence housing strategy, families have been at the very heart of the discussion to ensure that their views are considered, along with the differences between the way of life and operational priorities of the Army, RAF and Navy. That is why we have set up a new customer service committee with representatives from all three forces’ families as members. The Defence Housing Service will have a service family representative on its independent board.

We are already making rapid improvements after many years of ebbing and flowing standards and service in military accommodation, and we have delivered our consumer charter commitments to improve our families’ experiences. That includes transforming 1,000 of the worst homes by Christmas with new kitchens, bathrooms and floors, which the Committee will know from its visits were previously in a shoddy state. Some are still in that space, but we are moving rapidly to change it.

We are modernising outdated policies, giving families greater freedom to improve their homes, and streamlining processes for those who wish to run businesses from home or simply have a pet. We are also delivering named housing officers, as it is critical to have a central point of contact to make complaints to, or to demand better services, as well as delivering photos, floor plans and a new online repair service.

[Mr Francois]

This might seem like a point of detail, but it is important. I will come on to “Stick or Twist?” later, but one thing that came out very clearly is that many families wanted what used to be known in old money as “patch managers”, often a retired senior NCO who lived nearby, who knew the patch and all the quarters intimately. He knew that No. 23 had always had a slightly wonky boiler or whatever. He was someone that all the families knew, and who the wives could get hold of if their spouse was away on deployment. We have named housing officers, but at what level do they operate? Do we have one per patch, per garrison or per region? How close to ground level are these named housing officers?

[Al Carns]

I will get back to the right hon. Member with the exact numbers of housing officers and how much patch they will oversee and manage, depending on the different service contracts. As he will be aware, the Army, Navy and Air Force approach it in different ways. Some have retired officers in a Reserve billet, looking after everything from welfare to housing. Others have specific housing officers, and some have none at all. There is a requirement to standardise that, hence the reason for housing officers coming in. I believe that housing officers work most effectively when they have either served or have an understanding of service. We are seeking to replace the single point of contact for families to go to should they have a problem with their housing or the facilities provided by the contractual arrangements.

On the promises that were made to families, it is worth noting that work is fully under way to deliver them under the consumer charter. We are also seeing results. Satisfaction in defence homes is rising: rates are now at 51%, their highest level since 2021. I would argue that that has resulted in an increase in both retention and recruitment, pulling more people into the military. We have seen a 13% increase in recruitment and an 8% reduction in outflow.

I have always been really honest that, in the short term, we are getting after this with 1,000 homes and the consumer charter, but that we will really see the benefits over the medium to longer term, with a complete rejuvenation of the estate. Satisfaction with repairs has increased steadily, from a low of 23% in January 2023 to 66% in 2025. In February 2026, we received 400 complaints, compared with a high of 4,200 complaints in November 2023, so we are making progress. We want to get that 400 figure down even further and will continue to endeavour to do so.

Amendments 3 and 4 propose to specify further in legislation the standards that accommodation should meet. I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells for his service and for his attention to ensuring that service family accommodation meets the standards that families rightly expect. The conduct and the candour of this debate have shown that we all want the same thing.

As part of the generational renewal set out in the defence housing strategy, we are already making rapid improvements, including through the new consumer charter for service family accommodation, which the Secretary of State announced last year, with the first set of those commitments delivered way ahead of Christmas. Through the wider plan set out under the defence housing strategy, we will be delivering improvements to nine in 10 defence family homes over a decade of renewal, delivering on the opportunity presented by the buy-back of the estate in January 2025.

In relation to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, the MOD is already committed to meeting and publishing compliance with the standard. The defence housing strategy specifically addresses the issue and sets out that the housing standard should keep pace not only with the decent homes standard, but with wider housing safety requirements such as Awaab’s law.

[Al Carns]

If the hon. Member will let me, I will come back to him with a specific timeline for the process.

In reply to an earlier question, there are 122 housing officers in total, and the figure will increase over time. Each housing officer is responsible for 300 to 400 homes. Although the housing officer will be a specific individual in place, a lot of armed forces also have other welfare officers and facilities. However, this is a step in the right direction to providing a single point of contact.

[Mr Francois]

I am grateful for that detail. I agree that it is a step in the right direction, so it would be churlish not to welcome it. To give credit where it is due, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk was a Minister in the Department, he invested several hundred million pounds in what was known as the mould action plan. Its aim was to get after the problem not just with temporary fixes, but with long-term work on properties with a persistent mould problem. As I have tried to be fair to the Government this morning, I hope the Minister will acknowledge that my hon. Friend put quite a lot of effort into that issue in defence housing. There has subsequently been some success, has there not?

[Al Carns]

I agree. The mould action plan got after a large chunk of the problem. I know there was work that went on previously, including “Stick or Twist?” and other reviews, but now that we have got rid of the Annington deal and got control of our estate, we can take a far more strategic outlook. That is what the defence housing strategy is all about, so that we ensure that we get best value for money over a longer period and do not have to spend huge amounts in a short time, which unfortunately can result in poor contractual agreements and not the best value for money.

The mechanism for embedding the standards, as well as Awaab’s law, including any changes over time, has already been included in the Bill. It has been deliberately drafted in that way to provide a mechanism for capturing future changes to policy without requiring legislative change. As a case in point, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells specified the 2006 decent homes standard in amendment 3, but he will be aware that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is already in the process of introducing a revised decent homes standard. The amendment, although absolutely well intentioned, is too specific. It would set in stone a policy position that would rapidly become redundant. Further mechanisms will ensure that we keep in line with the decent homes standard, such as providing a report into the system on, I think, a yearly basis—I will clarify that point in due course.

I reassure the hon. Member that in practice the Ministry of Defence already uses the 2006 decent homes standard as a benchmark for service family accommodation and will work to meet the new decent homes standard as it is introduced. The same applies to Awaab’s law, which is being taken forward through the consumer charter. As the generational renewal set out in the defence housing strategy progresses, we will aim not just to meet minimum standards, but to provide homes that any of us would be proud to live in.

The scale of the problem should not be underestimated. The defence housing estate was built at any time from the 1960s all the way up to the early 2000s, with single-skin walls and a plethora of issues. It will take a medium to long-term strategy to deliver real, meaningful change over time. The messaging to the armed forces and their families is that we are on this: we have assured the money and we will head in the right direction to improve defence housing over the medium to longer term.

I hope that the points that I have set out provide the necessary reassurance as to why amendments 14, 3 and 4 are not necessary and can be withdrawn.

[Mr Francois]

I appreciate everything that the Minister has said. None the less, we feel strongly about amendment 14, so we will press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 3, page 7, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) provide earmarked accommodation to facilitate “contact visits” for children of service personnel, who do not live with them (in accordance with any relevant court order).”

This amendment would make the Defence Housing Service responsible for providing accommodation to facilitate “contact visits” for children of service personnel who have separated, in accordance with any relevant court order regarding access.

My hon. Friends and I tabled this very specific amendment for two reasons. I remember that during my time as a Minister, which was more than a decade ago, when I visited Army garrisons, Navy facilities or RAF airbases and discussed service family accommodation, the issue often cropped up of providing accommodation for contact visits. In practice, that usually means providing SFA quarters that are ringfenced specifically to allow serving personnel to hire them temporarily, for example so that children who do not ordinarily live with them can stay with them on camp during a contact visit.

This is obviously still an issue. I recall it cropping up in conversation when the Committee visited Portsmouth. When we visited the patch, we were shown some houses that, from memory, still had diggers outside because they were about to be refurbished for exactly that purpose. That tells me that this is still a bit of a challenge even now. Incidentally, that example bears out the value of the Committee visiting to see and learn these things for ourselves. As the Minister reminded me, it was Napoleon who said that time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. Our visit was a very good example of that maxim in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for tabling the amendment. I absolutely recognise the importance of facilitating contact visits between service personnel and their families; there are people here with experience of that.

The reality is that as we have come into government, we have the wrong houses in the wrong place in the wrong amount. That requires a whole restructuring of our defence housing estate to ensure that it matches and moulds itself to varying requirements across the population.

I was a base commander, and we had several welfare houses. There is a joint service publication in MOD policy, JSP 770, that designates service family accommodation as welfare support accommodation. This is a joint process with local military commands and welfare services to provide housing for welfare requirements. It cannot simply be met with the responsibilities that the amendment seeks to set for the Defence Housing Service.

Moreover, there has to be flexibility in the use of welfare support accommodation to ensure that it can respond to local needs and local requirements, including other important welfare uses such as those relating to domestic abuse and safeguarding. It would be far too inflexible for it to be earmarked as accommodation solely for contact visits, as the amendment sets out. That would limit our ability to respond to urgent needs of other kinds.

More generally, the issue that hon. Members have highlighted is only one part of a much bigger issue that the Defence Housing Service is being set up to address, which is that the defence estate is wrongly configured as a result of the legacy of Annington and years of under-investment, with not enough homes in the right places to meet the requirements of service personnel.

The focus of the Defence Housing Service is to improve existing homes and create thousands more, including by delivering widened access to accommodation for modern families. Its progress against that will be set out for Parliament to scrutinise through the annual reporting process. The defence housing strategy team looked at the issue as part of its review. An important conclusion of the review was a recognition of the important role that local welfare-based discretion plays in managing service personnel’s housing needs, which cannot always be planned from the centre.

The reality is that welfare houses provide a capability for a plethora of needs, from supporting individuals who have been subject to abuse all the way through to providing a comforting environment for families who have broken up or separated and need a place to live and thrive with their children. To narrow them down to one use may not meet the local requirement, but I absolutely support the premise and the positivity behind the amendment. Given the clear and comprehensive arrangements that are already in place, I see the amendment as unnecessary.

[Mr Francois]

I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister is replying. I have learned to take his word. Just so he does not think that we have a blanket policy of voting on everything this morning, if he gives me his word that he will take the issue back to the Department and the people setting up the DHS and look very seriously at how we might do a bit better, in return I shall not press the amendment. Can he give me that comfort now?

[Al Carns]

It is absolutely right and proper that we do that. I would like to go a step further: we could probably organise a sit-down with Natalie Elphicke Ross and the team at the Defence Housing Service. It has already been thought through, but they can explain it. If the right hon. Gentleman has any insight into how he would improve it, or indeed any reflections from his own experience of the defence estate, we will take that forward. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Mr Francois]

I will not look a gift horse in the mouth. I thank the Minister for his kind offer, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mike Martin]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 3, page 8, line 13, leave out “service family accommodation” and insert “defence housing”.

This amendment requires that the framework agreement governing the new Defence Housing Service pertains to all defence housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

The requirements are different for SLA and family accommodation, but we both want the same thing: the best accommodation, whether for a family or a single person living on base, either separated from their family or single. What I can offer the hon. Member is to engage and talk him through the single living accommodation strategy as it builds, so he can ensure his points are included and we either fill the knowledge gap or make the strategy reflect the intent of providing the best accommodation for single individuals outside the family setting.

[Mr Francois]

It may assist the Committee to know that when I looked at this in “Stick or Twist?”, we realised that we were talking about two slightly different propositions, and that some of the challenges in single living accommodation are a bit different from those in SFA. For the record, in “Stick or Twist?” we said we would start with SFA—we were talking about a housing association—and learn lessons from that and then go on to SLA. We realised there is a bit of an air gap between the two, so our work was concentrated on one and then maybe moved on to the other. That is, in some ways, similar to the spirit of what the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is saying, if the Minister will accept that.

[Al Carns]

I completely accept that. There are just nuances and differences in the requirements, and that will be reflected in the outcomes of both reviews. Again, I offer that engagement—if the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells would like to get involved and ensure that his points are made as the strategy is built, he can affect the output as required.

The Government believe that a dedicated focus on the Defence Housing Service and family accommodation is the best way to achieve the step change needed for defence, specifically on family homes. We will continue simultaneously to drive up the standard of single living accommodation, and further detail will be set out in the next steps following the ongoing SLA review. If it is any consolation, I lived in single living accommodation for a large chunk of my life and have seen the good, the bad and the ugly, so I will personally be behind that work to ensure we get the best standards.

New clause 1 is designed to include single living accommodation within section 101 of the Renters’ Rights Act. It would require the Ministry of Defence to report annually to Parliament on the extent to which such accommodation meets the decent homes standard. As someone who has lived in single living accommodation for a huge chunk of my life, I appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause, but the Government do not believe it is the right way to drive up standards in single living accommodation.

As Members may recall, this matter was debated during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act, and Ministers at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government set out why the decent homes standard cannot sensibly be applied to single living accommodation. Such accommodation exists to support operational readiness and cannot be treated in the same way as social housing or other forms of civilian housing.

Single living accommodation spans a huge range of types, many with shared facilities, and therefore, by definition, some parts of the decent homes standard would be difficult to meet. For example, the standard requires each unit to have adequate kitchen facilities, but single living accommodation units do not necessarily all have their own kitchens, because full professional subsidised catering is provided on defence bases or sites. For that very reason, civilian housing with shared facilities, such as purpose-built student accommodation, is typically not covered by the 2006 decent homes standard.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 5

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 4

Noes: 6

[Mr Francois]

I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 3, page 9, line 27, at end insert—

“(4) The Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service must report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.”

This amendment requires the Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service to report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.

The amendment relates to the reporting chain of the proposed new Defence Housing Service. In essence, it means that once the Defence Housing Service is established, it should report directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of that service.

The genesis of the amendment is that when we were taking further evidence on the proposals for the DHS a little over a week ago, there appeared to be some ambiguity about how exactly it will report to Ministers. As I recall, we were told that it will have a partial reporting line, or the equivalent, into DIO headquarters—to keep it in the loop, I think—but that it will also report to Ministers via the National Armaments Director. At first hearing, that is somewhat surprising.

As a person who is primarily appointed to sort out the procurement challenges facing the Ministry of Defence, of which we all know there are many and about which I have railed for years, not least on the Defence Committee—it is all on the record—the NAD is not the most obvious choice to oversee an organisation designed to provide high-quality housing for service personnel and their families. It seems odd. In short, the NAD will have enough problems sorting out issues like Ajax— I refer the Minister to the answer I gave some moments ago about Ajax—and the propulsion systems of the Type 45 destroyer and so on, without having to worry about the challenges of defence housing as well.

The new system in the MOD is part of what one might call the quadripartite arrangement in the post-Levene model of defence reform, and by that I mean the process not the party—in passing, of course, Reform Members are not on this Committee, but they hardly ever turn up during defence debates in the Commons anyway, so it is not much of a loss. We now have effectively four main pillars within the Ministry below ministerial level. We have the permanent secretary, with responsibility for MOD centre and administrative matters; the Chief of the Defence Staff, unsurprisingly responsible for specifically military matters; the National Armaments Director for matters relating to procurement and—dare I mention it—the defence equipment plan, which is part of the defence investment plan; and, lastly, the Chief of Defence Nuclear, for all aspects of the nuclear deterrent and the associated shore-based infrastructure, which is now, as the Minister will know, a very challenging area for the Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. Does he think that the metrics by which that bonus is judged should be made public?

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comment—every dog has its day. Yes, I think it should, and that is partly the purpose for tabling the amendment.

For the avoidance of doubt, I accept in principle that, given the very large amounts of money we spend on equipment procurement—potentially more than £0.25 trillion over the next decade—paying someone quite a lot of money to get it to work is inherently not an unreasonable thing to do. Nevertheless, the appointment did raise eyebrows across the civil service.

To be fair, as I understand it, the chief executive of BAE Systems earns about £10 million a year—although if we look at what he has done to its share price, a shareholder might argue that it is a pretty good investment. Charles Woodburn is widely regarded in the industry as knowing what he is about, and is a highly professional leader of that company.

None the less, I have sympathy with the question posed by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. If this is part of the bonus arrangements, what are the metrics? If he were to get a bonus for the performance of Defence Housing Service, how do we know how much he will get? And how would we judge whether it is value for money, not just for the taxpayer but for the rent payers—the customers—of the Defence Housing Service? I hope the Committee will understand there is a genuine point at issue here.

We would be very interested to know what element, if any, of the NAD’s salary, and specifically the bonus payment, is related to the performance of the Defence Housing Service. By the same token—I hope the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is with me here—if the Defence Housing Service were to underperform, what would happen to the NAD’s base salary? Would it be docked? It is a really serious question.

To summarise, could the Minister explain why the Department decided to manage it in this way? There must be a rationale, and the Committee would like to know what it is. Could he also explain how these bonus arrangements will work and how transparent all of it will be?

[David Reed]

My right hon. Friend has just laid out a very strong case for why amendment 16 needs to be incorporated into the Bill, and I hope the Minister has taken those points on board—I look forward to hearing his wind-up. This is a straightforward but important amendment that seeks to bring clarity, accountability and proper ministerial oversight to the way in which the Defence Housing Service reports on its performance.

At present, the reporting structure is, frankly, overly complex. Responsibility is diffused across multiple layers, making it difficult to establish who is ultimately answerable when and if standards fall short. That lack of clarity does not serve service personnel or their families, who depend on the system working effectively. We know from our visits and from Members’ own experience that there is an overly complex and convoluted reporting chain where nothing really gets sorted and things are passed up but never actually worked on. We now have the opportunity to improve that structure.

I do not think the current structure assists the House in carrying out its proper scrutiny of how public money is spent and how vital services are delivered. The amendment would put that right by establishing a clear and direct line of accountability, and it would require the chief executive of the Defence Housing Service to report directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces.

Going back to the point that my right hon. Friend just raised, incorporating the National Armaments Director and having that person accountable in this long chain does not breed the view that Parliament needs to be able to scrutinise what is going on. Given how much the Minister cares about this, and the fact that he is an elected representative, I know he would want to have that view unfiltered from the Defence Housing Service itself.

This is a sensible and proportionate step that ensures that responsibility sits at the appropriate level and that there is a named Minister who can be held to account by this House. More importantly, the public will ultimately hold the Minister to account anyway. If I were in his shoes, I would want that unfiltered view coming straight up to me. If we are talking about performance bonuses—and I have no reason to believe that that is the case with the National Armaments Director, but if it were to be the case—I would not want anything to be tarnished or moved around that was linked to performance bonuses. I would not want there to be any incentives like that.

There is also a practical benefit. A direct reporting relationship will help to ensure that the issues are escalated more quickly, decisions are taken more efficiently and there is greater transparency around performance, which is something we all want to see. It should also lead to better oversight, sharper focus on delivery and, ultimately, improved outcomes for those living in service accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I turn to amendment 16, tabled by the retired hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford—

[Mr Francois]

Retired?

[Al Carns]

Sorry, the right hon. Member. I do apologise; there is no requirement to retire yet.

[Mr Francois]

One day, obviously, but not quite yet.

[Al Carns]

The right hon. Member still has a lot of energy in him.

[Al Carns]

Amendment 16 would require that the chief executive of the Defence Housing Service reports directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces, which is my current role. In the way it is written, it would confuse accountability in the Defence Housing Service, undermine the role of the board in particular, including the role of the family representatives, and risk duplicating lines of ministerial accountability that are already set out in the Bill.

From my perspective, when we have an issue, in defence or in any organisation, it is down to either a lack of understanding, command or control or a lack of accountability. I want to ensure, and reassure, that when the board reports on the Defence Housing Service and its deliverables, it is unfiltered and untainted as it hits ministerial offices. The governance of the Defence Housing Service has been carefully set out to provide the right balance between independence, accountability and ministerial oversight.

For the organisation to deliver its objectives, it must operate alongside strategic oversight by the Department, including accountability to Ministers and Parliament as a whole. Under established arrangements for arm’s length bodies, arrangements that operate across Government, responsibility for overseeing performance sits with the body’s board, with the chair acting as the principal interface with Ministers. It is critical that the chair is the principal interface with Ministers, reducing the ability of anyone to filter or taint any reports as they come up and through.

The Defence Housing Service will remain accountable to Ministers through that board and via departmental sponsorship and arrangements, alongside increased reporting to Parliament on its performance, as set out in the Bill. The DHS will continue to work closely with departmental teams, which will be covered in the MOD framework document in the usual way. It will be operationally independent, within the scope of the framework document and the legal powers in the Bill.

Critically, for its day-to-day activities, the organisation will be accountable to an expert, independent board, which will be appointed by the Secretary of State. The board will include a family representative, alongside the service family involvement in the wider governance, to ensure that the Defence Housing Service is held to account by not only those with appropriate expertise but the families that it has been set up to serve. Given its importance, it is right that ministerial reporting be held at Secretary of State level, rather than with the Minister for the Armed Forces. I was responsible for the delivery of the strategy, but housing is not necessarily within my portfolio.

Given the clear and comprehensive arrangements I have outlined, the amendment is unnecessary and I urge the right hon. Member to withdraw it.

[Mr Francois]

Mr Offord, I was—

[The Chair]

It is Mr Efford.

[Mr Francois]

I am so sorry; I have done it again. Mr Efford, I was not planning to press the amendment to a Division, but now I will—before I “retire”.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

Clause 3, together with schedule 1, creates the Defence Housing Service, a new public body dedicated to improving the supply and quality of defence housing and spearheading the regeneration of defence communities. Our Defence Housing Service sets out a vision for the future transformation of military homes, 90% of which will be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt through a record £9 billion investment over a decade. The Defence Housing Service is the vehicle to drive that transformation.

The clause confers on the Defence Housing Service the functions of

“improving the supply and quality of defence housing,”

the management, regeneration or development of land used for defence purposes and

“supporting in other ways—

(i) the creation, regeneration or development of service communities, and

(ii) the continued wellbeing of those communities.”

To fulfil those functions, the Defence Housing Service will be empowered to generate income from property and to manage land on behalf of the Secretary of State and others. It may enter into contracts, buy and sell property, borrow money with Treasury approval, provide financial assistance and form partnerships or joint ventures. It will also have compulsory purchase powers to acquire land for any purpose connected with its functions. The Defence Housing Service will be accountable to Ministers. It must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State and comply with the terms of the framework agreement entered into with the Secretary of State.

Forces families have previously been let down by homes that are not fit for purpose; we are determined and focused on delivering that. A new set of military housing standards that are fit for service family life will be established, including the decent homes standard, which the Defence Housing Service will be required to meet, under the terms of the framework agreement. The Defence Housing Service will lead the renewal and development of military homes across the United Kingdom, while unlocking the potential to deliver 100,000 homes of all types on developed MOD land.

[Mr Francois]

I note that the Minister never answered my previous inquiry about the bonus arrangements for the NAD. He is speaking to the clause standing part of the Bill, so perhaps he can tell me now—though he may need to seek inspiration. What are the bonus arrangements for the NAD relating to the DHS? What metrics will be applied?

[Al Carns]

The board of the Defence Housing Service will be accountable to the Secretary of State. I will not go into the detail of the NAD’s bonuses and how they are credited in the Bill, because they are not related.

That renewal will not only benefit the country as a whole in delivering against wider Government housing and economic growth targets but follow a “forces first” principle, prioritising current and former military personnel wherever possible. The Defence Housing Service will transform military housing, improve quality of life for service families and ensure that Defence housing is finally properly managed in a professional and efficient manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

The essence of new clause 7 is that the Government should prepare a feasibility study of the relative merits of introducing a forces housing association, as recommended in the “Stick or Twist?” report, versus continuing with the Defence Housing Service. I apologise to you, Mr Efford, and to members of the Committee: as the new clause relates specifically to that document, I should as a courtesy have sent a copy—or at least a link—to all members of the Committee before this sitting. No disrespect was intended, but perhaps I can atone for that by leaving a copy with the Clerk. If anybody wants to refer to it afterwards, they can go to him.

I will explain the background to the report and why I believe its recommendations are powerful. After I left government in 2016, when Theresa May became the new Prime Minister and I somehow did not end up in her Administration, I was commissioned by her as a former Minister—the Minister here today may one day, after he has retired, be commissioned to do something similar—to write a report about military recruitment. It was called “Filling the Ranks” and it took about a year to write; I submitted it in 2017. It covered a range of stuff, including trying to see past very minor medical ailments that were preventing people who desperately wanted to join the forces from doing so. All of the recommendations, bar one, were adopted by the Department and I think they have been worked on over the years, some of them more speedily than others.

For the record, the recommendation the Department did not adopt was that I pleaded with it to sack Capita— I nearly called it something else—as the contractor in charge of recruitment. I said in 2017, “Give them a year to fix it and if they don’t, they should go.” Capita did not fix it, and it stayed on. I understand that it was unsuccessful in bidding for the new trial service contract, so maybe it got its come-uppance after all.

Some people thought that “Filling the Ranks” was not completely useless, so I was subsequently commissioned to do a report on retention. The reason for that was partly that as soon as we started talking about recruitment, we ended up having a discussion about retention within 15 minutes anyway. As I am sure the Minister, with his experience, will know, there is no point widening the aperture of the recruitment tap, as it were, unless you can put a retention plug in the sink. If they are leaving faster than they are joining, we have a real problem.

I had a very good team for the retention report. I place on record my thanks to Brigadier Simon Goldstein, a distinguished reservist who retired from the Army after many years as a brigadier, including in one or two regiments the Minister will be familiar with, and my then researcher, an extremely bright chap called Rory Boden who has now gone to the dark side and works in public affairs. The three of us, I hope, put together a credible document. We called it “Stick or Twist?” because that encapsulates the dilemma that service personnel often face at a particular junction in their career. Do they stick with their military service, or twist and go and do something else?

We submitted that report in February 2020. It was commissioned by Theresa May, but by then Boris Johnson was the Prime Minister. We submitted it a month before the country went into lockdown, so it was written in a pre-covid context. The methodology was to make about a dozen visits to military establishments around the country, including Portsmouth for the Royal Navy, Catterick garrison for the Army and Brize Norton for the Royal Air Force. While we were there, we conducted a series of panels—I suppose one might call them focus groups—with warrant officers, senior non-commissioned officers, junior ranks and partners thereof. We tried to get four different perspectives on the challenges facing retention in the armed forces. It was very interesting to see how different ranks sometimes saw issues differently.

One quote struck us so much that we stuck it on the cover. This was under a Conservative Government—I have been called many things down the years, but never a toady. The quote relates to accommodation and came from an interview at Brize Norton with a Royal Air Force corporal:

“We had an Air Vice Marshal visit us a few months ago to give us all a pep talk about how what we were doing was extremely important to Defence and how the nation greatly valued our contribution to National Security. While I was standing at the back, I couldn’t help thinking, well Sir, if that’s true, why are my kids showering in cold water—yet again?”

We put that on the front page of the report—on its face, as it were—because we thought it encapsulated the problem. I encourage hon. Members at least to have a glance at the report if they have a spare minute, but I realise they all live very busy lives.

One thing that came out of the report was that when people leave the armed forces—when they decide to twist—it is often for a combination of reasons. We gave the example of an Army corporal having a kitchen table conversation with his wife when their kids have gone to bed. He has been offered promotion, and he says, “Should I stick or twist?” They go through factor by factor: his likelihood for promotion, her likelihood of promotion in a civilian career, the education of their children—in this scenario, they have an education, health and care plan, so if they move, they might lose that—care for an elderly relative and availability of medical support. In the end, they come to an amalgamated decision about whether to carry on. We learned from the focus groups that this sort of stuff goes on all the time. We were trying to reflect what the Minister would call ground truth.

Sometimes there was just one thing—the straw that breaks the camel’s back. In some cases, it was that the partner in the services had been away on an unaccompanied tour and there had been failures with housing provision, and that did it. To give a completely contrary example, a captain in an armoured unit down on Salisbury plain said that he left because he had been looking forward for months to being the best man at his old university friend’s wedding, but he was picked up on a trawl and told that he had to be a watchkeeper in the British Army Training Unit Suffield. He pleaded with his CO. He wrote a letter to the brigadier, but the brigadier was unsympathetic. The captain missed his best mate’s wedding. He said, “I was sat there with a laptop at 2 o’clock in the morning in the middle of BATUS”—this was some years ago, remember—“reading a cheap novel, when I could have been at my friend’s wedding.” So he came back from Canada and told the Army to stuff it. To my mind, such brainless decisions can bring very promising military careers to an end.

When my team and I looked at the housing issue, I looked at the history of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, which at that time, it has to be said, was not coming in for a lot of praise. In fairness to the DIO—I want to put this on record—it was created in 2010 in something of a shotgun marriage between up to 24 different entities. The old Defence Estates and lots of attachments and detachments, to use military language, were thrown together to create the DIO.

In 2012, when I came in and asked to visit the DIO’s headquarters, I was asked, “Which one do you want to visit, Minister?” I said, “What do you mean? There can be only one.” “No, sir. There are six.” We eventually decided that the principal headquarters was in Sutton Coldfield, but that gives some idea of how long it took that organisation to settle down. It was not given an abundance of resources with which to complete its task. In fairness to the DIO, which has come in for a lot of stick down the years, not least from me, it was set up in challenging circumstances and has had a difficult job to do for many years. If anyone from the DIO is listening, I hope they can appreciate the spirit of what I am trying to say.

We found very clear themes from the focus groups. The partners definitely wanted the patch managers back—I have gone on about it because that is what they kept telling us everywhere we went. Some of the junior ranks in single living accommodation wanted to have slightly better conditions, but some of them at least accepted that, while their conditions may not have been great, they paid virtually no rent for them. Bluntly, at the age of 19, they were slightly more concerned about having a bit of spare cash for Friday and Saturday night than they were about their rent, but that does not mean they do not deserve to live in good accommodation. So we got a variety of feedback.

Based on the DIO at the time, we came up with an alternative solution that we called a forces housing association. The rationale for it was to create a specific bespoke entity with the sole purpose—as established in its articles of association—to provide high-quality housing for armed forces personnel and their families while providing value for money, both for those families and for the taxpayer. The Minister will know that such an entity could be a retention aid because people often pay well below the market rate for a property that would cost them a lot more to rent in the civilian world. In some cases, service personnel value that, and in some cases it is one of the reasons they stick rather than twist, so it can work two ways.

The idea is to create a bespoke housing association, chaired by a Minister and bringing in external expertise from the social rented sector.

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

I will finish this point, then of course I will give way. Some housing associations have been looking after public sector housing, which is effectively what forces housing is, for decades. In my experience as a constituency MP, such housing associations vary in quality. There are some poor ones and some very good ones. The main one operating in my constituency is Sanctuary. A few years ago it was pretty poor but it is now under new leadership, with a very good chief executive called Craig Moule. Five years ago he told me that he was going to turn around the supertanker; she is still turning, but she is now pretty much going in the opposite direction, so I have seen what good looks like.

The idea was to bring in the expertise of people who had been managing public sector housing for decades, get a chief executive from that background and then create a board chaired by a Minister, so that Ministers would have real accountability, with representatives from forces families associations sitting as non-executive directors on the board, thus ensuring direct involvement from the customers themselves.

There is more I could say on that, but I do not want to try the patience of the Committee. That was the rationale: bringing in external housing sector professionals and getting them to run a ringfenced entity. That is what we were advocating for in “Stick or Twist?” and it was the genesis of the policy we announced several months ago, I am pleased to say. Having given the context, and having hopefully told the Committee where my heart lies on this matter, I will gladly give way to the hon. Member for South Ribble.

[Mr Foster]

The independent defence housing strategy team looked at the issue of a defence housing association, and said that

“transfer outside the public sector to a housing association or other private sector structure is not appropriate. It would be most likely to set back the renewal of the estate, increase costs of delivery and hamper operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces.”

Was the right hon. Member aware of that?

[Mr Francois]

Yes, and in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, they would say that, wouldn’t they? We were proposing a slightly more market-oriented solution. Registered social landlords are somewhere between the public and private sector. They are not entirely private entities or entities of the state, but are, practically, somewhere in the middle. As I have already said from experience, they vary in quality, but to be fair, I have seen what good looks like. I appreciate the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman. He has a proud background of service in the Royal Engineers. He qualified as a clerk of works, which is no mean feat, so I appreciate that he knows his onions. None the less, the point he puts across came from the other side of the fence—no pun intended. Of course they would argue that.

The purpose of tabling new clause 7 was so we could debate the relative merits of the two systems. If we think of this as a spectrum, the old DIO was at the most statist end, the Defence Housing Service as proposed is one notch further along to something more market-oriented, and we are proposing something another notch further along the spectrum. The Minister is listening intently; hopefully he understands the analogy.

As I said at the beginning, I do not believe there is any violent disagreement, or indeed any disagreement at all, about what the Committee is trying to achieve. We all want service family accommodation of the best possible quality for our personnel and their families; the debate is about how we best get to that objective. We were asking the Government to conduct a feasibility study, perhaps slightly more independently than the response that the hon. Member for South Ribble just cited, and to come back a year later, before the Defence Housing Service is fully up and running, to see whether there might be a better way of doing it or whether it could be tweaked. We might return to this on Report, but that is the background, the genesis and the stimuli of our proposal.

When we did the visits—it was a former Minister, a politician in a suit, coming down to a military establishment—we sat 20 people down in a room and gave them the scenario of the corporal’s conversation at the kitchen table as a bit of an icebreaker. To begin with, everyone looked at everyone else, and they were all a bit nervous about saying something. One person then said something, and the dam broke: everybody wanted to pitch in, and everybody had a contribution to make. That taught me how powerful all of this is. We had a number of specific examples when people of varying ranks told us, “We are going to leave the service of the Crown, because of our concerns about housing.”

I know from experience that this really matters to service personnel and their families. I apologise for trying the patience of the Committee this morning, Mr Efford—in all seriousness, you have everything in Greenwich, including your own barracks, so you will be very familiar with these matters yourself. I hope Members understand the spirit of what we are trying to do with new clause 7.

On clause 3, I think we have had a good debate this morning, and we have tested some of the issues fairly well. I hope we have done our duty, and no doubt we will wish to return to some of these issues on Report, not least the prospective bonus for the National Armaments Director. I will conclude there, and I am genuinely interested to hear the Minister’s reply and the opinions of any other members of the Committee.

[Al Carns]

New clause 7 would require there to be a feasibility study when establishing a forces housing association, but before I go into the detail, I will reflect on some of the comments made by the right hon. Member.

Recruitment and retention are intrinsically linked, as both the Government and the Opposition acknowledge. We have introduced lots of changes in recruitment and retention over the last year and a half, but there is much more to do. While it differs across the services, overall we are seeing a 13% uptick in recruitment and an 8% reduction in outflow, which is the first time we have seen a change in direction for 14 years. There is much more to do, but we are heading in the right direction.

One of the reasons we are heading in the right direction is because I genuinely believe that our armed forces personnel can see that we are doing the right thing, particularly with accommodation. The right to a family life is one of the critical components of anyone serving, and that looks like safe, secure, warm and dry accommodation, whether single living or family accommodation. To give a small example, I went through marine training in 1999, and the accommodation in which I was housed was still in place in 2024, when I came back to be the unit’s commanding officer. In 1999 it was terrible, and in 2024 it was unworkable. We need to get after those accommodation issues and put them right. I am absolutely confident in the Defence Housing Service, and the strategy review comprehensively looked at single living accommodation and family accommodation, and we are putting them on the right track to deliver significant change.

It is not lost on me that the drafting system in the military can put an undue amount of pressure on individuals; I have been on a satellite phone to my children on their birthdays in the middle of all sorts of carnage, with helicopters burning and turning in the background, or with incoming rounds in Afghanistan. It puts exceptional pressure on families, so the ability to return to a safe and secure place is the least that we can provide.

The independent strategy produced prior to the establishment of the Defence Housing Service was exactly that: it was independent, and it took a huge amount of advice from a variety of people. Most importantly, the families federations fed into that process and ensured that their voices were heard. The quote highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble was only reinforced by the oral evidence given by Natalie Elphicke Ross OBE, when discussing the strategy review in response to the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley. The view was firmly held throughout the entire review that the housing association model was not the right approach, and it was not included in its recommendations.

It is worth noting that, while there were a plethora of strategic issues during covid, the previous Conservative Government did not adopt the totality of the “Stick or Twist?” report produced by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, although it contained valuable points. A housing association model would jeopardise the close working with the military that is essential to ensuring appropriate operational capability. It would also put at risk the Crown basis on which personnel occupy their homes. Crown immunities allow the Ministry of Defence to move personnel at pace, without some of the regulatory constraint that we would have otherwise, which is vital for operational effectiveness. We must also bear in mind that we have more throughput in the armed forces than probably any other organisation or housing association in the country.

[Mr Francois]

For the record, that was the one recommendation in the “Stick or Twist?” report that was not adopted. All the other recommendations were adopted, including spending a lot of money on wraparound childcare because, again, childcare was a very important point for retention. Ben Wallace told me that he used the report to get quite a bit of cash out of the Treasury, so that recommendation about childcare was one that we did manage to get through. For the record, this was the one recommendation that was too much for the system to bear.

[Al Carns]

Perhaps that is why we are not taking it forward now.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence heavily subsidises rents. There have been suggestions that the Defence Housing Service could borrow private finance off the balance sheet if it was a housing association rather than a public body. However, expert advice from the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and others confirms that is not the case. The exclusivity of the defence housing purpose and the scale of MOD payments mean that such financial arrangements are not feasible.

Equally important, and close to my heart, is the welfare of service personnel and their families. Evidence presented to the defence housing strategy review team revealed that local commands exercised significant discretion to support personnel in a plethora of difficult circumstances, such as bereavement. That welfare-based discretion is a cornerstone of armed forces culture, and moving housing management to a third-party provider could put it at risk, undermining this vital welfare function. Finally, the planned housing renewal programme demands very close working relationships with military commands to ensure that it supports operational effectiveness rather than undermining it. Such close collaboration is not realistically achievable through a private or third sector body.

Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Al Carns]

As someone goes across the single services and joint staff colleges, there will be different sections where they are trained on administering justice and the rights of a commanding officer. Importantly, there will be joint standing procedures produced around the clause, which everyone who becomes a commanding officer will have to read and ensure that they adhere to.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Qualification for membership of the Court Martial

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

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert “or

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

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

[The Chair]

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

[Mr Francois]

I again place on record our thanks to you, Mr Efford, and to our excellent Clerks and the team who organised a very good visit down to Portsmouth, where I think we learned a lot about the operation of the service courts in practice—I certainly did. A number of issues were raised in that discussion, not least about the operation of juries in courts martial, and who serves on those jury panels, how they are selected and why. I will give two or three examples of the issues that came from that and then talk to the amendment.

The current practice, when an officer is being tried for an offence, is that only officers may serve on a jury panel in a court martial. Some people raised questions with the briefers that day about why that should be, and it is an interesting issue. The book answer from the Department was that officers should be tried by a jury of their peers, and therefore it should be other officers who serve on that panel. There is an issue that follows from that about the rank of the officer being tried and the rank of the officers that then serve on the panel. We learned about a practical constraint, which is that if a relatively senior officer is being tried, let us say a colonel or above—to take an Army example—there is only a relatively small pool of people who could be trawled to sit on that panel to pass judgment on that officer.

In the civilian world, we would not have a system where, if a professor were being tried, only graduates could sit on the panel. The civilian system is that people are chosen entirely at random from the electoral roll and are asked to do jury service, which they are mandated to do, with certain exceptions set out in statute. In the civilian world, people are not tried by people of—how can I put it?—an equivalent educational or social status. As the saying used to be, it is a jury of 12 good men and true; now it is, rightly, a jury of good men and women and true who assess someone’s guilt or innocence. In the military, we still carry out the process in this ranked, structured way.

Let us say that we had a lance corporal who was being tried for being drunk and disorderly—perhaps he had got into a bar brawl after the end of an exercise; he had gone out at the weekend, had let off a bit of steam and this had led to him allegedly committing an offence. At present, as I understand it, only senior non-commissioned officers of the rank of the equivalent of colour sergeant or above could pass judgment on that lance corporal. That raises an interesting question: why should another corporal or lance corporal, who likes a night out on a Friday as well, not be allowed to serve on that panel? Why does it have to be a colour sergeant or equivalent?

Forgive me, Mr Efford, I am using Army ranks because that is what I am most familiar with from my service, but the point holds good across all the services. Why should only a colour sergeant or above be allowed to pass verdict on a lance corporal or even a private soldier? A number of such issues cropped up from our visit. Also, as in the old saying that the Minister reminded me of, time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. This was a good example of that practice.

The amendment was drafted specifically to address one of those issues—the potential shortage of officers to serve on court martial panels, especially if a relatively senior officer is being tried, when by definition the pool of available serving officers to serve on a panel is limited. We have tried to come up with a practical suggestion, which is to use retired officers of equivalent rank. I am also interested to hear what other members of the Committee think of the wider issue, which is, does this have to be as hide-bound by rank as it is at the moment? I am interested in the Minister’s view as well, not least because he has been a commanding officer.

If we are to keep the system in essence as we have it at the moment, however, would it not make sense to be able to draw on a pool of retired officers of the required rank, who might have a little more time on their hands? We would not be taking anyone away from ongoing operations, and we could take time from their lives in order for them to continue to serve in a military context in the important task of administering service justice. That, in essence, is the intention of the amendment, but we also tabled it to provoke, I hope, a wider debate—I am looking at one or two Labour Back Benchers in particular, because they were vocal about this when we were in Portsmouth, so now is their chance—about why we do things in the way that we do them, and whether there is some potential for change, but if not, why not?

I hope that I have laid out the issue fairly clearly for the Committee.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the amendment, which was tabled in the name of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and to set out my broader support for clause 20. I will begin with the clause itself, because it addresses the composition of the court martial. In such circumstances, it is right that we support the very sensible change that the clause sets out, with its underlying intent to ensure that the court martial is properly constituted and capable of commanding confidence across the armed forces and the wider public. Enlarging the pool of those who can sit on it is a welcome amendment.

Precisely because we support that principle, however, we also need to examine whether the system is fully equipped for the realities it faces. In that context, the amendment becomes not only relevant, but in my view increasingly necessary. The amendment proposes a simple change, as set out by my right hon. Friend, to include retired holders of the relevant rank among those qualified for membership of the court martial.

At first glance the amendment may appear relatively modest, but I suggest that, like many apparently modest changes in defence legislation, it subtly reflects something much more significant. It reflects a recognition of the demands placed on our armed forces justice system and how those are changing over time, and changing rapidly. We are operating in an era of increasing operational tempo—a phrase that is often used in defence debates, sometimes frequently.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Gentleman makes a helpful challenge. Clearly, there is no impact assessment with the amendment. However, there is a joint service publication, the RARO—regular army reserve of officers—list, and there are those letters I receive annually asking me to update my address and contact details. There are already mechanisms by which individuals can be identified and recalled for this service. Given the operational tempo that I have described, it makes sense that we ameliorate the pressure on those who are currently in active service while not impacting the flow of justice through the service justice system.

[Mr Francois]

In my experience, retired officers, particularly retired senior officers, are keenly aware of their pension entitlements. If we are paying them a pension through the armed forces pension scheme, we presumably know who they are and where they live. Via that database, it would not be particularly onerous to come up with a list of retired senior officers who could at least be invited. We are not suggesting that this should be mandatory, but we are suggesting that they may want the opportunity to serve. Via their pensions, we know where they are.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who from his time as a Defence Minister knows well how to keep tabs on those who have served our country but are now retired. The pension scheme is an obvious way to do so. In addition, he makes an important point about the willingness of individuals to engage in the process. These are people who have given enormous service to their country, and often wish to continue giving service long into their years of retirement from active service.

Our armed forces are more stretched and more globally engaged than before, and they are more frequently deployed than at almost any point in recent decades. The spectrum of threats facing our country is widening, from state-based adversaries to hybrid war, cyber-operations and persistent instability in regions where British forces are called to act with precision and professionalism. As I have set out, when operational tempo increases every part of the system is affected. It is not just about equipment, logistics or personnel numbers, but about the justice system that underpins discipline, accountability and command authority.

The question, therefore, is a relatively simple one: does our current system of service justice have the flexibility, depth and resilience required to meet that demand? Amendment 9 is one attempt to ensure that it does. It recognises that we are asking a great deal of a relatively small pool of serving officers. We are asking them not only to command forces in complex environments but, where necessary, to sit in judgment in court martial proceedings, including in cases involving senior rank, complex evidence, and often significant reputational consequence for all involved. That is not to say that these individuals are incapable of doing those tasks, but that is a heavy burden on any system. It becomes more difficult still when we consider the practical realities of availability.

Senior serving officers are, by definition, in high demand. They are deployed, rotated, assigned to strategic planning roles or engaged in operational command responsibilities that cannot simply be paused or rescheduled. At the same time, the court martial system requires a bench that is credible, experienced and capable of understanding the realities of service life. It is not enough that those sitting in judgment are legally competent to interpret the evidence; they must also understand the context in which decisions are made, the pressures under which orders are given and the operational environments in which conduct is assessed.

That combination of legal competence and operational understanding is not easily found, and it is here that amendment 9 can make a tangible contribution. By extending eligibility to retired officers of appropriate rank, we end up expanding the pool of individuals who can bring that essential combination of experience and judgment to the court martial system.

I want to be clear about what the amendment seeks to do and what it does not seek to do. It is not an attempt to dilute standards. On the contrary, it is an attempt to strengthen them by widening the field of those who meet them. It is not an attempt to undermine the authority of serving officers; it is an attempt to relieve them of some of the competing pressures that now fall on them in an increasingly demanding environment. It is not an attempt to create a separate or parallel justice system where some are tried by those who are still in active service and some are held in judgment by those who have retired. It is merely an attempt to ensure that the existing system has the necessary capacity to function effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

Listening to evidence and acting on it is critical. Understanding the context in which it sits is equally important. Did that individual know that there are 200 one-stars within defence? Did they have the authority and responsibility to allocate individuals in a short, timely and effective manner to a court martial board? Probably not. The problem is not capacity. It is perhaps that the Defence Serious Crime Command needs greater authorities and programming to pool individuals in a timely and effective manner to sit on a court martial board and deliver justice.

[Mr Francois]

This is not a criticism of the Minister, because no doubt he had other important things to do, but he was not on that visit, as I recall. As Her late Majesty once said, recollections may vary, but this was a point raised with us by the people presenting to us on the operation of the system. We did not invent it. They made the point quite strongly that, for instance, if people had been on staff courses together—let us say that they had done the Royal College of Defence Studies course for a year together—that would sometimes rule them out. I must make the point to the Minister that we have not fabricated this; it is a problem that was raised with us by the experts who actually deal with the process day to day.

[Al Carns]

In no way, shape or form am I suggesting that this was fabricated, made up or a lie. What I am trying to say is that context is important. The statistics show that there are 200 one-stars in regular service, not including the reserve. That is a large pool of individuals, which reduces the right hon. Member’s argument about capacity. He talked about people knowing each other, but there are clear protocols in place to ensure that when the board is pulled together, the range of individuals on it is as broad as it is wide, and that there is at least one woman and one man on it. I think that that is adequate. The 2024 secondary legislation that amended the rules was brought in specifically in response to the case that was mentioned during the Committee’s visit—

Armed Forces Bill (Fifth sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Al Carns]

Coming back to amendment 9, I agree that pulling together a court martial board to deal with senior officers poses more challenges than it does for junior personnel. Such cases are rare, and changes were made quite recently to address the issue. Changes were made in secondary legislation in 2024 to provide more flexibility in the formation of court martial boards for trials where the defendant is a senior officer, to address any potential difficulties in finding sufficiently senior personnel who do not know the defendant to sit on the board. Having boards that are tri-service has also helped assist with that. The changes ensure that the president of the board—the most senior person on the board—will be at least a one-star when the defendant is a one-star or above, and that practical attempts are always made to try to find a suitable two-star. When a two-star cannot be found, a one-star works. For defendants below one-star, the president of the board is always one rank higher.

We talked about capacity and the availability of ranks, and we will look into the detail of how we ensure that the Defence Serious Crime Command has the authority to leverage people to deliver the right consistency on boards. In terms of capacity in dealing with senior officer trials, there are around 200 one-stars in the armed forces and around 470 personnel at one star or above. There are sufficient personnel to meet the few occasions when senior personnel are tried. We keep those matters under review through the governance board of the service justice system, the service justice board and the service justice executive group, in which all key stakeholders are represented.

Clause 20 amends section 156 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, to correct an anomaly relating to those who are eligible to sit on a court martial board. The Armed Forces Act 2021 reduced qualification for those non-commissioned officers who were entitled to sit on a court martial board from a warrant officer to those of substantive OR-7 rank, for example a colour sergeant. However, a technical oversight meant that other subsections of section 156 were not also amended to reflect those changes. Consequently, only warrant officers and equivalent who became commissioned officers automatically qualified to sit on a court martial board, while OR-7s still had to undergo a three-year qualification period. Clause 20 simply enables those who receive their commission and were of former substantive OR-7 rank to automatically qualify to sit on the court martial board. I hope that provides the necessary reassurance to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford on those grounds, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

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

I do not think we need to have a debate on clause 20 stand part because we had a pretty thorough debate on the amendment, which covered most of the issues. I will seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, but I would like to put down the marker that we have had an interesting debate and we might wish to return to this subject on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Power to impose post-charge conditions on persons not in service detention

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 22 to 24 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I feel I should say something about this, as I started it. I did so because I consider Falmouth to be the home of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s Bay class ships, as it is where they are maintained and repaired, so the RFA personnel are in great part my constituents.

RFA personnel are fundamental to the Navy and to the military. In many cases, as has been pointed out, they allow them to do their job. Recently, they worked on operations relating to the shadow fleet and protecting cables. One of the Bay class ships became a hospital ship off the west coast of Africa during Ebola. The RFA has played multiple roles, often as the forgotten service; it slips between the civil service and the military. Many in the RFA feel that their work has not been appreciated, so I am pleased that the Government have picked up on that and put this clause in the Armed Forces Bill—it is much appreciated. It is the start of work on building recognition of the RFA and on retention and recruitment within the service, which has struggled of late. I appreciate this measure and am very pleased that it has been included.

[Mr Francois]

As the title of clause 30 is “Commissioner’s functions in relation to Royal Fleet Auxiliary”, I will ask the Minister something about the commissioner and then something about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

It would appear that, after some time, the Government have now announced someone to fill the position of commissioner. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that. There are reports in the media that the appointment has been made, but I hope the Minister will put that firmly on the record and say a bit about the individual and how they came to be selected. What was the process by which they got that important job? Has the Defence Committee been involved in the appointment in any way?

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I can help out a little with the right hon. Gentleman’s question. The post was not filled. The Government were having some difficulty in filling the post, and—

[The Chair]

Order. We are going down a rabbit hole. The Committee is not here to debate who will fill the commissioner’s role; we are here to debate the clause. Can we get back on subject, please?

[Mr Francois]

Thank you, Mr Efford. I just wanted to know who got the job.

Turning to the RFA, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth for what she has done to raise the profile of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The issue is clearly extremely close to her heart. I believe that she was trying to advance a private Member’s Bill, having done well in the ballot, but there has been a slight problem with that, because—almost exceptionally, other than during covid—the Government’s business managers have hardly provided any time at all in this Session for private Members’ Bills. All those Members who had Bills that were important to them never really got a chance to make their case, so it is good that she has had the opportunity to put something on the record today.

The commissioner has important powers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East said, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary has a very important role. From memory, it was created in 1905. The Minister, from his time as the chief of staff of the carrier group, knows how important it is. Technically, its personnel are not members of the armed forces, but members of the merchant navy. However, it is fair to say that the Royal Navy could not operate without them, as was well said by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth, who understands these matters.

The RFA has a slightly unusual constitutional position, but is a vital part of Britain’s defence none the less. Indeed, a few days ago, a number of Russian shadow fleet tankers were shadowed through the English channel by the RFA Tidespring, because no escort was operationally available. That is pretty embarrassing for the Government, when the Prime Minister has talked so tough about boarding shadow fleet tankers but has boarded precisely none of them. We touched on that point in the Chamber yesterday. Perhaps the Minister can update us. Why we did not have a warship available to undertake the task, when the Russians had a warship to escort their own shadow fleet? The middle of the channel is international waters. Where are we on all this?

[The Chair]

Order. Can we get back to the Bill? The right hon. Member is asking a lot of questions that I am sure are very interesting, but they are not germane to the Bill. Can we get back to the subject that we are debating?

[Mr Francois]

Yes, Mr Efford. I will conclude there. I just wanted to know why the RFA is doing a job that the Royal Navy is supposed to do. After our debate yesterday, perhaps the Minister will enlighten the Committee.

[The Chair]

It is up to the Minister whether he wishes to answer any of that.

[Al Carns]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth. She generated this, and now it has come to fruition, so well done. The reality is that there is no Royal Navy without the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The RFA does an exceptional job across everything from high-end technical to refuelling and enabling our carrier strike group.

When we talk about embarrassment and availability of capability, the unfortunate reality is that we have the cards that we have been dealt, after successive Governments under-invested in the significant hard capability that we require to deter hostile states. As a Minister in the previous Government, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford owns an element of responsibility for that.

[Mr Francois]

For the record, whatever we did or did not do in Government, we did not bring in the £2.6 billion of operational spending cuts in the financial year just gone. That is why our availability is so poor, and that was a purely Labour decision, was it not?

[The Chair]

Order. We are getting off the subject again. Can we come back to the clause, please?

Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

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

Clause 42 amends sections 3A, 4 and 4A of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. It widens the power to make regulations under section 3A(1) so that provision can be made relating to the governance and administration of the Ministry of Defence police. That will give the Secretary of State a power similar to the power under section 50(1) of the Police Act 1996 to make regulations for members of territorial police forces in England and Wales.

The clause will also enable regulations to make provision so that a member of the MDP can be suspended from the office of constable if they are suspended from duty. As a consequence of the amendment to section 3A, it makes a minor amendment to section 4(1) so that the requirement to make regulations making provision relating to representation at disciplinary proceedings is aligned with the power in section 84(1) of the Police Act 1996. It also makes a minor amendment to the power in section 4A to make provision for police appeals tribunals, to remove a reference to legislation—schedule 3 to the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012—that was recently revoked by the Scottish Government.

I now turn to clause 43. Cross-border powers of arrest are set out in part X of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Where offences are committed in one legal jurisdiction in the UK, cross-border powers of arrest enable police officers to arrest suspects in other legal jurisdictions of the UK. The purpose of the amendments made by clause 43 is to make it clear that the powers in part X can be exercised by members of the MDP within their jurisdiction set out in section 2 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act.

The amendments will also slightly enlarge their jurisdiction to act for non-defence purposes, to execute arrest warrants at the request of other police forces, and to arrest suspects where it is not possible to wait for the arrival of a member of the local force. Similar amendments have already been made for members of the British Transport police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.

Clause 44 amends section 2 of the Police (Property) Act 1897 to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing unclaimed property in the possession of the MDP to be retained so it can be used for police purposes. The current power enables regulations to be made so that property can be retained for police purposes by territorial police forces in England and Wales. However, there is a legislative gap that means there is no scope for regulations to allow such property to be retained for use for police purposes by the MDP. This clause will allow regulations to be made that enable property to be retained for MDP use in the same way as for Home Office police forces.

I commend clauses 42 to 44 to the Committee.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again this afternoon, Mr Efford. This will be a brief contribution.

When I was a Minister, I had the privilege of visiting the MOD police at what was then RAF Wethersfield, which is now used for much more controversial purposes, but that is outside the scope of this Bill. I was shown a convoy protection exercise—the Minister will understand what I am talking about—and I was very impressed by how efficient and effective the MOD police were at guarding a precious cargo in that exercise.

The MOD police are affectionately known as “MOD plod” throughout defence, but sometimes I feel they are slightly under-sung heroes. They keep many people safe, and I place on record our appreciation for the MOD police and everything they do to keep us safe and protect vital assets in defence, as I am sure the Minister would echo.

[Al Carns]

The MOD police do an outstanding job. The changes in this Bill enhance their ability to keep us safe and to do their job effectively.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Detention etc of persons overseas in cases of mental disorder

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

[Al Carns]

Clause 45 and schedule 7 will protect those experiencing serious mental health difficulties while deployed overseas. Schedule 12 to the Armed Forces Act 2006 provides the legal framework for admitting and detaining service personnel suffering from mental disorders in service hospitals located outside the British Isles. However, schedule 12 has never been commenced, as its drafting is based on the existence of overseas military hospitals, none of which remain. That means our armed forces cannot currently rely on schedule 12 to detain personnel overseas.

Clause 45 and schedule 7 therefore amend schedule 12 to allow for the temporary detention of persons subject to service law, and civilians subject to service discipline, who experience a mental health crisis while deployed overseas, pending their removal to the UK for appropriate treatment in the civilian mental health system. That reflects the Mental Health Act 1983.

The clause enables a commanding officer to make an order, regarding the health, safety and dignity of a person, to detain them temporarily in a suitable place where detention in an overseas service hospital is impracticable. In urgent cases, service police may remove a person from living accommodation, where they are suffering from a mental health disorder, and take them to a suitable place where they can be detained by their commanding officer. A registered medical practitioner or nurse should be consulted, so far as is practicable.

In urgent cases, service police can also take a person suffering from a mental health disorder to a suitable place where they can be detained under the order of their commanding officer following consultation, where practicable, with a medical practitioner or nurse. Clause 45 and schedule 7 ensure that those who experience a mental health crisis while serving overseas receive appropriate protection, support and treatment.

I commend clause 45 and schedule 7 to the Committee.

[Mr Francois]

Clearly, all members of the Committee regard the mental health of our armed forces personnel and their families as equally important as their physical health. We therefore understand and welcome the intent of this clause.

[Al Carns]

The closure of overseas military hospitals requires a change to the legislation, and this clause does exactly that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 46

Defence functions of the Oil and Pipelines Agency

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

[Al Carns]

Clause 46 introduces a new section into the Oil and Pipelines Act 1985 to expand the defence functions of the Oil and Pipelines Agency. This is necessary as the agency is limited by existing legislation to dealing only in petroleum-based products and services. The OPA was established to support UK defence operations at a time when hydrocarbons were the main source of operational energy. In the decades since, the UK’s energy landscape has shifted considerably.

National commitments to reduce carbon emissions and achieve net zero by 2050 have driven changes in the country’s energy strategy. The Ministry of Defence is undergoing significant reform, with a strong emphasis on energy diversification. As a result, defence operations will become increasingly reliant on a broader mix of energy sources to ensure energy security, sustainability and operational effectiveness. Those include, but are not limited to, biofuels, synthetic fuels, natural gas and renewable natural gas, hydrogen, sustainable aviation fuels, zero-carbon energy carriers and fuels, and other low-carbon alternatives.

The clause therefore updates the Oil and Pipelines Act to permit the OPA to carry out activities related to the production, conveyance, storage or supply of energy for defence purposes, and to enter into agreements to support those activities. It also defines “energy” in broad terms, rather than restricting it to petroleum. The clause will ensure that the OPA remains strategically aligned, operationally relevant and capable of delivering value for money in a changing energy and defence environment.

I commend clause 46 to the Committee.

[Mr Francois]

I will make just one point, given the current international situation. We will not get into a long debate about the conflict in Iran, as you would rightly call me to order, Mr Efford. However, it is on the record that our Security Service has identified upwards of 20 plots in recent years, at the hands of the Iranian Government or their proxies, against facilities or persons in the United Kingdom, which mercifully it has foiled.

Therefore, it is not inconceivable that there could be a threat to those key pipelines that, bluntly, allow our jets to fly. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that the additional powers in the Bill will help to improve the security of that supply network? Is there anything else that he might want to place on the record this afternoon, subject to operational security, about what we are doing to maintain critical supplies to our armed forces, not least aviation fuel for our quick reaction alert aircraft?

[Al Carns]

The clause does exactly that. It diversifies some of the regulations that had predominantly focused on petrochemical facilities, in line with the changes in technology and energy demands. That diversification gives us resilience in global affairs and against potential adversaries who would seek to disrupt those services.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Protection of military remains

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

[Al Carns]

Clause 47 addresses the existing disparity between the protection of military aircraft and vessels under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, which secures the protection from unauthorised interference of the remains of military aircraft and vessels that have crashed, sunk or been stranded, and/or associated human remains, making it an offence to enter or interfere with a military wreck site without an authorised licence. The Act provides two types of protection: protected places and controlled sites, which are managed through the statutory instrument process in tranches. However, it does not currently allow designation of a vessel as a protected place if it was sunk or stranded on or before 4 August 1914, or a site as a controlled site if more than 200 years have elapsed since the crash, sinking or stranding of the vessel or aircraft.

Clause 47 therefore amends section 1 of the 1986 Act so that all military shipwrecks that are the last resting places of service personnel are automatically protected places, ensuring alignment with the protection already afforded to military aircraft. The clause also removes the restrictive time constraints that apply to protected places and controlled sites to ensure that the nation’s historic military shipwrecks that are, by virtue of those time limits, currently excluded, can be protected.

By providing automatic protection to all military shipwrecks, the MOD will enable a significant improvement in how our maritime military graves and underwater cultural heritage are protected. Diving on protected places will continue to be permitted on a “look but don’t touch” basis, and a licence to dive on a controlled site will still be required. Giving all military wrecks protected place status will help to deter unauthorised salvage and the desecration of wrecks and the military remains of service personnel. It will also enable the MOD, where appropriate, to prosecute those who flout the law.

Clause 47 delivers vital changes to enable the proper protection of our naval heritage. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

[Mr Francois]

This clause is important and worthwhile. Sunken warships are war graves in their own right, and they are sacred. One example is HMS Hood, which was blown up and sunk in battle with the Bismarck. Only three members of her crew survived; the rest perished as a result of that engagement. This is from memory, but I think that when the bell of HMS Hood was recovered some years ago, there was a great deal of debate about whether it was appropriate. In the end, it was decided that, in those very special circumstances, it was.

We must always remember that these graves are sacred; that applies to those of navy personnel from other countries as well. It is therefore good that protections are being increased for sites where those who fought and gave their lives for their country—whatever country—and who should be appropriately commemorated.

[Al Carns]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. It is worth remembering that some of the more costly battles in war are maritime battles. Ships could sink within minutes, and although today there are fewer crew members on those ships, there were thousands on them back in the day, particularly with the Dreadnought class. It is right that we protect those graves, which is why we are introducing this clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48

Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989: updating

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

[Al Carns]

Clause 48 amends the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 to align it more closely with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for England and Wales where there are references to UK armed forces.

These are minor and technical amendments and do not change the substance of the legislation. Clause 48 simply substitutes the outdated reference to “the Royal Navy Regulating Branch” with “the Royal Navy Police”. It also removes reference to “the Royal Marines Police”, which has been incorporated into the Royal Navy police.

Lastly, clause 48 omits reference to the repealed single service Acts: the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Mr Francois]

As the Minister rightly says, these are highly technical amendments, and therefore we have no objection.

[Al Carns]

I am very happy.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

Coroners and Justice Act 2009: correcting amendment

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

[Al Carns]

Clause 49 is a very minor clarifying amendment to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Changes made by the Armed Forces Act 2021 to other legislation to reflect the creation of the tri-service serious crime unit, referred to as the Defence Serious Crime Unit, included changes to the Coroners and Justice Act. While this change introduced the wording “tri-service serious crime unit”, it missed the opportunity to also add “service” before “police force”, which is an omission from when the Coroners and Justice Act was originally drafted.

The introduction of the word “service” before “police force” simply corrects that omission and provides clarity that the specific reference relates to a service police force and not a civilian police force. I commend clause 49 to the Committee.

[Mr Francois]

Agreed.

[Al Carns]

Also agreed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50

Interpretation

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

[Al Carns]

The general provisions set out the technical detail necessary for the legislation to operate as intended. They address such matters as interpretation, with clause 50 defining terms used throughout the Bill. Clause 51 covers financial provision and states that expenses arising from the provisions in the Bill will be paid out of money provided by Parliament. Clause 52 sets out extent in the United Kingdom and the specific legal jurisdictions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, where legislation will form part of the law. Clause 53 covers extent in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories and how certain provisions extend outside the UK—that is, Crown dependencies and British overseas territories. Clause 54 covers commencement and transitional provision, setting out when different parts of the Bill will come into force and enabling the Secretary of State to make transitory, transitional or saving provision. That is a standard provision designed to help bridge the gap between existing legislation and the commencement of new provisions when they come into force.

I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Mr Francois]

I have one question about clause 53. The clause is titled: “Extent in the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and British overseas territories”. However, subsection (2) says:

“The provisions mentioned in subsection (3) extend to—

(a) the Isle of Man, and

(b) the British overseas territories, except Gibraltar.”

Similarly, subsection (5)(b) says:

“any of the British overseas territories, except Gibraltar.”

The Minister will know that there are some sensitivities about policing and such matters in Gibraltar as a result of negotiations with the Government of Spain. I will not attempt to get into a wider row this afternoon about the fate of Gibraltar. However, after the Government’s big climbdown on Chagos, we are rather hoping that they will look again at the arrangements that affect the Rock. Suffice it for this afternoon—and just to prove I have read it—perhaps the Minister could explain why there are two exceptions for Gibraltar in this clause?

[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.

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

I wonder whether the Minister will confirm that veterans will have access to their medical records, whether within the month or not. As he knows, we have had some issues getting hold of the medical records of veterans who developed cancer after service with certain helicopters. It has proved very hard to get hold of those records. Will the Minister confirm that veterans will always have access to their medical records?

[Mr Francois]

As that was technically an intervention, I will have the first crack at it, but I am sure the Minister heard what the hon. Lady said. I see what she is trying to do here. Within the NHS there is the mantra “no decision about me without me”. If an NHS patient requests their medical records, they are meant to get them in a timely manner. We could all name constituency examples where that has not necessarily always been the case. Nevertheless, that is the principle, and it seems to me that it should apply equally to people who have served in the armed forces, who should suffer no disadvantage by virtue of their service, under the armed forces covenant. I am certainly sympathetic to what the hon. Lady said, and I am sure the Minister will be, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—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.

[Mr Francois]

On the issue of recruitment and retention, the Committee will recall from an earlier debate that I produced a report called “Stick or Twist?” for a previous Prime Minister, which was submitted in February 2020, just one month before the nation went into lockdown. The essence of that report, which contained multiple recommendations—all but one were eventually adopted by the Ministry of Defence, to varying degrees—was that there are a variety of reasons why people twist, or leave HM armed forces. However, the overwhelming reason, which has been consistent for a number of years, is the overall effect of service life on family life. People can be picked up for short-term deployment, sometimes overseas, and not see their partners and children as often as they would like. Sometimes, the cumulative effect of that—the pressure—becomes too much.

For the record, there are a number of other factors, and it is often a decision in the round—normally, it is a combination of factors that persuades someone eventually to leave—but sometimes there is one straw that breaks the camel’s back. I gave the example in a previous debate of someone who had to miss his best friend’s wedding because he was trawled to the British Army Training Unit Suffield as a watchkeeper. He was a rising cavalry officer, who spent nights sitting in a tent with a laptop or reading a novel, and he came back and basically told the Army to stuff it. That was a very poor leadership decision by somebody. Other factors could include pay, childcare and the expense and difficulty of obtaining it, housing—we have debated that previously at some length—and spousal employment, as people sometimes leave because of the effect on their partner’s career rather than on their own.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the different pressures that cause people to leave. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that in the year to September 2025, there was 1,000 more in inflow to the regular forces than in outflow? That year included the first two quarters in a row where inflow has exceeded outflow since 2021.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me; I notice that he said “into the armed forces”, not “into the Army”. I will come on to why that is the case in a minute. As he says, quarter by quarter, more people are joining the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force than are leaving, and the Opposition welcome that. But the latest annual statistics show that more people are still leaving the Army than are joining, which raises the obvious question: why the dichotomy? Why is there still net outflow from the Army when there is welcome inflow to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force?

I believe that one of the reasons for that dichotomy is lawfare, and the Government’s Northern Ireland troubles Bill. It is true that some RAF members, principally at RAF Aldergrove, served in Northern Ireland during the troubles, as did some Royal Navy members. Certainly, many members of the Royal Marines served there during Operation Banner, including the Minister, to whom I pay tribute for his service. But it was primarily a job for the Army, who often ended up as piggy in the middle between two warring communities. That was a difficult task. Therefore, to put it mildly, it is a great shame that the Government are still seeking to push that benighted Bill, the effect of which would be to open veterans up to lawfare. That is why a number of them are leaving the service, particularly in the special forces community.

I know that the Minister has strong historical links with that community. To prove my point, a letter was recently published by the Special Air Service Regimental Association, the Special Boat Service Association and the association for what is now the Special Reconnaissance Regiment—that grew out of 14 Intelligence Company, which served in Northern Ireland. That letter described the situation as a “national disgrace”. We are still world class in the area of special forces, but if we allow this legislation to progress, those people will be dragged back into the dock via inquest and civil prosecutions. Fewer people will join and more will leave.

[The Chair]

Order. We ought to come back to this Bill and the new clauses. You are touching on issues that relate to another Bill.

[Mr Francois]

I have been here too long to argue with the Chair, but I am doing so, Mr Efford, because the new clause is about retention. My question is: why are more people joining the Navy and the Air Force than are leaving, and why are more people leaving the Army than joining? I believe that the troubles Bill is the fundamental difference.

[Jayne Kirkham]

The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 5 would merely commission an independent review, not prosecute it. It does seem that we are getting out of scope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I am sure that the Chair can speak for himself, and I shall not try his patience. To end, in the next fortnight, Members will have to vote on whether to carry over the troubles Bill into the new Session or to let it die. I will give the Minister some advice: take the hint and drop it.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. To reinforce the importance of having a review on retention, the Navy’s loss is perhaps my gain in that a new member of my staff who went through officer training in the naval scheme unfortunately left, because there were no opportunities for him to move on with his training. He was told that it would be between 12 months and two and a half years before he could move on with his career. That was a huge issue and meant that he felt he had to walk away. As I said, that is my gain as I have a fantastic and incredibly qualified new parliamentary assistant, but it is important that we consider that as an element of retention.

Also, as has been said, single service accommodation is important, particularly for the Navy. As part of the wider Bill, we have talked about families, and obviously family accommodation is vital, but we must not lose sight of improving single service accommodation, particularly for those in the Navy.

[Mr Francois]

Unusually as I moved the new clause, I am not proposing to press it to a vote, because I hope that the point has been made. I hope that the Liberal Democrats, who tabled it, will not argue with that.

[Al Carns]

I thank Liberal Democrat Members for tabling the new clauses. To step back, I had 24 years in the military, and I sat and watched Governments come and go—I was less interested at the start of my career, but far more interested at the end, which just happened to coincide with the previous Government. What did we see? We saw a fundamental failure to address the recruitment and retention issues. To blame recruitment on the Northern Ireland legacy Bill, which I agree we are working on, is fundamentally flawed, as is highlighting a recruitment issue in special forces: we have already talked through how that is not the case, based on very close analysis that I have done, on an issue very close to my heart.

The reality is that a new Government have come in. We have looked in detail at the problems and systemic issues in the people space, which we have all lived and breathed, and we have fundamentally dealt with them. There is a long way to go, but we are seeing the shoots of success, with a percentage increase in recruitment and a reduction in outflow. Why? Childcare initiatives. Not shiny ships, bombs or bullets, but childcare initiatives, retention payments, housing, the right to a family life—something the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford mentioned—and two inflation-busting pay rises.

Under the previous Government, morale was at the lowest level in a generation, and now it is rising. We cannot put the recruitment and retention issues down to one Bill. When I joined the military, I did not even know what a pension was; I would not have been tracking the legislation going through Parliament. These matters are usually down to the things people can feel and breathe—the things close to their fingers. Those are childcare, the right to a family life, service and operations. That is what keeps people in, and that is what we have done.

[Mr Francois]

Will the Minister give way?

[Al Carns]

No, I will not. That is where we have delivered the output. The previous Government failed. We are succeeding. There is a long way to go, but we are moving in the right direction. It is about time that the previous Government held their hands up and said that they categorically failed with recruitment and retention.

[Mr Francois]

Well, explain the letter from the regimental associations.

[The Chair]

Order. We are moving into issues that are beyond the scope of the Bill. Mr Francois, you have the last word, as the mover of the new clause.

[Mr Francois]

As I said, I am not going to press the new clause. I just leave the Minister with this thought: if what I am saying is completely wrong, how does he explain that letter from his own mates?

[The Chair]

The Minister does not need to explain that in this setting. Perhaps he can do so outside of the Committee.

[Mr Francois]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

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 shall, amongst others, perform the following functions—

(a) promote the interests of veterans in England;

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

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

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

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

(4) In exercising these functions 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 shall lay any report prepared under this section before both Houses of Parliament.

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

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

(b) the publication of the Commissioner’s reports.

(9) The Commissioner is to be appointed for a term of three years and may be reappointed for a 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.’”—(Sarah Bool.)

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Francois]

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

The essence of the new clause is that changes that are under way in our national railway industry, including the taking back into public ownership of a number of rail franchises and the gradual evolution of an overall entity known as Great British Railways, should not disadvantage either serving or former armed forces personnel and their families by discontinuing the popular HM forces and HM veterans railcards.

In highlighting that issue, I should immediately declare an interest, as I hold a veterans railcard. Indeed, I can attest to the Committee that the railcards represent excellent value for money, having cost, from memory, something like £70 for three years, but in return allowing for a discount of a third on almost all rail journeys, significantly including both the morning and evening peak periods; it is not just an off-peak railcard. Moreover, those holding a veterans railcard can also travel in company with their partner, who then qualifies for much the same discount on the same journey. It is an extremely positive measure, and I hope the Minister can give us a cast-iron assurance that the major changes under way within the railway industry will not somehow lead to either of the cards—or, worst of all, both—being discontinued.

It was, admittedly, in their manifesto that the Labour party intended to take the railways back into public ownership. However, it was not in their manifesto that armed forces personnel, veterans or their families should suffer as a result.

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

Would the right hon. Gentleman update me on where he heard that the Government have any intention whatsoever of withdrawing the HM forces or HM veterans railcards? I have a veterans railcard, and I have not seen any evidence anywhere that there is an intention to withdraw them.

[Mr Francois]

As I understand it, it is not merely a Government decision; it is partly a concession that is offered by the railway industry. Some uncertainty has been put to us that, as we transition to GB Railways, which is to be a holding organisation for the railway network, there may be some changes to concessionary fares. What we are trying to achieve is an assurance that the withdrawal of these railcards will not be one of those changes. It is really about the avoidance of doubt, so all the Minister needs to pop up and say is, “As far as the Government are concerned, these two railcards will continue”, and I am hopeful that the railway industry will take note of the Minister’s intention. It is really as straightforward as that, but if we cannot get an assurance on that, we will most assuredly vote on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for tabling this new clause and recognising the important contribution made by members of our armed forces and the veterans community. The Government are clear that supporting those who serve and have served remains an absolute priority. That includes ensuring that they are able to benefit from discounted travel, including through the existing HM forces railcard and the veterans railcard schemes.

However, we do not consider it necessary to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to secure continued provision of those specific railcards, as proposed by the new clause. As set out in the Bill, the existing legislative framework provides a strong basis for the continuation of concessionary fare schemes while allowing appropriate flexibility in how those are designed or delivered over time. That flexibility is really important: it enables the railway to respond to changing passenger needs, affordability considerations and wider policy objectives while continuing to support groups for whom the cost of travel can be a barrier.

Placing a specific scheme in primary legislation risks constraining that flexibility and creating unintended rigidity in how future discount arrangements are managed. As it stands, existing discount schemes, including those for veterans and members of the armed forces, can continue to be offered via policy and operational decisions without the need for legislative prescription.

The Government remain fully committed to supporting the armed forces and veterans community, through this and other means. I reassure the Committee that there are no plans—I repeat, no plans—to withdraw HM forces or veterans railcards, and the Government remain fully committed to supporting the armed forces community. For those reasons, while I understand the intention behind the new clause, the Government do not believe that it is required and I therefore ask the right hon. Member to withdraw it.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the Minister for what he said but, given that there is still vagueness in the Railways Bill, which is why we have tabled this new clause, I am afraid that I am not entirely reassured and will have to press it to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Francois]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—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 ECHR for that period of deployment.

[Mr Francois]

I hope that we are all much refreshed. I should say up front that, while we have been able to conduct this Committee for most of the time in a relatively consensual manner, I fear that on this subject there may be some fundamental differences of principle at stake and that therefore we may find it genuinely difficult to agree. I would have been intrigued to know the attitude of Liberal Democrat members of the Committee, as we are debating the effect of the European convention on human rights on service personnel, but unfortunately they are no longer here.

Nevertheless, the essence of new clause 13 is that it would reinstate a duty removed during the passage of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 to require the Secretary of State to consider derogation from the ECHR during significant overseas operations. Similarly, the essence of new clause 15 is that it would make provision for members of the reserve forces who have been deployed under the provisions of the Bill to be exempted from the ECHR for the period of that deployment.

Let me say at the outset that I have never met a member of His Majesty’s armed forces, whether past or present, who believed that the military should not operate subject to legal constraint. After all, soldiers fight to defend our democratic way of life and, in Northern Ireland, they fought to uphold the rule of law. We have had for decades the law of armed conflict, which has at its heart the well-established Geneva convention. It is not as if we have never had any boundaries to control the actions of armed forces personnel.

How did we get to the situation in which we are today, where the European convention on human rights has spread to the battlefield, not just within Europe but globally? The history is significant, and it lies behind why we have tabled the new clauses. It 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. I think, from memory, that the UKSC was stood up in 2009, but this case, or at least at the first crank of the handle, as I will go on to explain, predated that.

In essence, the al-Jedda case was about the treatment of a prisoner detained in Iraq. The case 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, he was subsequently convicted of fraud and was struck off as a practising solicitor, although, at least to date, he never went to jail.

The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords heard this case, and 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 and our Prime Minister, was one Keir Starmer QC. The Minister for Veterans and People got into some trouble over this, because when we raised it in the Commons, she was adamant that that individual had not been working for Shiner and was merely acting as a so-called third party, as a kind of expert witness to the court on a point of law.

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. That law firm, I am pleased to say, is no longer in business, and quite right too. The Minister for Veterans subsequently had to come to the Commons in February and go through the embarrassment of having to correct the record and admit that our version of events, as explained to the Commons, was true.

How did we get from there to now? 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, the current Prime Minister was not involved in the case at that stage, but he clearly had been previously. Shiner won, so the ECHR, which we were then subject to, 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, they effectively created an industry that Shiner was very expeditious in exploiting. 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 is, 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 when he served on the Defence Committee some years ago, when he was the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, who led a sub-committee to look into this issue. Its very powerful report helped to bring Shiner to book, no doubt saving the taxpayer a lot more money, and led to his career ending in disgrace.

But what if there was 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 people who had perhaps crossed the line of ceasefire, who is to say that years—maybe decades—later, those personnel will not end up in a court of law for obeying what they believed to be perfectly legitimate orders, but which were subsequently second guessed by a human rights lawyer? For the avoidance of doubt, that is why the new clauses would alleviate such a situation.

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, indeed, historically—and potentially force them to fight ruthless opponents with one arm tied behind their back. This issue is not going to go away, and at some point the Government, be it through the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill or some other mechanism, will be forced to address it. The purpose of these new clauses is to force them to address it today. It is a shame that we are not going to hear the Liberal Democrats’ view on this, but I will be intrigued to hear the Government’s. Before that, however, I suspect that we will hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East.

[David Reed]

I will speak in support of new clauses 13 and 15. My right hon. Friend has laid out quite a scary case study of what happens when international legal frameworks are used to affect our service personnel.

New clause 13 deserves support because it reflects a clear and honest understanding of the legal position. While our long-term view is that the United Kingdom should not remain bound by the European convention on human rights, the reality is that the convention still applies today. Until that changes, the Government have a duty to use every lawful tool available to protect our armed forces, safeguard the national interest and uphold the integrity of operations overseas. The new clause would do that by requiring Ministers to consider derogation when significant overseas operations make it appropriate. This is not an acceptance of the status quo; it is a recognition of the conditions in which decisions are currently made.

Our forces operate in dangerous, fast-moving and legally complex environments. They should not be constrained by frameworks designed for peacetime while Ministers fail to even consider whether the convention’s emergency provisions should be engaged when circumstances clearly demand it. Failing to do so is not leadership; it is a refusal to confront responsibility. A Government committed to the rule of law should also be committed to using the law as it is intended. Where a significant overseas operation is under way, the Secretary of State should be required to address the straightforward question: is derogation appropriate in these circumstances? That is a responsible approach.

I raise this point because it has happened in recent history. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Government at the time derogated from article 5 of the ECHR, enacting part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which authorised the indefinite detention of foreign national terrorism suspects.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Reed]

That is exactly what the hon. Member just said. I will go back in Hansard to check what he just said.

[Mr Francois]

It is very clear that the hon. Member for North Durham basically implied that we are aligned with the Russians. That is a despicable thing to say.

[David Reed]

I have spent my entire adult life serving my country, and I view being in this House as an extension of that service. For the hon. Member for North Durham even to hint that I am aligned in that way is absolutely atrocious, and I hope he will withdraw his remark.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for tabling new clauses 13 and 15.

New clause 15 seeks to exempt members of the reserve forces deployed on operations from the European convention on human rights for that period of deployment. As the Committee will know, the UK has an international legal obligation to comply with the provisions and protections contained in the ECHR. The ECHR provides for legally enforceable rights within the jurisdiction of the state. That includes, in exceptional circumstances, extraterritorial jurisdiction which applies beyond the territory of the state. The UK is obliged to guarantee rights under the ECHR in circumstances where the armed forces either exercise authority and control over an individual, for example a detainee, or over an area, for example military occupation.

New clause 15 seeks to change domestic law, but it should be made clear that that would not remove the UK’s international obligations under the ECHR. As a signatory to the ECHR, the UK cannot simply opt out of its obligations on a case-by-case basis. Removing the potential for these matters to be considered in the UK courts merely provides a fast track to Strasbourg. The only formal route to avoid the UK’s obligation under the ECHR would be to withdraw from the convention itself, and it is this Government’s position that we remain a party to the European convention on human rights.

That leads us to new clause 13, which seeks to emulate clause 12 of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill introduced by the last Government. That clause would have required any future Secretary of State to consider whether to make a derogation under article 15 of the ECHR. That article provides:

“In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.”

At the time, concerns were raised that clause 12 of the Bill risked damaging the UK’s reputation for upholding the rule of law and our commitment to human rights. It 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 power; its inclusion seems to have been largely symbolic. I am uncertain why the Opposition would seek to reintroduce the provision in this Bill, when the last Government agreed to its removal from the Bill. I therefore urge the right hon. Member not to press these new clauses.

[Mr Francois]

I have listened to the contributions during this debate, one of which I think was particularly unworthy; having heard that contribution in particular, I now wish to press both new clauses to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Francois]

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

Like our previous debate, I fear this may be an area on which, as a Committee, we find it difficult to agree overall. Nevertheless, this is a very important subject, and I am glad that we have an opportunity to debate it in Committee this afternoon—I am sad that, again, the Liberal Democrats are not here. As it turns out, we debated this issue at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday lunchtime and in the subsequent urgent question, which I led for the Opposition, in the Commons Chamber, but it is very appropriate to debate it in the context of this Bill as well.

The essence of new clause 16 is that it would require the Secretary of State for Defence to lay a defence investment plan—or DIP—before both Houses of Parliament within a month of the passage of this Act. The defence investment plan was mentioned in the strategic defence review published last June. There was some criticism of the SDR that, while it was good in parts, it did not provide much granular detail on the Government’s intentions regarding military kit.

For the record, when we were in government, we published what was then known simply as the equipment plan just about every year—I think there was one year when we did not—which laid out in quite some detail the spending on military programmes undertaken, or proposed to be undertaken, by the MOD, looking a decade ahead. There was a very sensible reason for doing that, because procuring military equipment does not necessarily fit within the standard three years of a public expenditure round. Just to take two examples, it takes about four years from scratch to build a Typhoon fighter aircraft, and it can take around 10 years to build an aircraft carrier. Clearly, there has to be some kind of budget that accounts for the length of time it takes to build those kinds of kit.

We therefore published that plan year in, year out, and it performed two very important functions—well, three, really. First, it allowed industry to plan. Those businesses are obviously there to win contracts, to do work for defence and to satisfy their shareholders. They could see what was—in pub English—coming down the pipe, so they could make sensible commercial investment decisions accordingly.

Secondly, it was good for the morale of our armed forces, because they could see the kit that the Government of the day were planning to buy, which they would ultimately get to use. Thirdly, it had a deterrent effect, because it said to our potential adversaries: “Here we are intending to spend hard-earned taxpayer cash, in many cases on hard power in order to deter any potential aggressor from attacking us or our allies.” There was a whole host of good reasons for doing it, and that is why the Government faithfully promised that they would publish the defence investment plan to make up for that detail not being in the SDR.

We were absolutely promised it for the autumn of 2025, we were faithfully promised it by Christmas, and then we were absolutely going to get it early in the new year. But here we are, in the middle of April, with no DIP. We have to ask the Government why that is, although it is an open secret: the MOD is in open warfare with His Majesty’s Treasury, and the Chancellor has repeatedly refused to sign it off. All three of the SDR’s authors were explicitly clear, when they published it, that in order to achieve the programme outlined in it the Government would have to commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence. That was, in simple terms, the price of implementing the SDR. In the last 72 hours, all three of those authors have come out very strongly against the Government. It seems to me that months of frustration has effectively boiled over, and it cannot be a coincidence that all three of them have now gone public with their criticisms.

Dr Fiona Hill said there is a “bizarre” lack of urgency in Government defence planning. General Sir Richard Barrons, another co-author of the SDR, said there is

“an enormous gap between where we have to be to keep the country safe…and where we actually are”.

Lord Robertson, lead author of the SDR, former Labour Defence Secretary and former NATO Secretary-General, who is widely respected, spoke about a “corrosive complacency” by the Prime Minister towards defence.

The attitude of Ministers is pure bluster. Basically, they have just started being rude to people. They have started talking about armchair generals. They can call me that; that is water off a duck’s back to me. It is nice to be referred to as a general, having made the dizzying heights of lieutenant in my military career. But General Sir Richard Barrons is not an armchair general, and I would caution the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry over his behaviour yesterday. For good measure, he has apparently now lost it in some interview with The Telegraph about Ajax. There are some tensions between Ministers on the fifth floor, for reasons I will not go into this afternoon, but HMS MOD is not a happy ship. It seems that the pressure is getting to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry.

Very simply, when will we get the DIP? We are fed up with being told that Ministers are working flat out, straining every sinew and all these other euphemisms. When will the Prime Minister, primus inter pares, intervene and order the Chancellor to sign it? A couple of days or so ago, the Minister for Veterans and People told the Defence Committee that they were still working on the staff work—utter nonsense. The staff work was completed months ago. It has been ready to be signed for months.

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Members being mentioned are not here to defend themselves.

[Mr Francois]

Fair enough. Anyway, it has not been signed for months and has, metaphorically, been sitting on the Chancellor’s desk. It is probably fair to say that the Chancellor has no background with the military. She has never shown much empathy for the military; it is not her long suit.

[The Chair]

Order. Personal criticism is not called for. We need to stick to the facts.

[Mr Francois]

Well, Mr Efford, if the Chancellor signed it, there would not be any criticism. For whatever ends, she has not chosen to do so.

When we had exchanges with the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry yesterday about defence spending, to which the drip—the DIP, rather—is fundamental, he gave the game away. He talked about percentages of GDP on defence, and said:

“We will hit 2.6% in 2027”

and

“3% in the next Parliament”.—[Official Report, 15 April 2026; Vol. 783, c. 834.]

Assuming that this Parliament goes the full term, the last possible legal date for the election is August 2029, which means that we would not get to 3% for another three years. It is our policy that we should get to 3% before the end of this Parliament.

As the Minister knows, we cannot deliver the SDR until we say at what point we will get to 3%, because that is the price of doing so. When we pick a year, we can put a pin on a graph and draw a line back from it, and everything underneath that line will be money that we have to spend. Until we decide what that year is, we cannot draw the line; we do not know how much money we have and we cannot pass a 10-year equipment plan. Because the Treasury will not agree on what year we will get to 3%, there is a complete institutional impasse in the Government.

Do hon. Members honestly think that, at the Russian, Chinese or North Korean embassies, they have not spotted this? Do they not think we are a laughing stock in those embassies? What deterrent effect are we providing against our potential aggressors by not being able to tell them, let alone our own Parliament, when we will publish a document that is now nearly nine months overdue? How do we prevent war by doing that?

[Mr Foster]

If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to our armed forces as a global laughing stock, is that perhaps because of—we had this debate in the Chamber yesterday—the inheritance his party’s Government left: no ships, no aircraft and the lowest number of British troops since the Napoleonic wars? Does he concede that one of the problems with delivering the DIP is that appalling inheritance?

[Mr Francois]

For the absolute avoidance of doubt, I never said that, and the hon. Gentleman is putting words in my mouth. I never said, or even implied, that our armed forces are a laughing stock—absolutely not. They are still, man for man and woman for woman, among the best in the world, if not the best. It is the Government they serve who are now the laughing stock, not the military personnel. It is a Government who cannot take a fundamental decision about defence spending, whose own MOD Ministers are privately at each other, and who have an MOD and a Treasury that cannot agree. The only way that that is resolved in the British system is when the first among equals intervenes and knocks heads together, and the Prime Minister will not do that because he is terrified of what happens to him if he does. We have an impasse in which the Government, not the armed forces, are regarded as a laughing stock, not just in Washington but in the capitals of our adversaries.

That being the case, I ask the Minister in all sincerity to tell us this afternoon when the defence investment plan will be published.

[Luke Akehurst]

I think that everyone who cares about defence shares the right hon. Gentleman’s anxiety about wanting to see the defence investment plan published. Would he accept that we are only days away from polling in a very important set of elections that are governed by a purdah process? Perhaps, if the Prime Minister stood up in the Chamber on Monday and announced the investment, some of it would be targeted at Scotland, where there is a Scottish Parliament election; some would be targeted at Wales, where there is a Senedd election; and some would be targeted at places around the country where there is a defence industry but where council elections are happening. The right hon. Gentleman’s party would probably say that the Government were breaking purdah and trying to sway the outcome of those elections if we were to announce the DIP between now and polling day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I will meet him halfway. I could get him references from Hansard for where the Opposition made exactly that point in the Chamber some weeks ago. We argued that, obviously, there would be expenditure at Faslane, at Lossiemouth and suchlike, so if the Government did not come up with the DIP by the third week in March then purdah could kick in—as I think is the convention—and mean that they could not then publish it until the middle of May. A minute ago, I asked the Minister to give us a date when the DIP will be published. That might be after the purdah period; I was listening. But—and I hope that the hon. Member will be equitable about this—we warned about the risk of the purdah window months ago. I think we now know that we are going to get a King’s Speech on 13 May. If that purdah block is in place, and it probably is, the earliest that we can realistically expect the DIP is another month further on, but we have been waiting nine months as it is. In fairness to the hon. Gentleman—and we may have fallen out on the previous new clause—he has a point, but I will admit that he has a point only if he will admit that we raised this publicly months ago.

Even The Times has reported that there is an impasse. Its political editor Steven Swinford and its excellent defence editor Larisa Brown today produced an article entitled “Keir Starmer delays defence investment plan over cabinet split”, the opening sentence of which is:

“Sir Keir Starmer’s ten-year plan for investment in defence will not be published until the summer as the government is split over how much should be committed to the armed forces.”

We cannot go on with the Chancellor holding the armed forces to ransom. Bearing in mind what the hon. Member for North Durham said about purdah—I got that point—will the Minister, when he sums up this debate, at least give us a date by which the DIP will be published? At the very least, will he promise the Committee, and through us, the House, that it will be, at the very latest, by the time the House rises for the summer recess, which is currently programmed for 16 July?

[The Chair]

Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman just said, I remind the Committee that it is discussing a new clause that requires publication of the defence investment plan within a month of the Bill’s passage.

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for tabling new clause 16. The Defence Secretary has been really clear that we are working flat out to finalise the defence investment plan. I think it was a slip of the tongue that needs to be corrected in Hansard—

[Mr Francois]

I am so sorry, but will the Minister give way?

[Al Carns]

No. The right hon. Gentleman can wait two minutes.

[Mr Francois]

That is twice now.

[Al Carns]

Well, I do apologise.

[Mr Francois]

Thank you.

[Al Carns]

I would like to correct Hansard, because I think there was a slip of the tongue when the right hon. Gentleman said “drip”, not “DIP”. There seems to be an element of dripping going on about the DIP. Well, for 14 years there has been a dip in morale, a dip in recruitment and retention, a dip in ship orders, a dip in aircraft orders, a dip in capability, a dip in successful major programmes—48 or 49 major projects have been delayed or over budget—and a dip across a whole plethora of capability in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and then you wonder why the DIP is taking so long. Unfortunately, whether we collectively like it or not, you left a hollowed-out and massively underfunded—

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

The reality is that we are already spending. We have awarded more than 1,200 major contracts since the election. There is a £1 billion contract for military helicopters in Yeovil, £500 million has been invested in state-of-the-art British Typhoon jets, and there has been a £100 million boost for the RAF P-8 submarine-hunting aircraft. The DIP needs to come, but we have collectively been left an exceptionally complex problem set. The war in Ukraine is driving transformation, and we have a hollowed out and underfunded defence, with old capability platforms arriving that are no longer relevant because of the technological revolution in Ukraine—

[Mr Francois]

What does that have to do with it?

[Al Carns]

It has everything to do with it. The Committee needs to understand the details of what has been left, because it has everything to do with it. We cannot take anything in isolation; it is all combined. As a result, we have a deeply complex problem set to deal with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

Our aim is to ensure that the decisions in the plan are robust and support the development of current and future capabilities to help drive the transformation of the armed forces, as described in the strategic defence review. It will be an affordable, deliverable programme to transform our armed forces, and it will highlight how this Government’s historic investment in defence will deliver warfighting readiness to deter increased threats and drive defence as an engine for growth.

We have announced the largest sustained defence spending increase since the cold war: 2.6% of GDP from 2027, with an additional £5 billion for defence this financial year and £270 billion of investment across this Parliament, ensuring that there is no return to the hollowed-out armed forces of the past.

[Mr Francois]

Ministers keep talking about this “largest sustained increase” in defence spending since the cold war. Why, then, were there £2.6 billion of efficiency cuts last year, and why is there a target for £3.5 billion efficiency cuts this year?

[The Chair]

Order. This debate is about the period in which the DIP should be published, not about how much is in the budget. Can we get back on the subject, please?

[Al Carns]

The DIP will be an affordable, deliverable programme to transform our armed forces. I hope I have provided the necessary reassurance to the hon. Member and, on those grounds, I ask him not to press the new clause.

[Mr Francois]

As a right hon. Member, I am afraid that we have just heard the same ministerial bluster that we have had for months, so I will press the new clause to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. During that Division, I called for the doors to be locked before the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley was present, for which I apologise.

New Clause 17

Defence Readiness Plan

“(1) Within one month of the passage of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay a Defence Readiness Plan before both Houses of Parliament.

(2) The Defence Readiness Plan shall include, but shall not be limited to, a statement of the number of personnel in, and readiness of, each of the Reserve Forces governed by the Reserve Forces Act 1996.”—(Mr Francois.)

This new clause requires the Government to publish a Defence Readiness Plan which must include information about the numbers and readiness of reserve forces.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Francois]

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

This is the last new clause we will debate today, so I will try to keep to the point. New clause 17 would require the Government to publish a defence readiness plan, which must include information about the numbers and readiness of reserve forces.

In a sense, the new clause gets to the heart of what people conceptually believe our armed forces are for. I have always believed that they exist to save lives, by persuading any potential aggressor that they could not win a war with ourselves and our allies. The Minister will forgive me, because he has heard this from me before, but it is summed up in the Roman military theorist Vegetius’s famous phrase, “Si vis pacem, para bellum”—“He who desires peace should prepare for war”.

When he published his strategic defence review, Lord Robertson emphasised readiness, but the official policy of the Government, as announced in that review—from memory, on page 43—was that we in Britain should be prepared to fight a peer enemy with allies by 2035. That is nine years from now. The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Roly Walker, said about a year ago that we might have to be prepared to fight the Russians in 2027, just one year away, and the First Sea Lord is on the record in another forum saying that we might have to fight them by 2029. There is a clear dichotomy in terms of readiness between the policy of the Government and the Ministry of Defence and the policy of at least two of the service chiefs.

When the Government asked Lord Robertson to front the SDR, they knew what they were doing. He is very widely respected, he oversaw the 1998 strategic defence review, and he is also a former Secretary-General of NATO. When added to Sir Richard “not-an-armchair-general” Barrons and Dr Fiona Hill, in fairness to the Government, they had a credible front-of-house team to conduct the review. They were all adamant that the price of delivering readiness was defence spending at 3% of GDP.

What did Lord Robertson say about our preparedness and readiness to go to war, if necessary, at a speech in Salisbury on Tuesday night? He said this:

“We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack. We are not safe…Britain’s national security and safety is in peril.”

Lord Robertson is deeply respected. There is no way he could be characterised as some kind of Tory stooge; he has never been a stooge for anybody. For him to be warning us about these risks is a really serious wake-up call, and for him to accuse the Prime Minister of “corrosive complacency” in being ready to defend this nation is an extremely powerful intervention. In pub English, the authors of the review have plainly had enough. They have gone public and are being very critical of the Government. What was the point of them spending a year doing that very detailed report if the Government they reported it to have not followed up on what they advised them to do?

I note in passing that the Health Secretary is today quoted as saying that we should cut welfare to fund defence. When he was challenged about why he said that, he said that Ministers

“need to put more money”

into the armed forces, and that expenditure has

“got to come from somewhere.”

In terms of improving our military readiness—here is where I suspect we part company—we announced a few weeks ago that we would return to the two-child benefit cap. That would generate about £3.2 billion in a full year, and we would use at least half that money to increase the size of the Regular Army, subject to the problems of recruitment and retention, to 80,000 and the active Army Reserve to 40,000, making for a mobilisable Army of 120,000. There is a very clear difference between us and the Government on this.

For the sake of brevity, I end with one plea to the Minister for information. We have had our argument about when the defence investment plan should be published. We are asking for a defence readiness plan through new clause 17, but the Government have promised a defence readiness Bill. As we are pretty close to the King’s Speech, can the Minister tell us whether that Bill will be in it? If it will be, when is it intended that the defence readiness Bill—which, given its name, surely will be designed to improve our readiness for war—be on the statute book? We have Lord Robertson telling us that we are underprepared, underinsured and under attack—do not take it from me; take it from him—so where is the plan and, more to the point, where is the defence readiness Bill?

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for his views on the Bill and acknowledge his request for us to publish a defence readiness plan that must include information about the numbers and readiness of the reserve forces. One of the main reasons we are underinsured, underprepared and under attack is the systemic underfunding of defence over the last 20 years, and since the end of the cold war, and our pursuit of usually non-state actors at a cost to our state-countering capability.

However, for the first time in decades, the Government have set a clear path for the next decade and beyond to transform and boost our reserve forces, through the strategic defence review. I reassure the Committee that we have been clear about our move to warfighting readiness, and the MOD is working around the clock to deliver that through our armed forces plan, as stated by the Chief of the Defence Staff at various recent briefings.

However, for reasons that I am confident all Members of the House will understand, these readiness plans should not be subject to a statutory requirement for publication. The House is already equipped with robust and appropriate mechanisms to scrutinise defence and defence readiness, including this Committee, the House of Commons Defence Committee, the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee, and the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence publishes quarterly personnel statistics containing data on strengths, requirements, intake, applications and outflow. The latest set, containing data up to 1 January 2026, was published at the beginning of the month. We already provide extensive information on the readiness of our reserve force, and disclosing comprehensive details of our readiness plans could risk giving our adversary a strategic advantage. I hope that provides the necessary reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman and, on those grounds, I ask him to withdraw the motion.

[Mr Francois]

We do indeed have a disagreement on principle. I suspect that the Minister might privately have some sympathy with the new clause but, for reasons we are all aware of, he cannot say so today. I will give him a chance to vote with us by pressing the new clause to a Division.

[Al Carns]

Very kind.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

On a point of order, Mr Efford. I take this opportunity to thank all colleagues and all Opposition Members for our healthy and important debates. Importantly, I also thank all the Clerks, officials and you in the Chair, Mr Efford, for pulling the Committee together and making it run smoothly. It is not lost on me that the Bill is hugely important. A lot of the clauses are about getting us ready and preparing us should a crisis befall the country. The Bill is doing nothing other than thickening our ability to protect the freedoms that we have exercised here in this Committee Room. On behalf of those of us on the Government Benches, thank you very much indeed.

[Mr Francois]

Further to that point of order, Mr Efford. I very much echo the Minister’s sentiments. We have agreed with the general thrust of the Bill from day one. We said that we would attempt to be a critical friend and to improve it, or to make suggestions, and the Minister—to be fair to him—has said on a number of occasions that he will take things back to the Department or take a closer look. I know him, and if he says that, I know that he will. I am afraid the officials will have some extra work to do.

Thank you, Mr Efford, for chairing our proceedings with a light touch and, if I may say so, a sense of humour. I thank the excellent Clerks for assisting us with amendments and providing good advice, and for organising the excellent visit to Portsmouth. I hope that we have done the House some service. Along with all my colleagues, I thank all who have been involved in this process. We look forward to producing our report and to debating these matters on Report.

[The Chair]

I do not think it is normal for a Bill Committee Chair to say something, but this is a peculiar Committee, because it has been a Select Committee and a Bill Committee. It has been a joy to chair these meetings. I just say to anyone who is following our proceedings that everyone here is trying to do their best for our armed forces. We understand what they go through and put themselves through, and we have absolute respect for them in their roles. Everyone here hopes that, with what we are doing with the Bill, we will do the best we possibly can for our armed forces. I thank all the officials who have supported me in getting the Committee through the Bill, and I will see Committee members at our private meeting next Tuesday to finalise our report. Thank you all very much.

Armed Forces Bill (Sixth sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Martin]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford, and I thank you for the invitation to remove our jackets. Amendment 7 was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon. I will just briefly introduce it to the Committee.

The idea of a zig-zag career is incredibly important. Unlike previously, when the qualification needed to join the armed forces was the ability to run around a muddy field with a heavy backpack, we now live in an age in which we recognise that we need a much greater range of skills in the armed forces, and the ability to move from reserve to regular and back to reserve is incredibly important, so we welcome that the Government are introducing that. When I served, a number of people regularly moved between the regulars and the reserves—in fact, I did it myself.

However, there is a question mark as to what effect such movement has on retention. In an ideal world, we would expect it to improve, as more flexibility should mean that people are more likely to stay in the regular forces or the reserve forces. But we do not know that; this is an untried experiment, so the amendment would mandate the Ministry of Defence to provide a report to Parliament on the effect of the implementation of this clause—of this zig-zag career pathway—on retention.

Specifically, clause 31 as it stands amends the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to make it easier for personnel to move in both directions. It also amends the Armed Forces Act 2006 to enable that to happen. Amendment 7 would simply add an annual reporting and accountability mechanism on top of those transfer provisions. It would not change the function of the clause, but just require the Government to enable Parliament to monitor the situation accurately. As we know, recruitment and retention is a big problem for the armed forces.

Without such a reporting requirement, the provisions could be enacted—again, we are in favour of that—but never meaningfully evaluated. As we heard in evidence, there are so many different categories of reserve forces and many different types of engagement. They have grown piecemeal over time, and one reason for that is that there is no effective oversight mechanism, looking at things in the round. Under this amendment, the reporting requirement would establish one element of an oversight mechanism.

I conclude by saying that our amendment does not seek to amend the function of the clause, which we are in favour of, but it seeks to mandate the MOD to provide a report to Parliament, so that Parliament can exercise proper oversight and scrutiny.

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

Good morning to you, Mr Efford, and to all members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again today. I will lead for my party in this section on reserve forces. I will begin by offering some comments on Liberal Democrat amendment 7, which relates to retention and transfers between regular and reserve forces, and will follow with a few remarks on clause 31.

In one of our evidence sessions, I raised the potential complexity when people wish to leave the regular armed forces and transfer into the reserves. That point is often a good time to catch them, as many people who have enjoyed their regular service but wish to earn their living in a different way are still often tempted to transfer to the reserves to keep their hand in and to continue to serve the nation and maintain the bonds of comradeship and friendship they have developed as regulars.

However, in recent years, that transfer has often proved to be administratively difficult. I have heard anecdotal horror stories of former regular personnel who have attempted to re-enlist in the reserves when their regular service has come to an end but have had to overcome an assault course of bureaucracy to do so. In fact, I spoke relatively recently to a reserve officer who had had to fight his way through what he described as “the Capita circus”.

The Minister sought to reassure the Committee in evidence by saying that this will be dealt with as a relatively straightforward administrative matter. That flies in the face of much of the anecdotal evidence to the contrary. If someone tries to initiate the transfer while they are still serving, it seems that the process works better, but if they leave it until after they have left the regulars, or if they perhaps have a change of heart after having left the regulars and decide that they want to re-enlist as a reservist after a few years, it is really difficult. In fact, I have been told that in some cases it is worse than if they just tried to join the reserves straight off, ab initio, as a civilian.

I pressed the Minister specifically on whether the new tri-service armed forces recruitment programme—the AFRP—contract was written in such a way as to allow the contractor to facilitate the process in an effective and efficient manner. Again, the Minister sought to offer the explanation that it could all be done via administrative procedures. I want to press the Minister on how exactly these administrative procedures are intended to apply in practice. Under the new contract, what, in practical terms, will be different from the rather cumbersome arrangements that we still have in place? In short, how will the creases in this system, which everyone agrees exist, be ironed out to make the transition sufficiently smooth that those leaving the regulars are not put off by mind-numbing bureaucracy if they wish to convert to reserve service?

Those are my comments on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, which he introduced very well. I now turn to clause 31.

Reserves are a fundamental part of our armed forces, as both the Minister and I can attest, having served in the reserve forces at different times in our careers—although I handed back my kit shortly after the Berlin wall came down in 1989, whereas the Minister is still undertaking reserve service. Indeed, we understand he has been on manoeuvres only recently.

However, it is a fact that compared with many other nations, we still have very small numbers of reserves, with some 26,000 in the active Army Reserve and many fewer in the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and related reserves. If we put those numbers in context and compare them with the United States, which has both an army reserve and large numbers of national guard—they are organised on a state-by-state basis and report to governors in peacetime, but they can be federalised in wartime—or the reserve elements of the Chinese and Russian armies, they pale by comparison, even though, as the Minister often likes to remind us, we had very large citizen armies in both the first and second world wars.

The Army Reserve can be augmented by what is now generally referred to as the Strategic Reserve. For the avoidance of confusion, that is former regular soldiers and officers who would be liable for recall to service with the colours in a national emergency up to and including full-scale war. Indeed, the Bill extends the provision for recalling the Strategic Reserve to up to 18 years, I believe, from leaving the colours of the regular armed forces. For the record, we very much support that measure.

When asked in evidence for his estimate of the size of the Strategic Reserve, the Minister gave a definitive figure of approximately 95,000. However, to put it in context, the 2021 census—after much campaigning over quite a few years by the Royal British Legion and some MPs who backed the proposal—specifically asked respondents whether they had ever served in His Majesty’s armed forces, and just over 2 million people positively answered the question. Since then, sadly, a number of those veterans will have passed away, but given that the question was not included in the census forms dispatched to Northern Ireland, which has historically proved a very healthy recruiting ground for our armed forces, it seems not unreasonable to assume that the current number is still probably somewhere around 2 million living veterans, or relatively close to it. Moreover, the Minister also revealed to the Committee, assisted by witnesses from the Ministry of Defence, that about 1 million of those people are still of what he called employment age. I take it that he means males aged up to about 67.

I cite those figures to try to estimate the maximum theoretical strength of the Strategic Reserve—or, in military parlance, the absolute right of arc—if all those living veterans were included. Of course, in practice they would not be if they were in their 80s or 90s. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not think we are proposing to put Chelsea pensioners in the Strategic Reserve.

We can discern from that calculation that the absolute maximum is theoretically about 2 million—assuming for a moment that we also include veterans who have also served in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, because they will have ticked the same box. If we cut it differently and include only those of employable age, the Strategic Reserve would come out at about 1 million. If we believe that 95,000 is too small a Strategic Reserve to act as a credible deterrent, particularly given the darkening international situation that we face at present, could we, as it were, draw a line or establish a set of criteria that would achieve a Strategic Reserve of somewhere between 95,000 and, for the sake of debate, a quarter of a million? That would be a much more credible figure in deterrent terms.

I ask the question deliberately to provoke debate about how we could, if we chose, expand the Strategic Reserve from the Minister’s 95,000 figure. If he cannot answer that question off the top of his head, perhaps he could write to me, to you, Mr Efford, and to other members of the Committee prior to Report about where, at least theoretically, a line could be drawn—perhaps defined by age or some other criterion—to create a Strategic Reserve of about a quarter of a million troops, rather than just under 100,000.

Moreover, if we were to consider something as ambitious as that in order to provide a greater deterrent effect, how would we track and communicate with those people, above and beyond access to the His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs database that Ministers have prayed in aid before? For instance, if we assume that quite a number of those veterans are in receipt of a military pension of one type or another, presumably they would be known to Veterans UK and at least their basic details would be recorded on the MOD’s joint personnel administration system. Could we not use that as a means of tracking down those people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

My hon. Friend highlights a good point. That issue is replicated across the entire service—not in all cases, but in many. People are having to go back through medical within six months of leaving, having to go back through basic training, or having to redo the commando course—you name it. There is a litany of issues. The Minister for Veterans and People is looking at that to see how we speed up the process. Sometimes there is no room for those individuals in the reserve liability, given the rank and position they want to come in at, which can create a difficult discussion about whether they have to de-rank—joining at a lower rank than they left. I absolutely agree that we have to smooth out those issues, and the Minister for Veterans and People is on it.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Member for South Ribble has raised a good point. When people leave the regulars now—I am probably rusty on this—is there a standard operating procedure where they are invited to consider joining the reserves and given a pathway for doing that before they leave? All the anecdotal evidence says that if they try to transfer at that point, it is still bureaucratic, but it is a lot less bureaucratic than doing it after they have left. Do we ask that question as a matter of course and offer people a pathway if they say yes when they are still in the regulars?

[Al Carns]

Because of the decentralised nature of the military, some units, depending on reserve liability, will absolutely try to recruit those individuals into the reserve immediately. There is not carte blanche across the entire military, because in some areas we do not necessarily need those individuals in the reserves—if that makes sense.

Going back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, there is a lot more work to do to make the transition much smoother. Clause 31 will reduce the huge bureaucratic hurdle of individuals having to leave the regular military to join the reserves. Over time, it should become seamless, so someone can also go from the reserves back to the regulars. We want to replicate a civilian job where, for example, if someone has welfare issues, they can leave and do a couple of years in the reserves, and then come back into the regulars far more seamlessly. That will also allow someone to pursue a career in the defence industry, for example, if they are a technical expert.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I take the Minister’s point that via this method we could have a Strategic Reserve of 150,000 within a decade, but what if we do not have a decade? I suspect we will return to the point this afternoon, but for now, to use the Minister’s analogy of trying to cut through the spaghetti soup—I think we are all with him on that—how do we increase the size of the soup bowl? How do we have a bigger pool of manpower and womanpower that we can draw on, if necessary, in a full-scale war? These people will have had at least some military training and will be able to train others who have had none. That is why we are suggesting that we at least look at the practicalities of 250,000. Could the Minister say something about that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Francois]

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

[Al Carns]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

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

[Al Carns]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Francois]

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

Clause 33

Recall for service

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

“69C Notice periods for recall

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

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

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Reserve Forces and Cadets Association

[Mr Francois]

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 37, page 56, line 35, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must create a plan for ensuring and monitoring the efficiency of the RFCA in carrying out its duties and its relationship with local Reserve and Cadet units.

(5) The plan in subsection (4) must be laid before each House of Parliament within six months of the passage of this Act.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to create a plan ensuring and monitoring the efficiency of the RFCA in carrying out its duties and its relationship with local Reserve and Cadet units.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Schedule 6.

[Mr Francois]

The essence of the amendment, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends, is to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to create a plan to ensure and monitor the efficiency of the reserve forces and cadets associations in carrying out their duties and the relationship with local reserve and cadet units in their charge. I place formally on the record my thanks to the RFCAs as part of our overall national defence effort, and the appreciation of my party for the highly important role they carry out. Many people who serve on the RFCAs at national and regional level have tremendous experience of military life, often across each of the three services in the case of a regional RFCA. The fact that they wish to continue to make a contribution to defence, in many cases after their regular career is over, is to be welcomed and commended.

Nevertheless, just occasionally, I come across examples of a perhaps overly bureaucratic approach by some RFCA staff, who are no doubt well meaning, but whose actions tend—perhaps inadvertently—to stifle innovation and creative thinking. I will illustrate that point to the Minister with two specific personal examples, one from some years ago and the other more contemporary. The first example relates to attempts to create new cadet units in my constituency.

While I served as a Minister in the MOD more than a decade ago, I think it is fair to say that we had a successful programme to expand the number of cadet units in state secondary schools. We set a target of creating some 500 new cadet units at secondary level, specifically including some educational settings and some geographical areas that had perhaps not benefited from cadet units hitherto. We deliberately tried to set up some of those school cadet units in what might be termed quite tough inner-city areas.

That went pretty well; we hit the target. That meant that thousands of young people at school had the opportunity to benefit from everything the cadet movement offers in terms of teaching teamwork, discipline, determination in adversity and all the other military virtues that they were therefore exposed to at a relatively young age. As the Minister knows, we do not have a cadet movement specifically to recruit people into the adult armed forces. Nevertheless, if many of those people, having experienced a taste of the military ethos, wish to continue their military involvement afterwards, that is all well and good, both for them and for their country.

Therefore, on a personal level, I have always been a great believer in the cadet movement, and I am proud to say that I have four cadet units in my constituency: 1476 (Rayleigh) Squadron Air Training Corps and its sister squadron, 1474 (Wickford), and detachments of the Essex Army Cadet Force in both Rayleigh and Wickford. I have also, over the past year at least, made a point of attending both the Army cadets’ and the Air cadets’ annual awards ceremonies in Essex.

After I left the MOD, and after we had hit the target of 500 new cadet units in schools, I was involved in conversations with the headteachers of two secondary schools in my constituency, who were also very interested in the programme but had not been part of the original cohort of 500. In essence, they were both keen to set up cadet units of their own. There was an original barrier to entry of a down payment of something like £17,000 by any school that wished to participate. Given the pressure on school budgets, even a decade or so ago, that was a prohibitive barrier to entry for many schools. Nevertheless, I am pleased to say that that requirement was eventually dropped, and, at that point, I had two headteachers who were very keen to go ahead.

I attempted on numerous occasions to communicate that to the East Anglia RFCA, but I regret to inform the Committee that I got absolutely nowhere. Multiple attempts to raise this were met with a very lukewarm response; I was constantly referred to different people within the organisation, and then ultimately to one non-commissioned officer who appeared to have been given responsibility for new cadet units but, for various reasons, seemed very hard to reach.

In the end, I am sad to report that the two headteachers in question lost interest. As one of them put it to me at the time, “Well, if they’re not interested in my school, I don’t see why I should still be interested in one of their cadet units.” That was a shame. I believe it was a missed opportunity—in fact, two. I raise that in the hope that if, in future, any hon. Member wants to help foster the creation of a cadet unit at a school in their constituency, they might have a more positive experience than I did.

Perhaps, in responding to this amendment, the Minister could tell us where we are in terms of school cadet units. I think it would be handy if he could place it on the record that the Government would still like to see new cadet units in schools, and, very briefly, how hon. Members can go about encouraging that. Maybe I was just unlucky, but it would be a shame if we could not facilitate setting up new units in schools.

Secondly—this is a more contemporary example—I have the honour and privilege of serving as the honorary president of 1476 (Rayleigh) Squadron. The Minister might recall that I alluded to an issue about the potential expansion of the squadron during one of the earlier evidence sessions. I was then invited to write to the head of the RFCA about that. I am grateful for that hint, and I still intend to do so following this debate.

For the record, 1476 (Rayleigh) Squadron has won the Lees trophy as the champion squadron in the Essex wing two years running. A military type might well say, “Well, they must be doing something right then.” Suffice it to say, having declared my interest as the squadron president, I am slightly dismayed that attempts to refurbish and expand the facilities of 1476’s admittedly ageing base in Rayleigh have often fallen foul of what one might call bureaucracy at the RFCA level, even though a national house builder was offering to build a brand-new extension to the squadron base at Connaught Road as a gesture of good will and at absolutely no cost to the taxpayer.

I am sure that we have all seen these things in our constituencies: a company offers to get together a group of volunteers at a weekend and do something up. The company was going to do that, and it also offered to build what was basically, in pub English, a large shed at the back of the unit, as the squadron has a particularly strong interest in engineering studies and needed a shed in which to store its equipment and conduct lessons. That was all to the good.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Reed]

To back up the shadow Minister’s point, I was an air cadet for a number of years—[Interruption.] I know he is laughing at that, but in my experience, it was not about recruitment or a pathway into the armed forces. It was really powerful to have, as a youngster, the opportunity to do adventure training, shooting and flying, and to have a link with the military. As we ask citizens across the UK for more taxes to increase armed forces spend, our young people having that link to the military will be important, so I completely agree with my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Francois]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments. He proves that the issue is not all about recruitment, as he was in the Air Training Corps but joined the Royal Marines. I thank him for his tri-service.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is bipartisan support for extending cadet forces into the state sector, which was his first point. He mentioned cadet forces in state schools in his constituency, and the combined cadet force at Park View school in Chester-le-Street also does excellent work. I hope he accepts that there is a community of interest in achieving that aim. I am not aware of the obstacles he spoke about around the RFCA, but I am interested by his points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. On the point about CCFs, part of the Department’s thinking at the time was that a lot of young people, particularly in the independent sector, benefited from the cadet experience by joining combined cadet force units in independent schools, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, exist in some state schools too. We were trying to give more people in the state sector the opportunity to benefit from a similar experience, so we set the ambitious target of 500 units in state schools, which I am pleased to say we hit.

Returning briefly to 1476, in the end, I think it has all been a misunderstanding, and it could be easily resolved with a measure of good will on both sides. I hope the Minister understands the spirit in which I, as the president of the squadron, have raised the issue. If he can personally do anything to help, it would be greatly appreciated. With that, I rest my case.

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for his views on the Bill, and I acknowledge his concerns about reserve forces and cadets associations. The Government fully recognise the vital contribution that they currently play in supporting reservist cadets and in defence engagement across the entire United Kingdom, particularly through their close relationships with local communities and employers. I had never heard of the RFCA before I left the military, but after visiting it I can see that it is a fantastic, dedicated and focused group of people who engage across society and have an amazing network that is useful not just in peacetime, but on the road to crisis and indeed during conflict as well.

However, I believe this amendment is not necessary. The Reserve Forces and Cadets Association will operate within a robust governance and assurance framework. Its performance, effectiveness and value for money will be subject to regulatory oversight through existing accountability arrangements, including formal assurance processes, reporting against key performance indicators, and ongoing engagement with the Ministry of Defence.

Mandating a statutory plan to be laid before Parliament would risk duplicating existing mechanisms. That would add bureaucracy without delivering meaningful additional oversight or improvement. The Department remains committed to continuous improvement in how the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association will operate and work with reserve and cadet units, and we will continue to strengthen those arrangements through existing flexible governance structures rather than through new statutory requirements.

[Mr Francois]

That being the case, could the Minister place on the record—I hope he will say yes—that it remains the policy of this Government to create new cadet units within educational settings where that is appropriate, and where the headteacher is onside?

[Al Carns]

I place on record our SDR commitment to grow the cadet forces by 30%, which should equate to around 40,000 cadets and 8,000 adult volunteers, although those numbers will ebb and flow. The benefits of the cadet forces are not lost on me; the University of Northampton report is a prime example, and I recommend it to anyone who has a cadet force in their constituency. It demonstrates the benefits of being in the cadet forces, ranging from education and skills to mental and physical resilience. Indeed, people’s life chances go through the roof when they join the cadet forces.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the specific issue of infrastructure, and I would be happy to take that offline and raise it with the Minister for Veterans and People. If people are willing to help, and if there is a way to get better facilities for cadet forces, we will double down to deliver them.

Clause 37 creates a new public body to deliver vital support to the reserve forces and cadet communities. For more than a century, the regional reserve forces and cadets associations have supported defence through the management of the volunteer estate, the administration of reserve activity, and engagement with employers and communities. I reiterate my absolute support for the reserve forces and cadets associations, and for all the volunteers who come forward to help those organisations—they do a sterling job. Their contribution is significant and valued across the defence sector, industry and broader society.

The structure of the reserve forces and cadets associations, however, still reflects that of the county associations set up in 1908, which does not meet today’s public sector expectations for governance, assurance or financial management. Multiple independent reviews, including the 2019 Sullivan review and 2025 reports by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, have highlighted structural weaknesses in the current regional associations and recommended reform.

The clause implements those recommendations by creating a single national RFCA as a non-departmental public body, which ensures compliance with central Government governance standards. The clause provides for Defence Council appointments of an independent chair and non-executive board members; a clear reporting and audit framework consistent with the principles of “Managing Public Money”; and the transfer of assets, property and personnel via statutory schemes to ensure continuity of delivery.

That reform ensures that the NDPB will maintain the local expertise and volunteer contribution that the existing RFCAs provide by moving them to the new regional councils, which will be committees of the new NDPB. For those reasons, I hope this provides the necessary reassurance and ask the right hon. Member to withdraw his amendment. I commend clause 37 to the Committee.

[Mr Francois]

That is a very reasonable reply from the Minister. I thank him for his offer to look into this. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Parliamentary control of air forces numbers

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 39 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

The clause amends section 2(4) of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 to make it explicit that a visiting force’s service court cannot impose a sentence of capital punishment while conducting proceedings in the United Kingdom. Under existing legislation, a scenario could potentially arise where a NATO sending state requests the transfer of one of its personnel into its custody in the UK and then conducts service court proceedings that may result in the death penalty. That could risk conflicting with the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights. The clause removes that possibility where capital punishment could be a potential outcome. By doing so, it ensures that UK practice remains fully aligned with long standing domestic and international commitments against the death penalty.

Clause 41 updates the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act on how the UK determines whether a visiting force member was on or off duty when an alleged offence occurred. At present, the Act does not provide for direct state-to-state negotiation, as envisaged under the NATO status of forces agreement 1951, if there is disagreement about whether a service member was on duty. The clause empowers the Secretary of State to make a conclusive factual determination on the narrow issue of whether the individual was acting in the course of their duty at the time of the alleged offence. In reaching that determination, the Secretary of State must consider representations from the visiting force and the relevant UK prosecuting authority. The clause fulfils the NATO status of forces agreement obligation to engage directly with a sending state in cases of dispute, ensuring consistent and NATO-aligned handling of duty status questions. I therefore commend clauses 40 and 41 to the Committee.

[Mr Francois]

Briefly, I want to make just one point about visiting forces. As the Minister knows, in recent years certain high-profile cases have included people from visiting forces based in the United Kingdom. In one case in particular, a young boy was tragically killed in a road accident by someone who was alleged to have been driving irresponsibly—a citizen of the United States. For legal reasons, I will say no more on that particular case, but I can see members of the Committee nodding in recognition of what I am talking about.

All I ask is that the Minister places on the record that we welcome the presence of those who come here as our allies to help protect us, but none the less make it plain to them that while they are in the United Kingdom, they should abide by our laws in all respects, in the same way that we ask our own citizens to. For reasons that I hope the Minister appreciates, I would like it if he could make that reassurance plain this afternoon.

[Al Carns]

I place on the record again everything that I have just said, which of course was about the NATO status of forces agreement and the changes that we want to make to ensure that UK law is reinforced here in this country, while also establishing a clear and precise relationship with individuals who come here under the status of forces agreement.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Christian Wakeford.)

Armed Forces Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Armed Forces Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I may refer to again in a few minutes. It is important to place on record the respect he has engendered across the House by resigning on an important issue of principle relating to the defence of the realm, which is, after all, the most important duty of Government, above all others. He and I have debated for five months on this Bill. We have not always agreed, but we have always dealt with each other respectfully. That respect has only been enhanced by his recent decision.

I rise to speak to new clause 11 and amendments 3, 4, 5 and 11 in my name and that of my hon. Friends. I will get into the detail of those amendments and the new clause in a moment, but before I do, I observe the courtesies of debate and congratulate the new Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), on her recent field promotion. We hope that she enjoys herself in her new post, but I caution her that there appear to have been further command changes back at the chateau as of today. We shall have to see how she fares in the re-brigading exercise that will inevitably follow, but for today, well done.

In the meantime, this Bill, which had its Second Reading back on 26 January, has been extensively debated—when the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill received both oral and written evidence; in the Select Committee’s debate phase; in Committee of the whole House on 2 June; and now on Report and Third Reading. The Opposition’s summing-up speech tonight will come from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed).

Over nearly five months, we have spent more than 40 hours taking evidence, conducting visits and debating this important Bill. As today is the culmination of its consideration in the Commons before it moves on to further scrutiny in the other place, I should say that throughout, we Opposition Members have attempted to act as a critical friend to the Bill. We have been able to do that mostly in a relatively consensual manner, although there have been occasional points of disagreement, as I suspect there may yet be this evening.

New clause 11 relates to a derogation from the European convention on human rights in the event of overseas operations under the auspices of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the proposition of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), despite the fact that I was born in his constituency, in Crouch End—or “Creuche Ende”, as the estate agents call it today. When we debated this matter in Committee, we tabled a similar new clause, based on the wording of the 2021 Act. It said that Ministers should at least consider derogating from the ECHR, if not doing so might constrain the operation of our troops when deployed overseas and leave them potentially fighting a ruthless enemy with no moral scruples, who behaved as the Russians did in Bucha during the invasion of Ukraine. Because of the ECHR, our troops could effectively be fighting with one hand tied behind their back, and could fear lawfare being used against them, perhaps even decades later, potentially at Russia’s behest. Unfortunately, the Government have been completely hopeless on this, and we have therefore firmed up the wording in our revised new clause; it says that Ministers “should” derogate in such circumstances. The principal argument, however, remains the same, and I hope that Ministers might yet be persuaded to accept the new clause.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I remind the Opposition spokesperson that new clause 1, which I tabled, would prevent the Secretary of State authorising the entry of members of visiting forces from states whose commanders are subject to International Criminal Court arrest warrants or proceedings of the International Court of Justice. I do not see how that is a problem for anyone who respects and understands the importance of international law in bringing an end to conflict, or preventing conflict. Surely the Secretary of State should not allow people to come and operate here when they have an ICC arrest warrant against them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I am old school, and I was taught that in a debate, it is polite to refer to the Member who moved the lead amendment. That is what I was seeking to do. As I think the House would realise, I am making a very different point and a different argument from him. I will have to respectfully disagree, particularly given events earlier today.

New clause 4, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), has been signed by 64 MPs from across the House, including me. The law was changed many years ago to permit foreign, Commonwealth and Gurkha personnel who have served in our armed forces for four years or more to apply for UK citizenship in return for their willingness to risk their life in service of the Crown. That is now a well-established procedure. However, there is a long-running issue about their immediate family, who may also wish to apply for citizenship, being charged visa fees. Both the Conservative and Labour parties in their 2024 general election manifestos pledged to change that. Indeed, the Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland have been campaigning on it for some time. The case will no doubt be made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, just as it was in Committee, if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

When we debated this issue in Committee some three weeks ago, the then Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, sought to offer the House some comfort that progress might be made on this issue by the time we got to Report. That being the case, and given that the Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland have been doing their best to press the case—including at an event in the House earlier today—I hope that his replacement as the Armed Forces Minister will be able to give us a positive update tonight.

It is not really the money that is the impediment. We in the Conservative party have pledged that if we were in government, the Ministry of Defence would cover the additional cost of these visas, which would realistically run at most to a few million pounds a year. However, as everyone knows, the real blocker is not the MOD, but the Home Office. I very much hope that the Armed Forces Minister can tell us today that she has put some vim down the pipe, as it were, and that the Government will now accept new clause 4. If not, I feel sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon will be present to press his new clause at the conclusion of our debate.

Our amendments 3, 4 and 5 are on the subjects of special educational needs, the related matters of fostering and adoption, and care in the national health service. In essence, our argument is that if military personnel who have children with special educational needs are ordered to transfer from one military garrison or base to another, any support that they have for that child—including an education, health and care plan or its equivalent in the devolved Governments—should automatically be portable from one local education authority to the one that covers their new posting.

One of the two overriding principles of the armed forces covenant, which is an important aspect of the Bill, is that military personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage as a result of their service relative to the civilian population. Given that they may sometimes be compelled to move by order from one part of the country to another, this is a perfect example of where that principle should now bite.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I thank my hon. Friend him for his intervention. As patron of the Rayleigh branch of the Royal British Legion, I too am very glad to pay tribute to the amazing work that it does in support of serving personnel, veterans and the wider armed forces family. It has also played an important part in lobbying for what is now new clause 4, on which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon will elaborate.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the shadow Minister again for all his endeavours on behalf of the defence forces. He is an example to us all.

I understand that the Government have extended the armed forces covenant to Northern Ireland, but there is a question mark over the responsibility of local borough and district councils in Northern Ireland that may have adverse feelings about the covenant. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is important that the Government bring forward legislation tonight to ensure that every district and borough council in Northern Ireland must adhere to the same rules as those here on the mainland?

[Mr Francois]

Yes, the armed forces covenant should apply equally throughout the four nations of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman and I know that some local authorities in Northern Ireland take a different view on this matter, but even in Sinn Féin-run councils the covenant should still apply. Northern Ireland has a very proud tradition of providing troops for the United Kingdom’s armed forces, and those troops are as entitled to be recognised and supported by the civilian population as those drawn from any other part of the United Kingdom. So, again, my in-principle answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

I suspect that this might be about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, in which case I am very happy to give way.

[Jayne Kirkham]

It is not, actually, although I can always talk about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in the context of clause 31, in which it is brilliantly included and which will give the RFA a commissioner at last, which is fantastic.

May I ask the Minister to confirm—because I have had some correspondence about this—that clause 2 covers unitary authorities, single foundation strategic authorities and borough councils outside outer London? Some members of the Local Government Association have raised that with me. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, just for clarification, that those authorities are covered by the duties in the covenant?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for referring to me as the Minister. I was the Minister once and—who knows?—I may be one day again. I must say, in fairness to the previous Minister, that I believe the Government tabled amendments in Committee to clarify the matter that the hon. Lady has raised, and I think that on their behalf, if it is not precocious, I can give her and the LGA an absolute reassurance in that regard.

We believe that as military personnel are often moving at the behest of the state, the state has a moral duty under the covenant to ensure that any EHCP—and, as we all know from our constituency work, obtaining EHCPs is often a tortuous process—is then fully transferable. When we debated that in Committee, we received considerable support from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who has received a field promotion of his own in recent days, and will therefore hopefully be a friend to these measures within the Department. I would welcome him too, but I am saving him up for Defence questions in July.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

We in the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community—including my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey)—have been working on these issues with the Royal British Legion for the past year. The Minister for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), has come before us, has listened to the views of service personnel and their families, and has committed to ensuring that serving personnel are included in the SEND reforms process. I want to thank her for her work, alongside that of the Royal British Legion and the APPG.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Lady for a very helpful intervention. I will come to the NHS in a moment, but during the Bill’s earlier stages we have suggested that if the Government do not feel that they can accept this amendment—amendment 3—in this primary legislation, which was our preferred route, now that we know there will be a new Bill on special educational needs, they should seek to address the problem in that Bill, and because it is a Department for Education Bill, hopefully local education authorities will then give it considerable weight. So we are in absolute agreement about that route, and, if I may say so, what the hon. Lady has said about education Ministers is heartening.

Amendment 4 makes, in a sense, the same argument as we have made on the EHCPs with regard to fostering or adoption by service personnel. Amendment 5 argues, in a similar vein, that military personnel who transfer from one military location to another should not lose their place on any NHS waiting list as a result. Again, there is forthcoming legislation on NHS reorganisation, and we hope that this issue can be tackled via that legislative route. I believe this is a relatively straightforward moral argument, in all three cases, and I hope that the Government may yet accept the logic of what we are putting forward this evening.

Let me now turn to the subject of funding for the proposed new Defence Housing Service. As I said during the Select Committee stage of the Bill, there is almost universal agreement that we want to improve the quality of accommodation for service personnel and their families. The remaining area of contention is how best to achieve that, given that there is almost complete unanimity on the desired end state.

Nevertheless, following media reports—especially in The Sunday Times—Opposition Members are increasingly concerned about the possibility that money for capital improvements, and even maintenance, may now be taken away from the Defence Housing Service before it is even born, and reallocated to other priorities in Labour’s very long-awaited defence investment plan. We know from evidence sessions on the Bill that there is already a plan for the Defence Housing Service to reduce the spending on housing maintenance by 25%, compared to current practice. That sounds worrying, although officials, and indeed the previous Minister, were keen to stress that they believed the new Defence Housing Service would be able, by renegotiating certain contracts and the actual operation of maintenance, to do this more efficiently.

The proof of the pudding for all that will be very much in the eating. However, what we understand is now being proposed is that the capital allocations for the Defence Housing Service will be raided in order to fund other defence priorities elsewhere. That process will only be exacerbated if, as has been widely reported, the amount of money that will be available for the DIP—if and when it is finally published—will be the lowest of the three options widely canvassed in the press, namely an additional £10 billion of spending on defence over the next four years.

Given the challenges faced by defence—which were laid out starkly by both the former Defence Secretary and the former Armed Forces Minister in their powerful resignation letters—£10 billion over four years will not even touch the sides. Let me humbly remind Labour Members that all three authors of the strategic defence review, which was published over a year ago on 2 June 2025, were adamant that the price tag for delivering Labour’s much-vaunted SDR would be defence spending of at least 3% of GDP. What is on offer is clearly nowhere near that. Indeed, in his scathing resignation letter, the former Defence Secretary said that all that was being offered to him was an increase in defence spending from 2.6% of GDP this year to 2.68% of GDP by 2030—in other words, a 0.08% increase over four years. Those numbers completely and utterly demolish Labour’s constantly repeated mantra that they are now funding

“the biggest…increase in defence spending since the Cold War.”

That is simply not true.

However, the situation is even worse than that. In addition to the headline “increases”, which are now minuscule, as the resignation letter starkly reveals, last year, at the Treasury’s behest, the Labour Government introduced a target of making efficiency savings—“cuts” in plain English—of some £2.6 billion from operational and revenue spending in the Ministry of Defence. What that means in practice is fewer ship days at sea, fewer hours for our pilots to fly, and fewer exercises on Salisbury plain. Incredibly, in this financial year—2026-27—the efficiency savings target has now been increased to £3.5 billion of cuts, which means even more operational and revenue spending reductions than last year.

For Labour to continue the mantra that it has provided the largest increase in defence spending since the cold war, in the face of these self-imposed, Treasury-driven in-year cuts, simply destroys any credibility that the Government had that they really are striving to keep this country safe. This is not the result of enemy action—unless one regards the Treasury as the enemy, which many in the military now do. This is a self-inflicted wound brought about by a Labour Government who are completely paralysed by inaction, and who now have no idea whatsoever of how to credibly fund the defence of this country.

In the light of today’s events, it remains to be seen whether the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will attempt to introduce any order into this chaos. If he does, he and his new Chancellor—whoever that turns out to be—will still have to say how the Labour Government are going to pay for it. Are they going to increase borrowing, which will frighten the bond markets, or are they going to cut welfare, which would probably provoke a Back-Bench revolt?

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Which would you do?

[Mr Francois]

We would reduce welfare spending and spend it on the defence of the realm. That is our policy.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment.

I come back to the Defence Housing Service. Ministers have promised us ad nauseum that their plan will include £9.2 billion of investment in military accommodation over the next 10 years—that point has been repeated again and again over the five months that I have referred to. Given that the DIP has still not been published, I ask the Minister for the Armed Forces whether she can still repeat Labour’s mantra on the Floor of the House this evening. Is that £9.2 billion still there? Has it been definitively signed off by the Chancellor of the Exchequer —yes or no?

Moreover, can the Minister advise us when the DIP will finally be published? I see that the Secretary of State has kindly joined us, so he can bob up and answer if he wants. Will it be published prior to the NATO summit in Ankara on 7 and 8 July, as we have been told multiple times? Will it be published prior to the House rising for the summer recess on 16 July? Will it ever be published, or will we have to go round the loop all over again with a new Government? Are they going to publish it, and if so, when? We have now transitioned from frustration to filibustering from Ministers, and from there to farce. Our adversaries can see this as clearly as our friends can.

We have already rightly spent five months on this very important Bill, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House at least some comfort on some of the points that we have raised. Otherwise, we will have to test the will of the House, almost certainly in the matter of the ECHR and potentially on the Defence Housing Service and the DIP as well. Finally, when—if ever—will Labour publish the defence investment plan?

[Alex Baker]

May I begin by congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) on being appointed the Minister for the Armed Forces? She did an outstanding job as the Minister for Veterans and People, and I pay particular tribute to her work with the Gurkha community. I saw at first hand how she engaged with a community that for too long felt ignored and unheard, and she helped many feel that their voices were finally being listened to. I am delighted to see her promoted, and I look forward to her making many visits to Aldershot and Farnborough in her new role.

This weekend, Aldershot and Farnborough will have the privilege of hosting the national Armed Forces Day celebrations. As the historic home of the British Army, it is a huge honour for our community. I thank everyone involved in making it happen, including Rushmoor borough council and our headline sponsors: QinetiQ, BAE Systems and KBR Aspire Defence. Armed Forces Day matters because it gives us an opportunity to say thank you, but it should also be an opportunity to listen.

On Saturday, I was privileged to attend the launch of the Commonwealth military hub in Aldershot, which has been delivered by Op Belonging under the leadership of Samuel T. Reddy, in partnership with Aldershot Town football club. It was an extraordinary event. Serving personnel, veterans, families and organisations from across the Commonwealth came together to celebrate service and support each other. In some regiments based in Aldershot, more than 15 different nationalities are represented, and what struck me most was the theme of belonging. These are people who have served our country, and their families have sacrificed alongside them. They deserve to feel that they belong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

We are committed to publishing the DIP before the Ankara summit in July.

Amendment 11 concerns the Defence Housing Service’s budget and the defence investment plan. I hope that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will understand that I will not comment on any figures in the DIP—it will be published soon enough. Our defence housing strategy will deliver a decade of renewal for defence family housing. Previously, military housing was subject to insufficient, stop-start funding. That did not deliver value for money for the taxpayer, or the improvements that our service families deserve. The Defence Housing Service’s budget will be clearly set out, and it will account for its spending to Parliament via an annual report. As the Select Committee heard during the evidence sessions, there is nothing in the defence investment plan process that stops the Department getting work under way. The Defence Housing Service will be up and running from April 2027, and the work of renewing the estate can continue.

[Mr Francois]

We were told multiple times—loads of times—over five months that the Government would invest £9.2 billion over 10 years to achieve the objectives of the Defence Housing Service, so I ask the Minister again: will she give a commitment to the House that that figure has not been reduced? If she cannot do that, people will believe that it has been reduced.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I will not comment, piece by piece, on what might be in the defence investment plan. We are getting on with the job of making improvements for service families now, and we are preparing for the launch of the new Defence Housing Service.

Amendment 11 states that the Defence Housing Service must operate within a budget set out in the DIP. That risks constraining the Defence Housing Service in a scenario where investment is set out in the plan, but has to rise thereafter. Any additional spending then risks being in breach of this requirement, unless and until a new defence investment plan is published. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that would constrain the service’s ability to respond swiftly and appropriately to changing requirements.

New clause 11 would require any future Secretary of State to consider whether to make a derogation under article 15 of the ECHR, which provides that

“in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation…a State may take measures derogating from its obligations under the Convention only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”,

provided that such measures are

“not…inconsistent with the State’s other obligations under international law”.

When the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill was being considered, concerns were raised that its clause 12 risked damaging the UK’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. It was also seen as unnecessary, because the Government can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR, so the provision did not add any additional legal power and was largely symbolic. It was the last Government who agreed to its removal from that Bill, and I have not heard a convincing case for its inclusion in this Bill.

I will address new clauses 3 and 5 together, as they both deal with how we care for our veterans. I thank hon. Members for tabling them. I appreciate their concerns about our armed forces veterans, and I acknowledge the sentiments behind the new clauses. We have published our new 10-year veterans strategy, which sets out a new narrative around the remarkable men and women who have served in our armed forces. It applies UK-wide, is cross-Government and cross-sector in scope, and will provide significant opportunity for both data collection and data sharing, and we do not wish to distract from the progression of this work.