Armed Forces Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Mark Francois and Mike Martin

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?

Armed Forces Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Mark Francois and Mike Martin

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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?

Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Mark Francois and Mike Martin

Select Committee stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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?

Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Mark Francois and Mike Martin

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Mark Francois and Mike Martin

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Mark Francois and Mike Martin

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

For a party that sometimes likes to wrap itself in the flag, if I can put it like that, one would think that when it came to our armed forces, Reform would be more bothered. Empirically, that is not always the case. We are not allowed to take photographs in the Chamber—that is a mortal sin, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is an interview-without-coffee offence for you or the Speaker—but if we were allowed to take such a photo, or if someone else, perhaps outside the House, wanted to take such a photo, those empty Benches would speak volumes.

At the heart of the amendments we are debating today is the issue of whistleblowing. Admittedly, this issue was not much discussed in Committee in March, as I think the Minister would testify. At that time, the two key issues that emerged were the potential adverse effects of inheritance tax changes on death-in-service payments, on which I am afraid the Government have done virtually nothing, and VAT on school fees, including for military children. All I will say on the latter is that we eagerly await the outcome of the High Court case.

That brings me to the critical issue, which was debated at some length in the other place and is now before us: the need to empower the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers while protecting their anonymity. In the other place, our Opposition spokesperson, Baroness Goldie, argued passionately that the commissioner must have explicit authority to investigate whistleblowing concerns within the scope of this Bill centred on welfare and general service issues, to ensure that those raising concerns—whether service personnel, their families or friends—can do so anonymously. Indeed, the Minister in his “Dear Colleague” letter dated 30 May outlined that

“Baroness Goldie’s amendments raised an important debate”.

He says today that the amendments were well intentioned, and we agree. The Government, however, contend that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient. This is where we do not agree. They argue that our amendment is unnecessary because it does not confer additional powers on the commissioner.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Recently, General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of the General Staff, said that he was “ashamed” by the stories of sexual misconduct—predominately crimes committed against women in service. He also said that lots of these crimes go unreported, so lots are unknown as well as the terrible ones that are known. How can we have a truly effective independent commissioner if there is no whistleblowing function through which these crimes can be reported?