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1 of the Armed Forces Act 2021, which inserted existing section 382 and the expiry date of 2026 into the 2006 Act, is repealed.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.