Armed Forces Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Baker]

Ultimately, a manifesto is delivered over the period that a Government serve—they do not deliver everything at once. It takes time to deliver these things over the course of a Parliament. These things look hard because they are hard. The previous Government made many things look hard when it came to defence, and I want to give this Government the chance to deliver, throughout this Parliament, on the things that we are committed to delivering.

I really welcome the extension of the armed forces covenant duty in the Bill. The covenant is obviously one of the most important promises that we make to a nation, and it says that no member of our armed forces community should face disadvantage because of their service. I have worked closely with outstanding organisations, including the Royal British Legion, SSAFA and our service family federations. When it comes to this Bill, their message is clear: accountability matters. Families need to know where to go when support falls short, public bodies need to understand their responsibilities, and the Government need to be able to demonstrate that the covenant is being applied consistently and effectively. Judicial review cannot be the only realistic route available when the covenant is not being properly applied.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is making a very important point. Judicial review is not an answer for the many people who are damaged or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and so on, because they do not have the capacity to do it, which is why authorities should be held accountable for the actions they take.

[Alex Baker]

That is precisely what I am asking the Government to do. They should look at that, because judicial review cannot be the only option. We must have other options available to make sure that, when the covenant is not being delivered, we can hold those bodies to account.

We need clearer guidance for how services can put the covenant into practice. Earlier this year, I presented my recommendations to the Minister responsible for early years—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey)—setting out how the new Best Start family hubs can properly support military families. The first recommendation we made was simple: services should ask everyone at the first point of contact, “Are you from a military family? Are you from our armed forces community?” If public services do not know whether someone serves or has served, or is part of a military family, how can we connect them to the support they need? Service life often means deployments, frequent moves and dealing with different local authorities and providers. With a clearer record of our forces community, we can ensure that support follows people as they relocate, rather than forcing them to start again each time.

Ultimately, this is not about processes, but about people. At the Commonwealth hub on Saturday, I met a female Royal Navy veteran, and she spoke honestly about the challenges she has faced after leaving service in struggling to secure housing, to find work and to access the support she needed. Then she said something that has stayed with me:

“The Covenant is supposed to mean something. But it means nothing.”

That must change. The covenant must mean something when a veteran needs a home or a military family is looking to settle down. Those who sacrificed so much in service to our country ask one thing of us, which is that we stand by them in return. That is the promise we must keep and the standard we must set ourselves, which is why I support this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I appreciate what the hon. Member is saying. I am not putting the Minister under scrutiny here; I am merely highlighting the invidious position that he finds himself in and the situation as we find it. I spoke to the hon. and gallant Member, the Minister, earlier today, so he knows full well that I am going to say this. I very much want to put this front and centre as an issue that needs to be resolved, and to put some heat and light on it to encourage the progress that we are yet to see.

The only reason to oppose this new clause is purely political, as the Government choose to play games with people’s lives rather than support our armed forces community and uphold the armed forces covenant. Earlier this year, that same armed forces community was surveyed by the Army Families Federation on the armed forces pathway to settlement in the UK, in response to the 2025 “Restoring Control over the Immigration System” White Paper. It had 1,424 qualifying responses and more comments on reducing the cost of indefinite leave to remain than any other topic.

One of those responses stated:

“the current level of fees for ILR—and the subsequent cost of citizenship—places a significant financial burden on Armed Forces families. Given the service and sacrifices made by Armed Forces personnel, and the vital role their families play in supporting them, these costs are prohibitively high for many. As a result, families who are committed to remaining in the UK long-term face unnecessary financial hardship simply to secure their lawful status and future.”

Another said:

“Speaking from experience it’s a struggle to get us and our kids to join our husbands here in the UK. We have to work 2 jobs in order to pay for the visa and travelling expenses. We have to bring our 3 kids over to the UK. Due to the expensive costs we have to apply for loans to cater for the expenses. With the high living standards and tight financial constraints, we have to save up for our ILR fee once our 5 years contract is done. It’s so hard to save, especially for us. Me and my 3 kids have to apply for ILR together as our visa expired the same date, so that’s a total of £12K we have to fork out to pay the fee. Can the home office look into this urgently? Thank you.”

Another said:

“I have supported my partner’s service to the UK while facing many of the same sacrifices required of military families. This includes frequent relocations, prolonged periods of separation, disrupted employment opportunities, and the emotional and practical challenges that come with military life. For Commonwealth families in particular, these sacrifices are made alongside the added uncertainty of immigration status. Charging ILR and citizenship fees places an unfair financial burden on spouses who have already contributed significantly to the stability and wellbeing of service personnel. Military spouses play a vital role in enabling service members to serve effectively, yet are required to pay substantial fees simply to remain in the country their families serve with loyalty and dedication”.

This last one said:

“the financial burden of applying for ILR and subsequently citizenship is not proportionate to Armed Forces pay, particularly in the context of the current cost-of-living crisis. Many serving personnel simply do not earn enough to comfortably meet these fees, even though they have complied fully with all rules and requirements. It is difficult to understand why those who have shown long-term commitment, loyalty and service to the United Kingdom must go through one of the longest and most expensive settlement routes, while others are supported through different schemes that include accommodation, financial assistance and fee exemptions. This creates a strong perception of unfairness among service members, who feel they are being penalised for following the rules.”

That last one really sticks in the craw. We price our service personnel out of being able to afford to live here as veterans while dishing out ILR to others like confetti, who have done nothing to earn it. There is perhaps no better example of a genuine two-tier system.

Before Labour Members go into the voting Lobby and swipe their pass on autopilot, I ask them to think about why they became MPs—specifically Labour MPs—because if the answer was to clamp down on immigration so hard, with the bar so high that we do not even let the children of people who have risked their lives in the service of this nation live here without fleecing them for thousands of pounds, they will get a slow handclap for achieving their political dreams. If, on the other hand, they have the moral courage to do the right thing, they should not go into the No Lobby. What is the worst that is going to happen? How whip-able do we think the parliamentary Labour party actually is right now, just a few hours after the Prime Minister has resigned?

I ask Labour Members to have the moral courage to do the right thing, to vote in favour of new clause 4 and to deliver on the promise they made to service families when they stood for election. In a matter of days, they will find themselves jockeying for position in the leadership contest. People who are Whips today might not be Whips tomorrow. Nobody is going to lose the Whip as the Government collapse because they did not vote against this new clause. There may never be a more perfect set of circumstances in which to rebel: a Government with no authority trying to whip Labour MPs to vote against their own manifesto pledge and against the wishes of the Royal British Legion. I dare say there has never been safer, more fertile ground upon which to rebel.

If Labour Members cannot vote in favour of the new clause, I beg them not to vote against it. When this issue was voted on three weeks ago, there were 102 abstentions. The Prime Minister has laid out the timetable for his departure. This Administration is in its death throes. How much do those on the Labour Benches feel they really owe the outgoing Administration? They should be asking what the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) would do, because I am not really asking the current Government any more. What is the point?

Today, at the start of Armed Forces Week, I ask Labour Members to consider how they will vote tonight. Do they want to vote against service families, against the Royal British Legion campaign and against doing the right thing in order to prop up a Government who have a lifespan we can now measure in hours? This is now about whether the next Government back this change. I ask them to support new clause 4, not to vote against it. Ministers should think very carefully about what they want their legacy to be. They should have the moral courage to do the right thing tonight.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Most speakers tonight have talked about the duty of care that we owe to those who put themselves in harm’s way for the people of the United Kingdom. Those of us who come from Northern Ireland or represent Northern Ireland know that that is not just some vague form of words. Over the period of the troubles we saw at first hand—this is not abstract—the sacrifices that those who serve in the armed forces made. More than 300,000 people served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner, and 722 of them gave their lives in Northern Ireland.

In the 1970s, I was involved in the reserve police force, going in and out of Army barracks and going out with Army patrols, so I know the conditions we expected people to live in: empty schools and old factories, some of which were surrounded by houses and so easily open to sniper fire, mortar bombing, and narrow streets where people were easily ambushed. We owe a duty to those who made those sacrifices to stop terror in our own streets of the United Kingdom, let alone those who go overseas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. The armed forces covenant was a national promise to the veterans of this nation. A veteran from Birmingham, Glasgow or anywhere else in GB will have better access to the covenant provisions, because their local authorities will benefit from them, yet someone living in Upper Bann, South Antrim or Fermanagh will not have that access. Does he agree that that smells very much like kowtowing to Sinn Féin, its demands and the anti-covenant approach it has taken over many years?

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not know who advised that, or whether it was the Northern Ireland Office, because of course it is prone to trying to avoid any conflict with Sinn Féin when it comes to policies. If it was, I hope that this will be seriously thought about and that the Minister will look at ways of including local authorities in North Ireland in the legislation, so that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the armed forces covenant, which is meant to be a national commitment, applies nationally right across the United Kingdom.

I want to support some of the other new clauses, though I want to dissociate myself from new clauses 1 and 2 tabled by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). They represent more of his obsession with finding ways of trying to batter Israel than really being concerned about the welfare of soldiers. The fact that he is not here to answer challenges to those new clauses says a lot as well, because he knows exactly what the motivation is.

New clause 3 would put a duty on the Secretary of State to collect data on the number of veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. It is very sad when I walk down the streets of London—towards Victoria station, for example—and see people sitting in shop doorways. I remember speaking to one of them. He was an ex-soldier, and he blamed his situation on himself, but the fact of the matter was that it seemed that the Army had no idea what condition he was in. I met an ex-soldier in my constituency advice centre on Friday who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and who cannot find any support or help. He left the Army in 2004, and the impact had come on some years later. He did not have his medical records and had been referred to one body and then another, but was finding no help. We have a duty to monitor what happens to those who leave the armed forces. They sometimes leave with injuries, either mental or physical, and we must ensure that we look after them when they have suffered as a result of their service.

It is so easy for people to get in a boat, come across the channel and get into the United Kingdom and then be treated to accommodation and support and quickly be given asylum to stay in this country and leave to remain in this country, but there are those who have served in the armed forces and want to bring their families here and who face a financial penalty for doing so. Waiving those fees is one of the reasons why we support new clause 4. We should not be treating the families of those who served our country in a far lesser way than we treat those who break into our country illegally, and are then treated and have money lavished upon them. On the amendment referring to a veterans’ commissioner dealing with mental health, given the number of soldiers who have suffered from mental health problems, it is important that they should have an advocate for the problems they face.

The last proposal I want to support is new clause 19 on national standards, funding and monitoring of the armed forces covenant duty. It is one thing to have a duty and to put it down as a covenant duty and a promise to soldiers, but if we are not monitoring how it works and funding it, it will of course not have the impact that it is meant to have. The Government were right to bring forward this legislation, and many of its provisions are welcome, but there are amendments before the House tonight that I believe would improve it. We owe it to those who have served us, and I hope that the Government will take on board the reasonable amendments that I have spoken about.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Louise Sandher-Jones)]

First, I want to take this opportunity to put on record my huge thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) for his service as Secretary of State for Defence. He has been a stalwart champion of our armed forces, and I am especially grateful for his support for our service personnel and their families, driving forward improvements to pay, housing and childcare. His guiding light is, and has always been, to serve those who serve us. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). He is a formidable operator, a passionate advocate for military modernisation and transformation, and not half-bad at pull-ups either. I hope to match his work on the former, although perhaps am unlikely to do so on the latter, and I look forward to working with both of these fine colleagues as we go forward.

I thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their contributions to this debate. Given the number of amendments before us, many of which raise issues fully debated in Committee and on which the Government position remains unchanged, I do not intend to repeat those arguments, but I will focus on the new amendments and a number of the principal issues raised while relying on the record of earlier debates for the remainder.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I am afraid that I am going to make some progress, because I only have so long.

We are delivering Op Valour, a new national programme designed to make it easier for veterans to access the care and support that they deserve. Part of the programme is about using data to ensure that the right services are delivered at the right time, to the right place.

On the issue of homelessness, we are delivering Op Fortitude. I say to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and to everybody in this House that if they come across an ex-service person on the street, they should make use of Op Fortitude. The telephone number is 0800 952 0774. It is a single referral pathway that connects veterans who are experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness with help and support, and it has already helped more than 1,000 veterans with supported housing and temporary accommodation. On mental health, we have invested more than £25 million this financial year in Op Courage. Again, it is a single pathway in England for supporting veterans’ mental health, and it has already supported more than 35,000 veterans. We have a range of programmes to support those leaving service in finding fulfilling and sustainable careers that make use of their unique skills and experience.

Let me turn to new clause 13. After well-documented, historic shortfalls in recruitment and retention, the figures are now far more positive. Under this Government, inflow is up by around 13%, and outflow is down by 9%. We have cut red tape, addressed system blockages and established a ministerial board to oversee both inflow and retention. I am concerned that if the Government were required to set out an armed forces retention strategy, alongside the annual “Votes A” paper on the maximum number of personnel to be maintained, it would create an additional layer of bureaucracy, and would largely duplicate information that is already available. We already publish information on the size and make-up of the armed forces, and we will continue to publish that. We will also continue to publish the outcomes of the various continuous attitudes surveys that the MOD runs annually.

New clause 14 would require an independent review of armed forces recruitment and retention. We are improving retention through sustained investment in our people. We have a range of policies designed to help those who are medically discharged, and to ensure that people get the support that they need, and they are kept under constant scrutiny. The results of that can be seen in the decreasing outflow rates in the quarterly personnel statistics.

As I have mentioned, we also publish the attitudes surveys each year, and we will continue to do so. Although these show that service personnel still have some significant issues with service life, we believe that the investments we have made will mean that we start to see an improvement in future surveys. We will also continue to publish a range of other reports. For example, the Service Complaints Ombudsman publishes an annual report, which will be taken forward by the new Armed Forces Commissioner.

Let me turn to amendment 12. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) raised the issue that low trust reduces the likelihood of reports of sexual offences. I take this issue very seriously and have done a lot of work on it, but the feedback from victims and from our victim and witness care unit has been positive; it indicates that they feel supported, listened to and understood. We have seen an increase in reporting of sexual offences, which may indicate greater confidence in reporting them. We continue to strive to improve the service justice system, and to raise confidence in it. That is why the Bill strengthens support and protections for victims of sexual offences.

Amendment 15 would require the Secretary of State to review current practice regarding the transfer of medical records of armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. I reassure the House that no transfer of records is needed when transferring from regular to reserve service, because defence continues to hold and manage healthcare records in the same electronic system.

Let me turn to amendment 1. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for it, and recognise the concerns raised regarding the position of Northern Ireland councils. However, the amendment reflects a misunderstanding of the role that those councils play in the delivery landscape. The covenant legal duty applies to bodies when they are exercising public functions in certain key policy areas. In England, Scotland and Wales, local authorities play a direct role in delivering services in policy areas such as housing, which is why they are included. In Northern Ireland, responsibility for those policy areas rests with the Executive Departments and their arm’s length bodies; councils do not exercise functions in relation to the policy areas covered by the covenant duty. While councils can support the armed forces community through engagement, they do not have the levers to address the disadvantages that the duty seeks to tackle. Clause 2 reflects the distinct devolved arrangements across the UK, ensuring that the duty sits with those bodies best placed to make a meaningful difference.

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I am afraid that I do not have time, but I would emphasise that what I have outlined does not remove the ability for councils in Northern Ireland to pledge their support as a covenant signatory. We will work very closely with colleagues in Northern Ireland to uphold covenant principles in practice.

In my former role as Minister for Veterans and People, I recently met the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), to discuss the concerns behind amendments 3, 4 and 5. We will continue to work as a Government on the best way to address those concerns in practice. Last month, I met the Minister for School Standards, who has agreed to look into the concerns raised, particularly about improving support for service families when they move.

The better route is not a rigid statutory fix; rather, it is practical improvements through existing systems. The covenant legal duty statutory guidance already gives public bodies a flexible framework for taking account of the particular challenges that service families face. However, let me be clear that considering the statutory guidance and supporting the duty is not optional; once it is in force, public bodies subject to the duty must have regard to it in their decision making and policy development. Special educational needs, adoption and fostering, and NHS continuity are incredibly important issues, but they are not well addressed through rigid legislation—the systems are different, the legal frameworks are different, and the decisions involved often depend on professional judgment. Our focus is on improving continuity in delivery, so that service families get better support without unintended consequences.

Turning to new clauses 1 and 2, the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 give effect to the provisions in the statute of the International Criminal Court. As such, they are the applicable regime for the issues raised by those new clauses, rather than the Visiting Forces Act 1952. The International Criminal Court Act exercises jurisdiction over individuals, rather than states, and any request to the UK from the ICC in respect of a warrant or investigation would be dealt with under the International Criminal Court Act as the appropriate applicable legal framework. I would add that the International Criminal Court Act already enables UK courts to prosecute relevant offences committed by UK nationals outside of the UK, irrespective of whether they are a member of a foreign military organisation.