Bill, not amended in the Select Committee, considered in Committee

[Relevant documents: First special report of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill of Session 2024-26, Armed Forces Bill 2026, HC 1712, and the Government response, Session 2026-27, HCWS41.]

I remind Members that in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” or “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable. Clause 1 Duration of Armed Forces Act 2006 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 8 and 9. Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of plans for special educational needs (1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations to make provision for a plan for special educational needs awarded to a person who — (a) is a child of or dependent upon a person serving in the Armed Forces, and (b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when posted. (2) The regulations made under subsection (1) must ensure that, if a person is required to move from one base to another as part of their service in the armed forces, any plan awarded to their child or dependent under subsection (1) must be automatically transferred to the relevant authority. (3) A person to whom subsection (2) applies shall have reasonable time to negotiate a named school for their plan under subsection (1) with the relevant authorities. (4) Under this section, “a plan” means — (a) in England, an Education and Health Care Plan; (b) in Wales, an Individual Development Plan; (c) in Scotland, a Co-ordinated Support Plan; (d) in Northern Ireland, a Statement of Special Educational Needs.” This amendment would allow serving families, with a child for whom they have been awarded an Education and Health Care Plan or equivalent Special Educational Needs support, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area to another. Amendment 3, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements (1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements for a person who— (a) is a serving member of the Armed Forces, (b) has entered into negotiations about potentially adopting or fostering children, and (c) is required to move base as part of their military service. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must ensure that if a service family is required to move from one base to another, for operational or other reasons, any adoption or fostering arrangements they have made with their existing local authority should be appropriately transferred to the appropriate new local authority. (3) For the purposes of this section, “appropriately transferred” means any adoption or fostering arrangements shall not be disrupted as a result of the transfer from one local authority to another. (4) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for minimum residency requirements for adoption or fostering in a local authority to be waived for any service family which is required to move from one local authority jurisdiction to another, for operational or other reasons. (5) Service families to which this section applies shall have an opportunity to renegotiate potential adoption or fostering arrangements with the new local authority, including prior to transfer to their new posting.” This amendment would require adoption and/or fostering processes being undertaken by a service family to be automatically transferred to the appropriate local authority if that family is required to move bases as part of their service in the armed forces. Amendment 4, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of NHS secondary care services (1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of secondary care treatment for a person who— (a) is a dependent of a member of the regular or reserve forces who is receiving secondary care services from a health body in one part of the United Kingdom, and (b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when the member of the armed forces to whom that person is dependent is posted. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for relevant health bodies to take reasonable steps to ensure that any course of secondary care treatment being provided to the dependent is transferred to an appropriate health body in the area to which the dependent relocates, and— (a) the dependent’s treatment or place on a treatment waiting list is maintained upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and (b) the dependent will not require a new referral form from a general practitioner or other primary care professional as a condition for continuation of treatment upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies. (3) Regulations under this section must include a requirement for a national authority to issue guidance on— (a) the transfer of patient records, (b) the continuation of treatment pathways upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and (c) the preservation of waiting list placement upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision for NHS secondary care services to be appropriately transferred where a person who is dependent on a member of the armed forces must become ordinarily resident in an area for which a different NHS body is responsible for care. Amendment 88, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Communication regarding armed forces pensions (1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of communication with former service personnel about their armed forces pension. (2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include— (a) a review of the number of armed forces pensions which have been unclaimed, (b) the impact of the current armed forces pensions system on former service personnel, and (c) an assessment of the effectiveness of introducing an annual letter distribution service to inform former personnel of their pension entitlements. (3) For the purposes of this section, “former service personnel” means a person who has completed their services in the armed forces. (4) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements. Amendment 89, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Transfer of medical assessments (1) The Secretary of State must review current practice for the transfer of medical records and services for armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. (2) A review under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of— (a) the time and costs associated with current practice, (b) the costs and benefits of introducing a case-by-case approach for determining whether a reassessment of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services is required upon their transfer to the reserve forces. (3) Within one year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice regarding the transfer of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services upon their transfer to the reserve forces. Clause 2 stand part. Government amendments 10 to 24. Clause 3 stand part. Government amendment 25. Clause 4 stand part. Clauses 5 and 6 stand part. Government amendments 26 to 30. Clause 7 stand part. Clauses 8 to 11 stand part. Amendment 90, in clause 12, page 29, line 6, at end insert— “115C Duty to refer sexual offences and domestic abuse to civilian police (1) This section applies where a service police force or the tri-service serious crime unit is made aware of an allegation that a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, has committed a relevant offence in the United Kingdom. (2) The Provost Marshal of the relevant service police force, or the Provost Marshal for serious crime, must immediately refer the allegation and transfer the investigation to the relevant civilian police force. (3) In this section— “relevant civilian police force” means the civilian police force for the area in which the alleged offence took place; “relevant offence” means— (a) any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, (b) an offence involving domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, or (c) an offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence within sub-paragraph (a) or (b). (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify further offences which are to be treated as a relevant offence for the purposes of this section.” This amendment requires the Service Police and the Defence Serious Crime Command to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the civilian police forces for investigation and subsequent trial in the civilian justice system. Clause 12 stand part. Government amendment 31. Clause 13 stand part. Clauses 14 to 19 stand part. Amendment 5, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert— “(iii) a retired holder of such a rank.” This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial. Clause 20 stand part. Government amendment 32. Clause 21 stand part. Clauses 22 to 24 stand part. Government amendments 33 and 34. Clause 25 stand part. Clauses 26 to 28 stand part. Government amendments 35 to 37. Clause 29 stand part. Clauses 30 to 32 stand part. Government amendments 38 to 41. Amendment 1, in clause 33, page 54, line 43, at end insert— “69C Prevention of recall for persons in reserved occupations (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations to define certain categories of civilian work as reserved occupations. (2) A “reserved occupation” under subsection (1) is any category of civilian work which the Secretary of State deems as vital for defence purposes. (3) Persons undertaking a reserved occupation may be exempted from a recall order under section 69A for which they would have otherwise been liable.” This amendment would allow persons undertaking civilian work which the Secretary of State deems vital for defence purposes to be exempt from a recall order under section 69A. Amendment 6, page 54, line 43, at end insert— “69C Notice periods for recall (1) Those reservists in Army Reserve Group A, or its equivalents, shall, following the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, have their standard notice reduced from readiness category R9 (180 days) to R8 (90 days). (2) For the purposes of this section, “Army Reserve Group A” has the meaning defined in the Reserve Land Forces Regulations 2026.” This amendment would increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army Reserve Group A from 180 days to 90 days. Clause 33 stand part. Clauses 34 to 41 stand part. Government amendment 42. Clause 42 stand part. Clauses 43 to 51 stand part. Government amendments 43 to 46. Clause 52 stand part. Government amendment 47. Clause 53 stand part. Government amendment 48. Clause 54 stand part. Clause 55 stand part. Government new clause 4. New clause 1—Exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights for Deployed Members of the Reserve Forces— “A member of the reserve forces who has been deployed for operations under this Act may not be subject to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of that deployment.” This new clause would make provision for the members of the reserve forces who have been deployed under this Act to be exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights for that period of deployment. New clause 2—Laying of the Defence Investment Plan— “Within one month of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament within a month of the passage of this Act. New clause 3—National Veterans’ Commissioner (England)— “After section 366 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert— “366A National Veterans’ Commissioner (England): establishment (1) Within 12 months of the passing of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England (“the Commissioner”). (2) The Commissioner shall act independently in carrying out the functions of the office. (3) The Commissioner’s functions shall include but are not limited to— (a) promoting the interests of veterans in England; (b) monitoring the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England; (c) reviewing the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families; (d) identifying barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services; (e) making recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans. (4) In exercising the functions under subsection (3) the Commissioner may — (a) carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans; (b) consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations; (c) publish reports and recommendations. (5) The Commissioner shall prepare an annual report on the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions. (6) The Commissioner may at any time prepare a report on any matter relating to the interests of veterans in England. (7) The Secretary of State must lay any report prepared by the Commissioner under this section before both Houses of Parliament. (8) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for— (a) the provision of staff, accommodation, and other resources as they consider necessary for the Commissioner to carry out their functions, and (b) the publication of the Commissioner’s reports under this section. (9) The Commissioner is to be appointed for a term of three years and may be reappointed for one further term. (10) The Secretary of State may remove the Commissioner from office only on grounds of — (a) incapacity, (b) misbehaviour, or (c) failure to discharge the functions of the office. (11) In this section— “public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998; “veteran” means a person who has served in His Majesty’s armed forces.”” This new clause would require the Government to appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England and sets out its functions. New clause 5—Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or dependants of serving or discharged member of the armed forces— “(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows. (2) In section 68, after subsection (11) insert— “11A Fees may not be charged No fees may be charged in respect of a serving or previously serving member of the armed forces or their family members applying for indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules Appendix HM Armed Forces.”” This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces. New clause 6—Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights— “After section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 insert— “14A Duty to consider derogation in relation to overseas operations (1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must consider whether it is appropriate for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1) of the Convention. (2) In this section— “overseas operations” means operations of Her Majesty’s forces outside the British Islands in the course of which members of those forces may come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance; “Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).”” This new clause reinstates a duty, removed during passage of the Overseas Operations Act 2021, requiring the Secretary of State to consider derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights during significant overseas operations. New clause 7—Assessment of the reserve forces estate— “(1) Six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the conditions of the reserve forces estate. (2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of— (a) catering provisions, (b) personal hygiene provisions, and (c) support for existing and new reserve forces. (3) The Secretary of State must consult the RCFA in conducting an assessment under subsection (1). (4) Under subsection (1) ‘reserve forces estate’ refers to all properties managed by the RFCA. (5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the reserve forces estate six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter. New clause 8—Review of Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006— “(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must review offences included under Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. (2) A review under subsection (1) must consider whether any offences pertaining to domestic abuse which have been classified under Schedule 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 may be instead classified as an offence under Schedule 2 of that Act. (3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the classification of offences under Schedule 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006; it would create a specific requirement for the classification of domestic abuse offences to be considered. New clause 9—An armed forces retention strategy— “(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State lays before Parliament the Ministry of Defence Votes A paper seeking Parliamentary authority for the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for service with the armed forces in the following financial year. (2) The Secretary of State must lay alongside the Votes A paper an armed forces retention strategy. (3) The retention strategy must include— (a) an assessment of the current rates of retention across the regular and reserve forces, (b) an explanation of the steps the Ministry of Defence is taking to improve retention to meet the maximum numbers of personnel set out in the Votes A paper, and (c) an assessment of the findings of the most recent Armed Forces Continuous Attitudes Survey and its findings regarding satisfaction with service life.” This new clause would require the Government to lay an armed forces retention strategy alongside the annual Votes A paper on the maximum number of personnel to be maintained in the armed forces. New clause 10—Independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention— “(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the processes for recruitment and retention across His Majesty’s forces. (2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider— (a) the efficiency and consistency of recruitment processes across the Royal Navy, the regular army, the Royal Air Force and the reserve forces, (b) the effectiveness of steps being taken to improve diversity and inclusion within His Majesty’s forces, (c) the impact of the quality of defence housing (including single living accommodation) on the retention of service personnel, and (d) the impact of the medical discharge process on retention and transition to civilian life. (3) A report of the review must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.” This new clause requires the Government to commission an independent review into recruitment and retention in the armed forces and lay the report of the review before Parliament. New clause 11—Duty to provide medical records on discharge— “(1) This section applies where a person ceases to be a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces. (2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a complete copy of the person’s service medical records is provided to the person no later than one month after the day on which the person is discharged or otherwise ceases to be a member of those forces. (3) Those regulations may specify the manner and form in which service medical records are to be provided under this section, including provision for records to be transferred directly to a civilian health body with the person’s consent. (4) In this section— “health body” has the same meaning as in section 343AZB; “service medical records” means any records relating to the person’s physical or mental health care and treatment created or maintained by or on behalf of His Majesty's forces during the person's period of service.” This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that all service personnel leaving the military receive a complete copy of their medical records within one month of their discharge date. New clause 12—Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer— “(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows. (2) After section 343C (Establishment and functions of veterans advisory and pensions committees) insert— ‘343CA Establishment and functions of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer (1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to be the Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer. (2) The general function of the Officer is to oversee the mental health care and treatment provided to veterans by the health bodies specified in section 343AZB. (3) In exercising their function, the Officer must, in particular, monitor and assess the extent to which health bodies are complying with the duty imposed by section 343AZA (Duty to have due regard to the covenant) in relation to the mental health and well-being of veterans. (4) The Officer may require a health body to provide such information as the Officer considers reasonably necessary to discharge their functions under this section. (5) The Officer must prepare an annual report on the exercise of their functions and the general state of veterans’ mental health care and treatment in the United Kingdom. (6) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Officer’s annual report before each House of Parliament. (7) In this section, ‘veteran’ means a person who has at any time been a service member.’” This new clause establishes the statutory role of a Veterans' Mental Health Oversight Officer. New clause 13—Single living accommodation standards— “(1) The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is amended as follows. (2) In section 101 (The standard of MOD accommodation), after ‘service family accommodation’, in each place it occurs, insert ‘and single living accommodation’. (3) In subsection (10), at the appropriate place insert— ‘single living accommodation’ means any building or part of a building which is provided for the use of a person subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline as living accommodation, but which is not service family accommodation;”. This new clause amends the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 to ensure defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation. New clause 14—National Standards, Funding and Monitoring of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty— “(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows. (2) After Section 343AE (Sections 343AA to 343AD: guidance) insert— ‘343AEA Armed Forces Covenant Duty National Standards (1) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance establishing clear and consistent national standards for the discharge of the duties imposed under section 343AA to 343AD (“the Covenant Duty”). (2) The national standards must— (a) set minimum requirements for compliance by relevant public bodies, (b) promote consistency in the quality and accessibility of services provided to members of the armed forces community across England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and (c) require relevant public bodies to demonstrate due regard in a manner capable of objective assessment. (3) Relevant public bodies must have due regard to the standards issued under this section. 343AEB Funding and Support for Delivery (1) The Secretary of State must ensure that sufficient funding is made available to support the effective implementation of the Covenant Duty. (2) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain a dedicated Covenant Duty Training Programme, which shall— (a) provide accessible training and guidance to relevant public bodies, (b) promote awareness and understanding of the purpose and scope of the Covenant Duty among staff and decision-makers, (c) support the sharing of best practice between relevant public bodies, and (d) include provision for capacity-building where required. (3) In determining the allocation of funding under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to variations in local demand and the particular needs of the armed forces community. 343AEC Reporting and measuring framework (1) The Secretary of State must establish a framework for the monitoring and evaluation of compliance with, and impact of, the Covenant Duty. (2) The framework must include— (a) defined performance indicators and outcome measures, (b) requirements for relevant public bodies to collect and report data relating to the Armed Forces Community in a consistent manner, (c) annual independent review of the effectiveness of the Covenant Duty, and (d) mechanisms to identify and disseminate learning and best practice.’” This new clause would create a requirement for guidance that sets national standards of Covenant Duty delivery across the country, for funding and resources to support delivery and to require monitoring of compliance with the duty. New clause 15—Armed Forces Covenant report: required content— “(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows. (2) In section 343A (Armed forces covenant report), after subsection (5) insert— ‘(5A) An armed forces covenant report must— (a) include an assessment of compliance with armed forces covenant duty national standards under section 343AEA, (b) include analysis of outcomes for the armed forces community, and (c) include recommendations for improvement.’” This new clause, which is consequential on NC14, would require the Armed Forces Covenant report to include detail on compliance with national standards, outcomes for the armed forces community and recommendations for improvement. Government amendments 49 to 56. Schedule 1. Schedule 2. Government amendments 57 to 84. Schedule 3. Schedule 4. Government amendments 85 to 87. Schedule 5. Schedules 6 and 7.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 8 and 9. Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of plans for special educational needs (1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations to make provision for a plan for special educational needs awarded to a person who — (a) is a child of or dependent upon a person serving in the Armed Forces, and (b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when posted. (2) The regulations made under subsection (1) must ensure that, if a person is required to move from one base to another as part of their service in the armed forces, any plan awarded to their child or dependent under subsection (1) must be automatically transferred to the relevant authority. (3) A person to whom subsection (2) applies shall have reasonable time to negotiate a named school for their plan under subsection (1) with the relevant authorities. (4) Under this section, “a plan” means — (a) in England, an Education and Health Care Plan; (b) in Wales, an Individual Development Plan; (c) in Scotland, a Co-ordinated Support Plan; (d) in Northern Ireland, a Statement of Special Educational Needs.” This amendment would allow serving families, with a child for whom they have been awarded an Education and Health Care Plan or equivalent Special Educational Needs support, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area to another. Amendment 3, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements (1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements for a person who— (a) is a serving member of the Armed Forces, (b) has entered into negotiations about potentially adopting or fostering children, and (c) is required to move base as part of their military service. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must ensure that if a service family is required to move from one base to another, for operational or other reasons, any adoption or fostering arrangements they have made with their existing local authority should be appropriately transferred to the appropriate new local authority. (3) For the purposes of this section, “appropriately transferred” means any adoption or fostering arrangements shall not be disrupted as a result of the transfer from one local authority to another. (4) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for minimum residency requirements for adoption or fostering in a local authority to be waived for any service family which is required to move from one local authority jurisdiction to another, for operational or other reasons. (5) Service families to which this section applies shall have an opportunity to renegotiate potential adoption or fostering arrangements with the new local authority, including prior to transfer to their new posting.” This amendment would require adoption and/or fostering processes being undertaken by a service family to be automatically transferred to the appropriate local authority if that family is required to move bases as part of their service in the armed forces. Amendment 4, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of NHS secondary care services (1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of secondary care treatment for a person who— (a) is a dependent of a member of the regular or reserve forces who is receiving secondary care services from a health body in one part of the United Kingdom, and (b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when the member of the armed forces to whom that person is dependent is posted. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for relevant health bodies to take reasonable steps to ensure that any course of secondary care treatment being provided to the dependent is transferred to an appropriate health body in the area to which the dependent relocates, and— (a) the dependent’s treatment or place on a treatment waiting list is maintained upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and (b) the dependent will not require a new referral form from a general practitioner or other primary care professional as a condition for continuation of treatment upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies. (3) Regulations under this section must include a requirement for a national authority to issue guidance on— (a) the transfer of patient records, (b) the continuation of treatment pathways upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and (c) the preservation of waiting list placement upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision for NHS secondary care services to be appropriately transferred where a person who is dependent on a member of the armed forces must become ordinarily resident in an area for which a different NHS body is responsible for care. Amendment 88, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Communication regarding armed forces pensions (1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of communication with former service personnel about their armed forces pension. (2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include— (a) a review of the number of armed forces pensions which have been unclaimed, (b) the impact of the current armed forces pensions system on former service personnel, and (c) an assessment of the effectiveness of introducing an annual letter distribution service to inform former personnel of their pension entitlements. (3) For the purposes of this section, “former service personnel” means a person who has completed their services in the armed forces. (4) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements. Amendment 89, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Transfer of medical assessments (1) The Secretary of State must review current practice for the transfer of medical records and services for armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. (2) A review under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of— (a) the time and costs associated with current practice, (b) the costs and benefits of introducing a case-by-case approach for determining whether a reassessment of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services is required upon their transfer to the reserve forces. (3) Within one year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice regarding the transfer of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services upon their transfer to the reserve forces. Clause 2 stand part. Government amendments 10 to 24. Clause 3 stand part. Government amendment 25. Clause 4 stand part. Clauses 5 and 6 stand part. Government amendments 26 to 30. Clause 7 stand part. Clauses 8 to 11 stand part. Amendment 90, in clause 12, page 29, line 6, at end insert— “115C Duty to refer sexual offences and domestic abuse to civilian police (1) This section applies where a service police force or the tri-service serious crime unit is made aware of an allegation that a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, has committed a relevant offence in the United Kingdom. (2) The Provost Marshal of the relevant service police force, or the Provost Marshal for serious crime, must immediately refer the allegation and transfer the investigation to the relevant civilian police force. (3) In this section— “relevant civilian police force” means the civilian police force for the area in which the alleged offence took place; “relevant offence” means— (a) any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, (b) an offence involving domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, or (c) an offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence within sub-paragraph (a) or (b). (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify further offences which are to be treated as a relevant offence for the purposes of this section.” This amendment requires the Service Police and the Defence Serious Crime Command to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the civilian police forces for investigation and subsequent trial in the civilian justice system. Clause 12 stand part. Government amendment 31. Clause 13 stand part. Clauses 14 to 19 stand part. Amendment 5, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert— “(iii) a retired holder of such a rank.” This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial. Clause 20 stand part. Government amendment 32. Clause 21 stand part. Clauses 22 to 24 stand part. Government amendments 33 and 34. Clause 25 stand part. Clauses 26 to 28 stand part. Government amendments 35 to 37. Clause 29 stand part. Clauses 30 to 32 stand part. Government amendments 38 to 41. Amendment 1, in clause 33, page 54, line 43, at end insert— “69C Prevention of recall for persons in reserved occupations (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations to define certain categories of civilian work as reserved occupations. (2) A “reserved occupation” under subsection (1) is any category of civilian work which the Secretary of State deems as vital for defence purposes. (3) Persons undertaking a reserved occupation may be exempted from a recall order under section 69A for which they would have otherwise been liable.” This amendment would allow persons undertaking civilian work which the Secretary of State deems vital for defence purposes to be exempt from a recall order under section 69A. Amendment 6, page 54, line 43, at end insert— “69C Notice periods for recall (1) Those reservists in Army Reserve Group A, or its equivalents, shall, following the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, have their standard notice reduced from readiness category R9 (180 days) to R8 (90 days). (2) For the purposes of this section, “Army Reserve Group A” has the meaning defined in the Reserve Land Forces Regulations 2026.” This amendment would increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army Reserve Group A from 180 days to 90 days. Clause 33 stand part. Clauses 34 to 41 stand part. Government amendment 42. Clause 42 stand part. Clauses 43 to 51 stand part. Government amendments 43 to 46. Clause 52 stand part. Government amendment 47. Clause 53 stand part. Government amendment 48. Clause 54 stand part. Clause 55 stand part. Government new clause 4. New clause 1—Exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights for Deployed Members of the Reserve Forces— “A member of the reserve forces who has been deployed for operations under this Act may not be subject to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of that deployment.” This new clause would make provision for the members of the reserve forces who have been deployed under this Act to be exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights for that period of deployment. New clause 2—Laying of the Defence Investment Plan— “Within one month of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament within a month of the passage of this Act. New clause 3—National Veterans’ Commissioner (England)— “After section 366 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert— “366A National Veterans’ Commissioner (England): establishment (1) Within 12 months of the passing of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England (“the Commissioner”). (2) The Commissioner shall act independently in carrying out the functions of the office. (3) The Commissioner’s functions shall include but are not limited to— (a) promoting the interests of veterans in England; (b) monitoring the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England; (c) reviewing the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families; (d) identifying barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services; (e) making recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans. (4) In exercising the functions under subsection (3) the Commissioner may — (a) carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans; (b) consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations; (c) publish reports and recommendations. (5) The Commissioner shall prepare an annual report on the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions. (6) The Commissioner may at any time prepare a report on any matter relating to the interests of veterans in England. (7) The Secretary of State must lay any report prepared by the Commissioner under this section before both Houses of Parliament. (8) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for— (a) the provision of staff, accommodation, and other resources as they consider necessary for the Commissioner to carry out their functions, and (b) the publication of the Commissioner’s reports under this section. (9) The Commissioner is to be appointed for a term of three years and may be reappointed for one further term. (10) The Secretary of State may remove the Commissioner from office only on grounds of — (a) incapacity, (b) misbehaviour, or (c) failure to discharge the functions of the office. (11) In this section— “public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998; “veteran” means a person who has served in His Majesty’s armed forces.”” This new clause would require the Government to appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England and sets out its functions. New clause 5—Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or dependants of serving or discharged member of the armed forces— “(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows. (2) In section 68, after subsection (11) insert— “11A Fees may not be charged No fees may be charged in respect of a serving or previously serving member of the armed forces or their family members applying for indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules Appendix HM Armed Forces.”” This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces. New clause 6—Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights— “After section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 insert— “14A Duty to consider derogation in relation to overseas operations (1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must consider whether it is appropriate for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1) of the Convention. (2) In this section— “overseas operations” means operations of Her Majesty’s forces outside the British Islands in the course of which members of those forces may come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance; “Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).”” This new clause reinstates a duty, removed during passage of the Overseas Operations Act 2021, requiring the Secretary of State to consider derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights during significant overseas operations. New clause 7—Assessment of the reserve forces estate— “(1) Six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the conditions of the reserve forces estate. (2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of— (a) catering provisions, (b) personal hygiene provisions, and (c) support for existing and new reserve forces. (3) The Secretary of State must consult the RCFA in conducting an assessment under subsection (1). (4) Under subsection (1) ‘reserve forces estate’ refers to all properties managed by the RFCA. (5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the reserve forces estate six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter. New clause 8—Review of Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006— “(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must review offences included under Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. (2) A review under subsection (1) must consider whether any offences pertaining to domestic abuse which have been classified under Schedule 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 may be instead classified as an offence under Schedule 2 of that Act. (3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the classification of offences under Schedule 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006; it would create a specific requirement for the classification of domestic abuse offences to be considered. New clause 9—An armed forces retention strategy— “(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State lays before Parliament the Ministry of Defence Votes A paper seeking Parliamentary authority for the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for service with the armed forces in the following financial year. (2) The Secretary of State must lay alongside the Votes A paper an armed forces retention strategy. (3) The retention strategy must include— (a) an assessment of the current rates of retention across the regular and reserve forces, (b) an explanation of the steps the Ministry of Defence is taking to improve retention to meet the maximum numbers of personnel set out in the Votes A paper, and (c) an assessment of the findings of the most recent Armed Forces Continuous Attitudes Survey and its findings regarding satisfaction with service life.” This new clause would require the Government to lay an armed forces retention strategy alongside the annual Votes A paper on the maximum number of personnel to be maintained in the armed forces. New clause 10—Independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention— “(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the processes for recruitment and retention across His Majesty’s forces. (2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider— (a) the efficiency and consistency of recruitment processes across the Royal Navy, the regular army, the Royal Air Force and the reserve forces, (b) the effectiveness of steps being taken to improve diversity and inclusion within His Majesty’s forces, (c) the impact of the quality of defence housing (including single living accommodation) on the retention of service personnel, and (d) the impact of the medical discharge process on retention and transition to civilian life. (3) A report of the review must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.” This new clause requires the Government to commission an independent review into recruitment and retention in the armed forces and lay the report of the review before Parliament. New clause 11—Duty to provide medical records on discharge— “(1) This section applies where a person ceases to be a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces. (2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a complete copy of the person’s service medical records is provided to the person no later than one month after the day on which the person is discharged or otherwise ceases to be a member of those forces. (3) Those regulations may specify the manner and form in which service medical records are to be provided under this section, including provision for records to be transferred directly to a civilian health body with the person’s consent. (4) In this section— “health body” has the same meaning as in section 343AZB; “service medical records” means any records relating to the person’s physical or mental health care and treatment created or maintained by or on behalf of His Majesty's forces during the person's period of service.” This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that all service personnel leaving the military receive a complete copy of their medical records within one month of their discharge date. New clause 12—Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer— “(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows. (2) After section 343C (Establishment and functions of veterans advisory and pensions committees) insert— ‘343CA Establishment and functions of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer (1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to be the Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer. (2) The general function of the Officer is to oversee the mental health care and treatment provided to veterans by the health bodies specified in section 343AZB. (3) In exercising their function, the Officer must, in particular, monitor and assess the extent to which health bodies are complying with the duty imposed by section 343AZA (Duty to have due regard to the covenant) in relation to the mental health and well-being of veterans. (4) The Officer may require a health body to provide such information as the Officer considers reasonably necessary to discharge their functions under this section. (5) The Officer must prepare an annual report on the exercise of their functions and the general state of veterans’ mental health care and treatment in the United Kingdom. (6) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Officer’s annual report before each House of Parliament. (7) In this section, ‘veteran’ means a person who has at any time been a service member.’” This new clause establishes the statutory role of a Veterans' Mental Health Oversight Officer. New clause 13—Single living accommodation standards— “(1) The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is amended as follows. (2) In section 101 (The standard of MOD accommodation), after ‘service family accommodation’, in each place it occurs, insert ‘and single living accommodation’. (3) In subsection (10), at the appropriate place insert— ‘single living accommodation’ means any building or part of a building which is provided for the use of a person subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline as living accommodation, but which is not service family accommodation;”. This new clause amends the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 to ensure defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation. New clause 14—National Standards, Funding and Monitoring of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty— “(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows. (2) After Section 343AE (Sections 343AA to 343AD: guidance) insert— ‘343AEA Armed Forces Covenant Duty National Standards (1) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance establishing clear and consistent national standards for the discharge of the duties imposed under section 343AA to 343AD (“the Covenant Duty”). (2) The national standards must— (a) set minimum requirements for compliance by relevant public bodies, (b) promote consistency in the quality and accessibility of services provided to members of the armed forces community across England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and (c) require relevant public bodies to demonstrate due regard in a manner capable of objective assessment. (3) Relevant public bodies must have due regard to the standards issued under this section. 343AEB Funding and Support for Delivery (1) The Secretary of State must ensure that sufficient funding is made available to support the effective implementation of the Covenant Duty. (2) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain a dedicated Covenant Duty Training Programme, which shall— (a) provide accessible training and guidance to relevant public bodies, (b) promote awareness and understanding of the purpose and scope of the Covenant Duty among staff and decision-makers, (c) support the sharing of best practice between relevant public bodies, and (d) include provision for capacity-building where required. (3) In determining the allocation of funding under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to variations in local demand and the particular needs of the armed forces community. 343AEC Reporting and measuring framework (1) The Secretary of State must establish a framework for the monitoring and evaluation of compliance with, and impact of, the Covenant Duty. (2) The framework must include— (a) defined performance indicators and outcome measures, (b) requirements for relevant public bodies to collect and report data relating to the Armed Forces Community in a consistent manner, (c) annual independent review of the effectiveness of the Covenant Duty, and (d) mechanisms to identify and disseminate learning and best practice.’” This new clause would create a requirement for guidance that sets national standards of Covenant Duty delivery across the country, for funding and resources to support delivery and to require monitoring of compliance with the duty. New clause 15—Armed Forces Covenant report: required content— “(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows. (2) In section 343A (Armed forces covenant report), after subsection (5) insert— ‘(5A) An armed forces covenant report must— (a) include an assessment of compliance with armed forces covenant duty national standards under section 343AEA, (b) include analysis of outcomes for the armed forces community, and (c) include recommendations for improvement.’” This new clause, which is consequential on NC14, would require the Armed Forces Covenant report to include detail on compliance with national standards, outcomes for the armed forces community and recommendations for improvement. Government amendments 49 to 56. Schedule 1. Schedule 2. Government amendments 57 to 84. Schedule 3. Schedule 4. Government amendments 85 to 87. Schedule 5. Schedules 6 and 7.

It is a pleasure to speak in Committee of the whole House on the Armed Forces Bill. I start by placing on the record my thanks to the members of the Select Committee on the Bill for their thorough and constructive consideration of the Bill, and their extensive special report. There are a considerable number of amendments and new clauses before the Committee. I will speak first to the amendments in my name, and then I will focus principally on other amendments. I will endeavour to address as many of the new clauses as possible in my closing remarks, after listening to the points raised in the debate.

It is a pleasure to speak in Committee of the whole House on the Armed Forces Bill. I start by placing on the record my thanks to the members of the Select Committee on the Bill for their thorough and constructive consideration of the Bill, and their extensive special report. There are a considerable number of amendments and new clauses before the Committee. I will speak first to the amendments in my name, and then I will focus principally on other amendments. I will endeavour to address as many of the new clauses as possible in my closing remarks, after listening to the points raised in the debate.

I apologise for interrupting so early, but before the Minister gets into his stride, I would like to place firmly on the record that we are debating legislation of material importance, relating to the care of our armed forces, and yet again, there is no Reform Member of Parliament present. Does the Minister agree that there is a massive irony here? These plastic patriots love to wrap themselves in the flag, but they cannot be bothered to turn up in Parliament to debate the fate of those who serve to defend it.

Order. Obviously interventions are taken by those who wish to take them, but we need to make sure that interventions and speeches stay within the scope of the debate.

I apologise for interrupting so early, but before the Minister gets into his stride, I would like to place firmly on the record that we are debating legislation of material importance, relating to the care of our armed forces, and yet again, there is no Reform Member of Parliament present. Does the Minister agree that there is a massive irony here? These plastic patriots love to wrap themselves in the flag, but they cannot be bothered to turn up in Parliament to debate the fate of those who serve to defend it.

I absolutely agree. I am a full patriot, and I support patriotism, but I make sure that I practise it. By not being here today, Reform Members are demonstrating that some individuals do not necessarily live up to those standards. Government amendments 8 and 9 bring the Greater London Authority, combined authorities and combined county authorities within scope of the covenant duty, alongside the local authorities already listed in the Bill. These bodies exercise functions in policy areas covered by the Bill, and should therefore have regard to the armed forces covenant, just as other local authorities do. The amendments simply add those authorities to the list in clause 2; they do not create new functions or impose new outcomes. I remind the House that the new duty will expand the number of policy areas involved from three to 12, and there are already 14,400 covenant signatories, which is a prime example of patriotism across society today.

Order. Obviously interventions are taken by those who wish to take them, but we need to make sure that interventions and speeches stay within the scope of the debate.

The amendment to bring the Greater London Authority within scope of the covenant duty focuses my mind on the fact that this Bill applies the covenant to all local authorities in all parts of the United Kingdom, except the district councils in Northern Ireland. Why is it that the only councils excluded from the ambit of the covenant are in Northern Ireland? Why has the Minister not tabled an amendment—I have previously raised this with him—to include those councils?

I absolutely agree. I am a full patriot, and I support patriotism, but I make sure that I practise it. By not being here today, Reform Members are demonstrating that some individuals do not necessarily live up to those standards. Government amendments 8 and 9 bring the Greater London Authority, combined authorities and combined county authorities within scope of the covenant duty, alongside the local authorities already listed in the Bill. These bodies exercise functions in policy areas covered by the Bill, and should therefore have regard to the armed forces covenant, just as other local authorities do. The amendments simply add those authorities to the list in clause 2; they do not create new functions or impose new outcomes. I remind the House that the new duty will expand the number of policy areas involved from three to 12, and there are already 14,400 covenant signatories, which is a prime example of patriotism across society today.

I have continued to engage with the devolved Administrations on this matter. I strongly recommend that district councils buy into the covenant and abide by it, though there will be nuances in some cases on how the covenant is practised in Northern Ireland, as regards security arrangements relating to armed forces personnel and charities. Government amendments 10 and 11 focus on defence housing. They extend the powers in clause 3 of the Bill, so that the Secretary of State and the defence housing service can acquire land through compulsory purchase not only in England and Wales, but also in Scotland and Northern Ireland. There are historical UK-wide powers, but they are not fit for purpose as modern powers of compulsory purchase. New powers are sought for this reason. Importantly, in the case of the defence housing service, these powers will be exercised only with the authorisation of the Secretary of State; that will ensure proper oversight and accountability.

The amendment to bring the Greater London Authority within scope of the covenant duty focuses my mind on the fact that this Bill applies the covenant to all local authorities in all parts of the United Kingdom, except the district councils in Northern Ireland. Why is it that the only councils excluded from the ambit of the covenant are in Northern Ireland? Why has the Minister not tabled an amendment—I have previously raised this with him—to include those councils?

I have continued to engage with the devolved Administrations on this matter. I strongly recommend that district councils buy into the covenant and abide by it, though there will be nuances in some cases on how the covenant is practised in Northern Ireland, as regards security arrangements relating to armed forces personnel and charities. Government amendments 10 and 11 focus on defence housing. They extend the powers in clause 3 of the Bill, so that the Secretary of State and the defence housing service can acquire land through compulsory purchase not only in England and Wales, but also in Scotland and Northern Ireland. There are historical UK-wide powers, but they are not fit for purpose as modern powers of compulsory purchase. New powers are sought for this reason. Importantly, in the case of the defence housing service, these powers will be exercised only with the authorisation of the Secretary of State; that will ensure proper oversight and accountability.

My hon. and gallant Friend is making an excellent speech. I apologise for intervening so early on, but I want to put on record my thanks to him for the work that he has done to support housing for veterans. I worked for a homeless charity in Harlow, where we had a number of veterans who needed this support. Does he recognise that as well as the massive upgrade that this Government are making to veterans’ housing, it is really important that we support veterans with their mental health, particularly those who have post-traumatic stress disorder, to ensure that they can continue their tenancies in the long term?

My hon. and gallant Friend is making an excellent speech. I apologise for intervening so early on, but I want to put on record my thanks to him for the work that he has done to support housing for veterans. I worked for a homeless charity in Harlow, where we had a number of veterans who needed this support. Does he recognise that as well as the massive upgrade that this Government are making to veterans’ housing, it is really important that we support veterans with their mental health, particularly those who have post-traumatic stress disorder, to ensure that they can continue their tenancies in the long term?

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued championing of veterans, cadets and all in his constituency. Recently, £12 million has gone into reducing the number of homeless veterans, and the Op Fortitude programme continues to run; it tries to get as many veterans into housing as possible. Government amendments 51 and 54 ensure that Crown status is retained for defence housing and other critical property assets, in the event that they are built or bought by the defence housing service. This will ensure, for example, that service living accommodation remains outside the scope of housing and tenancy legislation that would otherwise apply.

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued championing of veterans, cadets and all in his constituency. Recently, £12 million has gone into reducing the number of homeless veterans, and the Op Fortitude programme continues to run; it tries to get as many veterans into housing as possible. Government amendments 51 and 54 ensure that Crown status is retained for defence housing and other critical property assets, in the event that they are built or bought by the defence housing service. This will ensure, for example, that service living accommodation remains outside the scope of housing and tenancy legislation that would otherwise apply.

My hon. and gallant Friend is talking about the support that the Government are giving to veterans, and about improving their housing situation. In my constituency, the East Sussex Veterans’ Hub, which provides really valuable support for local veterans, has just received a grant of half a million pounds to scale up its work, and convert disused office block accommodation in Hastings town centre into supported accommodation for over 14 veterans, which is amazing. Will he join me in paying tribute to the work done by the East Sussex Veterans’ Hub, led by Bernard Stonestreet? May I extend an invitation to him to visit? He will be pleased to know that the hub has built a full-scale flight simulator that simulates Operation Black Buck, and I know that the veterans would be delighted to welcome him.

My hon. and gallant Friend is talking about the support that the Government are giving to veterans, and about improving their housing situation. In my constituency, the East Sussex Veterans’ Hub, which provides really valuable support for local veterans, has just received a grant of half a million pounds to scale up its work, and convert disused office block accommodation in Hastings town centre into supported accommodation for over 14 veterans, which is amazing. Will he join me in paying tribute to the work done by the East Sussex Veterans’ Hub, led by Bernard Stonestreet? May I extend an invitation to him to visit? He will be pleased to know that the hub has built a full-scale flight simulator that simulates Operation Black Buck, and I know that the veterans would be delighted to welcome him.

As an ex-Marine, I have never been known for flying, but I would love to visit East Sussex Veterans’ Hub. When I am going around the country, be it to Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or England, it always amazes me to find these little examples of pure community spirit that help our veterans out. Importantly, while the flight simulator may be fun, it also helps people to learn critical skills and get them back into work. I thank Bernard in particular for all his hard work. If I can come and visit, I most definitely will. Government amendment 48 will ensure that the defence housing service provisions come into force on Royal Assent, so that there are no delays in standing up the service as early as April 2027. I remind the Committee that under defence housing strategy plans, nine in 10 defence houses will be modernised or upgraded for our family personnel—that is 40,000 across the entire estate. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with over 10,000 defence houses being refurbished or replaced over that period.

I am sure the Minister will like to pay tribute to Alabaré, which does great work for service veterans in and around my constituency. However, will he ensure that we do not give the false impression that all veterans are homeless and have mental health problems? Nothing could be further from the truth. Happily, the great majority of people leaving our armed forces are well sorted in their life, and in robust mental health. That is important, since we need to attract people to join our armed forces and our reserve forces, not deter them or put them off.

I thank the right hon. Member for that really useful observation. First, I support the work going on in his constituency; Alabaré is doing an amazing job. I think it might have recently received some Valour funding for that—a programme through which we are really trying to change the initiative that we take in looking after veterans. On his second point, I am a firm believer that when people join the military, they contribute to the most important function of government, which is to protect our people and our nation. When they leave as veterans, they go on to contribute to the economy. Actually, a large percentage of them go on to thrive across all sectors of civilian society, and go above and beyond in what they deliver. There is a percentage who need help, and a smaller percentage who need lots of help. That is what we must focus on, and what Valour is there to do. I am sure that over the next couple of years, it will absolutely deliver and readjust our mechanisms for looking after veterans across society. I turn to the service justice system. Government amendments 57, 59, 66 and 67 relate to the point raised by the director of service prosecutions to the Select Committee. They will ensure that service protection orders can be made by a service court in relation to a service offence, even if the person has left the armed forces. Government amendments 80 and 84 will make provision for the post-service management of service stalking protection orders in Northern Ireland. They will ensure that such orders can be effectively recognised and enforced, once an individual leaves service. Government amendment 30 will provide for service restraining orders to be enforceable as equivalent orders in Scotland and Northern Ireland in certain circumstances. New clause 4 will introduce a new power for service courts to make a service image deletion order. The new deletion order will enable the service courts to require offenders to delete and destroy any images or films in their possession or control that are connected with specific offences, and which depict a person in an intimate state. Government amendment 31 will remove the limitation of the powers to search and seize electronically tracked stolen goods without a warrant to relevant residential premises only, and instead applies the broader concept of “relevant premises”, which are any premises occupied or controlled by a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, but those premises need not necessarily be occupied as a residence. It is worth the Committee noting that since 2021 we have created the defence serious crime command and a witness care unit. We are moving forward with the tri-service complaint system, and are putting in place the violence against women and girls taskforce to improve standards and the culture within defence. I turn to Government amendments 33 and 34, which will make small but important changes to clause 25. The clause will require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to help a victim reach a view on their preferred jurisdiction. The Select Committee highlighted the importance of victims receiving information in an objective and impartial way, so that they have an informed view. The Government recognise that need, and amendment 33 reflects that. The amendment will also ensure that the needs of victims and the circumstances of the events are taken into account in providing that information, and that an appropriate record is kept of that information. Amendment 34 will add the Lord Advocate to the list of consultees. That will ensure that she is consulted when the Secretary of State issues or revises the new guidance. Amendment 37 will extend the provision in clause 29 that requires a disclosure of spent cautions for the purpose of administrative action. Cautions are not issued in Scotland as in England and Wales. The amendment will mean that clause 29 applies to spent alternatives to prosecution issued under the Scottish justice system.

As an ex-Marine, I have never been known for flying, but I would love to visit East Sussex Veterans’ Hub. When I am going around the country, be it to Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or England, it always amazes me to find these little examples of pure community spirit that help our veterans out. Importantly, while the flight simulator may be fun, it also helps people to learn critical skills and get them back into work. I thank Bernard in particular for all his hard work. If I can come and visit, I most definitely will. Government amendment 48 will ensure that the defence housing service provisions come into force on Royal Assent, so that there are no delays in standing up the service as early as April 2027. I remind the Committee that under defence housing strategy plans, nine in 10 defence houses will be modernised or upgraded for our family personnel—that is 40,000 across the entire estate. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with over 10,000 defence houses being refurbished or replaced over that period.

I am sure the Minister will like to pay tribute to Alabaré, which does great work for service veterans in and around my constituency. However, will he ensure that we do not give the false impression that all veterans are homeless and have mental health problems? Nothing could be further from the truth. Happily, the great majority of people leaving our armed forces are well sorted in their life, and in robust mental health. That is important, since we need to attract people to join our armed forces and our reserve forces, not deter them or put them off.

I thank the right hon. Member for that really useful observation. First, I support the work going on in his constituency; Alabaré is doing an amazing job. I think it might have recently received some Valour funding for that—a programme through which we are really trying to change the initiative that we take in looking after veterans. On his second point, I am a firm believer that when people join the military, they contribute to the most important function of government, which is to protect our people and our nation. When they leave as veterans, they go on to contribute to the economy. Actually, a large percentage of them go on to thrive across all sectors of civilian society, and go above and beyond in what they deliver. There is a percentage who need help, and a smaller percentage who need lots of help. That is what we must focus on, and what Valour is there to do. I am sure that over the next couple of years, it will absolutely deliver and readjust our mechanisms for looking after veterans across society. I turn to the service justice system. Government amendments 57, 59, 66 and 67 relate to the point raised by the director of service prosecutions to the Select Committee. They will ensure that service protection orders can be made by a service court in relation to a service offence, even if the person has left the armed forces. Government amendments 80 and 84 will make provision for the post-service management of service stalking protection orders in Northern Ireland. They will ensure that such orders can be effectively recognised and enforced, once an individual leaves service. Government amendment 30 will provide for service restraining orders to be enforceable as equivalent orders in Scotland and Northern Ireland in certain circumstances. New clause 4 will introduce a new power for service courts to make a service image deletion order. The new deletion order will enable the service courts to require offenders to delete and destroy any images or films in their possession or control that are connected with specific offences, and which depict a person in an intimate state. Government amendment 31 will remove the limitation of the powers to search and seize electronically tracked stolen goods without a warrant to relevant residential premises only, and instead applies the broader concept of “relevant premises”, which are any premises occupied or controlled by a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, but those premises need not necessarily be occupied as a residence. It is worth the Committee noting that since 2021 we have created the defence serious crime command and a witness care unit. We are moving forward with the tri-service complaint system, and are putting in place the violence against women and girls taskforce to improve standards and the culture within defence. I turn to Government amendments 33 and 34, which will make small but important changes to clause 25. The clause will require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to help a victim reach a view on their preferred jurisdiction. The Select Committee highlighted the importance of victims receiving information in an objective and impartial way, so that they have an informed view. The Government recognise that need, and amendment 33 reflects that. The amendment will also ensure that the needs of victims and the circumstances of the events are taken into account in providing that information, and that an appropriate record is kept of that information. Amendment 34 will add the Lord Advocate to the list of consultees. That will ensure that she is consulted when the Secretary of State issues or revises the new guidance. Amendment 37 will extend the provision in clause 29 that requires a disclosure of spent cautions for the purpose of administrative action. Cautions are not issued in Scotland as in England and Wales. The amendment will mean that clause 29 applies to spent alternatives to prosecution issued under the Scottish justice system.

I welcome the introduction of the strategic reserve in the Bill, but I would like clarity on how it will be paid for. Will it be via separate funding or will it come from the money already allocated to pay for the active reserve in the MOD budget?

As the hon. Member will know, there is a multitude of different reserves in the system, with different liabilities, different pay and different pensions. Indeed, I have often described it as a spaghetti junction of different policies that have been layered on top of each other over the last 60 years. This is the first move to simplify that, as well as the funding mechanisms and recall processes for it. By removing the 18-year liability, we simplify it at 65 years, which creates our ability to zig-zag those roles within the military so that people can leave, rejoin and leave again depending on their personal circumstances and the liability available within the armed forces.

Further simplifying the reserve liability is fundamental. It enables us to create a clear and modern framework that is easier to administer and explain, and it will enable the Ministry of Defence to plan more effectively for workforce requirements and defence readiness. The amendments will also ensure greater compatibility with a new workforce model—zig-zag careers, as we are calling it—provided for by clause 31. We want to encourage a much more flexible working approach that mirrors civilian society and allows people’s careers to be more flexible, but it is difficult and complicated to calculate exactly when the 18-year liability should start for people who move between the regulars and reserves, and potentially back again.

I welcome the introduction of the strategic reserve in the Bill, but I would like clarity on how it will be paid for. Will it be via separate funding or will it come from the money already allocated to pay for the active reserve in the MOD budget?

That is one of the reasons for these amendments and other provisions in the Bill. In the past, personnel had to leave the regular forces to join the reserves and leave the reserves to join the regular forces. We want to create a seamless transition, which will reduce the 60 pages of administrative burden that my hon. Friend had to fill in to a much more seamless transition between regular and reserve services, mirroring other nations across the world that do it quite well. We need a system that is fair and equitable and that does not discriminate against anyone who wishes to exercise that flexibility. It is worth noting what that will provide for the UK in the current geostrategic environment. It will likely take us from a strategic reserve of 95,000 that could be mobilised up to 150,000 over the next 10 years, which is a significant step forward. All the other Government amendments tabled in my name are either consequential to the amendments I have just covered or are minor and technical, simply to improve the drafting of the Bill. I turn to the Opposition amendments. On amendments 2, 3 and 4, I am aware that the Minister for Veterans and People recently met the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) to discuss the concerns behind them. We continue to work across Government on the best way to address those issues in practice. The better route is not a rigid statutory fix but practical improvements through existing systems. The statutory guidance on the covenant legal duty already gives public bodies a flexible framework to take account of the particular challenges service families face when on the move. Let me be clear: considering the statutory guidance supporting the duty is not optional; once it is in force, public bodies that are 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 exceptionally 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, safeguarding or clinical need. A blanket duty to transfer plans, arrangements or treatment automatically could create confusion, cut across devolved responsibilities and in some cases delay the support families need. Instead, our focus is on improving continuity in delivery so that service families get better support without unintended consequences. Amendment 88 would require the Secretary of State to review current practices for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements. The MOD maintains a comprehensive and ongoing programme of communication with both serving and former personnel, supported by established governance, regular data analysis and targeted engagement activity. The Department already monitors take-up and traces unclaimed entitlements 60 working days after pension due date. When a positive address is identified, individuals are contacted. That approach has resulted in over 10,000 pensions being brought into payment. Mandating a further statutory assessment would add process without delivering meaningful additional insight, diverting resource from delivery at a time when the focus is rightly on implementing pension remedies and strengthening frontline pension support. Amendment 89 would require the Secretary of State to review current practices regarding the transfer of the medical records of armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. I reassure the Committee that no transfer of military healthcare records is needed when transferring from regular to reserve service because Defence continues to hold and manage healthcare records for reservists in the same electronic system, which will also be simplified by some of the reserve forces amendments I mentioned earlier. It is worth noting that we send out 425,000 quarterly digests to those receiving pensions across the system. Amendment 90 seeks to make sure that all investigations and prosecutions of service persons for sexual offences and domestic abuse in the UK take place in a criminal justice system. Since the prosecutors’ protocols were published in 2023, there have been no cases where a victim wanted trial in the criminal justice system but the case was instead prosecuted in the service justice system. The amendment would, however, override the victim’s preference in cases where they would prefer the service justice system. That risks increasing the victim withdrawal rate in civilian police investigations which, for adult rape-flagged cases in 2024, was 59%, while the withdrawal rate for the Defence Serious Crime Command was 24%. Furthermore, the amendment could lead to the loss or erosion of golden hour evidence and the safeguarding of victims, as there is no duty on civilian police to accept the case. A case-by-case approach that takes into account the views of the victim is better. Clause 25 therefore strengthens the provision of information to victims when asked for their preferred jurisdiction. That will help prosecutors take into account the victim’s view when making a decision on jurisdiction. Amendment 5 would extend eligibility to sit on a court martial board to retired officers. The Government do not consider the amendment to be necessary, nor do we believe that it would improve the current arrangements. First, there is no shortage of eligible board members. The court martial already draws from a broad and sufficient pool of eligible personnel. In 2025, for example, 447 service personnel were sworn for 263 trials, and there has been no difficulty in constituting boards. Secondly, it is important that board members bring current knowledge and practical experience of the latest single service policies, procedures, values and standards. An individual who has left service, even relatively recently, may no longer be sufficiently connected to the pace of change across the service. I recognise the valuable contribution that veterans continue to make, but service on a court martial board is not the appropriate means of drawing on that experience. It is also worth noting that, when we are court-martialling higher rank, there are over 331 one stars in the British military and therefore ample opportunity to sit on court martial boards. Amendment 1 would ensure that persons undertaking vital civilian work are exempt from a recall order under new section 69A of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Section 73 of the Reserve Forces Act already provides powers of exemption to recall. That existing provision allows the Defence Council, by regulations, to exempt individuals from or relax recall liability in total. Amendment 6 aims to increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army reserve group A from 180 days to 90 days. I reassure the Committee that all Army readiness levels are subject to annual review, and to effectively fulfil its obligations the Army must review and adjust readiness levels across all elements of its force, responding to the evolving demands of the nation. It is essential that defence maintains the necessary flexibility to respond swiftly and appropriately to changing threat levels. Embedding such provisions in primary legislation would impose rigid constraints, creating an obstacle rather than a suitable mechanism for setting and reviewing readiness levels. Hopefully, I have given the necessary assurances, and I ask that the Opposition amendments be withdrawn.

Mr Martin, are you hoping to contribute today, or do we just have the pleasure of your company?

As the hon. Member will know, there is a multitude of different reserves in the system, with different liabilities, different pay and different pensions. Indeed, I have often described it as a spaghetti junction of different policies that have been layered on top of each other over the last 60 years. This is the first move to simplify that, as well as the funding mechanisms and recall processes for it. By removing the 18-year liability, we simplify it at 65 years, which creates our ability to zig-zag those roles within the military so that people can leave, rejoin and leave again depending on their personal circumstances and the liability available within the armed forces.

indicated dissent.

Marvellous. I call the shadow Minister.

That is one of the reasons for these amendments and other provisions in the Bill. In the past, personnel had to leave the regular forces to join the reserves and leave the reserves to join the regular forces. We want to create a seamless transition, which will reduce the 60 pages of administrative burden that my hon. Friend had to fill in to a much more seamless transition between regular and reserve services, mirroring other nations across the world that do it quite well. We need a system that is fair and equitable and that does not discriminate against anyone who wishes to exercise that flexibility. It is worth noting what that will provide for the UK in the current geostrategic environment. It will likely take us from a strategic reserve of 95,000 that could be mobilised up to 150,000 over the next 10 years, which is a significant step forward. All the other Government amendments tabled in my name are either consequential to the amendments I have just covered or are minor and technical, simply to improve the drafting of the Bill. I turn to the Opposition amendments. On amendments 2, 3 and 4, I am aware that the Minister for Veterans and People recently met the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) to discuss the concerns behind them. We continue to work across Government on the best way to address those issues in practice. The better route is not a rigid statutory fix but practical improvements through existing systems. The statutory guidance on the covenant legal duty already gives public bodies a flexible framework to take account of the particular challenges service families face when on the move. Let me be clear: considering the statutory guidance supporting the duty is not optional; once it is in force, public bodies that are 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 exceptionally 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, safeguarding or clinical need. A blanket duty to transfer plans, arrangements or treatment automatically could create confusion, cut across devolved responsibilities and in some cases delay the support families need. Instead, our focus is on improving continuity in delivery so that service families get better support without unintended consequences. Amendment 88 would require the Secretary of State to review current practices for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements. The MOD maintains a comprehensive and ongoing programme of communication with both serving and former personnel, supported by established governance, regular data analysis and targeted engagement activity. The Department already monitors take-up and traces unclaimed entitlements 60 working days after pension due date. When a positive address is identified, individuals are contacted. That approach has resulted in over 10,000 pensions being brought into payment. Mandating a further statutory assessment would add process without delivering meaningful additional insight, diverting resource from delivery at a time when the focus is rightly on implementing pension remedies and strengthening frontline pension support. Amendment 89 would require the Secretary of State to review current practices regarding the transfer of the medical records of armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. I reassure the Committee that no transfer of military healthcare records is needed when transferring from regular to reserve service because Defence continues to hold and manage healthcare records for reservists in the same electronic system, which will also be simplified by some of the reserve forces amendments I mentioned earlier. It is worth noting that we send out 425,000 quarterly digests to those receiving pensions across the system. Amendment 90 seeks to make sure that all investigations and prosecutions of service persons for sexual offences and domestic abuse in the UK take place in a criminal justice system. Since the prosecutors’ protocols were published in 2023, there have been no cases where a victim wanted trial in the criminal justice system but the case was instead prosecuted in the service justice system. The amendment would, however, override the victim’s preference in cases where they would prefer the service justice system. That risks increasing the victim withdrawal rate in civilian police investigations which, for adult rape-flagged cases in 2024, was 59%, while the withdrawal rate for the Defence Serious Crime Command was 24%. Furthermore, the amendment could lead to the loss or erosion of golden hour evidence and the safeguarding of victims, as there is no duty on civilian police to accept the case. A case-by-case approach that takes into account the views of the victim is better. Clause 25 therefore strengthens the provision of information to victims when asked for their preferred jurisdiction. That will help prosecutors take into account the victim’s view when making a decision on jurisdiction. Amendment 5 would extend eligibility to sit on a court martial board to retired officers. The Government do not consider the amendment to be necessary, nor do we believe that it would improve the current arrangements. First, there is no shortage of eligible board members. The court martial already draws from a broad and sufficient pool of eligible personnel. In 2025, for example, 447 service personnel were sworn for 263 trials, and there has been no difficulty in constituting boards. Secondly, it is important that board members bring current knowledge and practical experience of the latest single service policies, procedures, values and standards. An individual who has left service, even relatively recently, may no longer be sufficiently connected to the pace of change across the service. I recognise the valuable contribution that veterans continue to make, but service on a court martial board is not the appropriate means of drawing on that experience. It is also worth noting that, when we are court-martialling higher rank, there are over 331 one stars in the British military and therefore ample opportunity to sit on court martial boards. Amendment 1 would ensure that persons undertaking vital civilian work are exempt from a recall order under new section 69A of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Section 73 of the Reserve Forces Act already provides powers of exemption to recall. That existing provision allows the Defence Council, by regulations, to exempt individuals from or relax recall liability in total. Amendment 6 aims to increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army reserve group A from 180 days to 90 days. I reassure the Committee that all Army readiness levels are subject to annual review, and to effectively fulfil its obligations the Army must review and adjust readiness levels across all elements of its force, responding to the evolving demands of the nation. It is essential that defence maintains the necessary flexibility to respond swiftly and appropriately to changing threat levels. Embedding such provisions in primary legislation would impose rigid constraints, creating an obstacle rather than a suitable mechanism for setting and reviewing readiness levels. Hopefully, I have given the necessary assurances, and I ask that the Opposition amendments be withdrawn.

I rise to speak to amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 6, which appear in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I will say a little about each amendment and new clause in turn. I will also refer to new clause 5, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), and say at least a little about the multiplicity of Government amendments that have just been tabled, in particular Government amendment 54 on the proposed Crown immunity for the defence housing service. By your leave, Madam Chairman, I propose to speak to the amendments first and then to refer to the new clauses a little later in the debate so as not to try the patience of the Committee with an inordinately long speech. I hope that we have collectively done the House and, indeed, the armed forces a service in our scrutiny of the Bill so far. The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, most of whose members are here, held seven oral evidence sessions on the Bill’s contents, as well as making a fact-finding visit to the Defence Serious Crime Command in Fareham and to defence housing sites at Emsworth near His Majesty’s Naval Base Portsmouth. As a Committee, we received 47 pieces of written evidence and heard from 42 witnesses. Having held the evidence sessions, we then went through a detailed process of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill and produced our subsequent report to the House, which was published on 29 April. The Bill has already had quite a detailed amount of scrutiny; however, it is right that a measure of such importance is now in Committee on the Floor of the House. I reiterate my disappointment that Reform does not regard these proceedings as important. I am sure that the rest of us do; that is why we are here.

Mr Martin, are you hoping to contribute today, or do we just have the pleasure of your company?

I reiterate the fact that there are no Members here from the party led by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), in particular because so many of the local authorities responsible for implementing the armed forces covenant are led by that particular party. It is grossly incompetent that they are not here to listen and learn.

indicated dissent.

Marvellous. I call the shadow Minister.

Order. May I reiterate the comments made by the Chairman of Ways and Means earlier? The point that the hon. Lady and others have raised is not in the scope of this Bill, so perhaps it is best if we move on.

Thank you, Ms Nokes. I will not cut across your ruling, but I do nevertheless say that I wholly agree with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor). During the process of the Bill so far, we in His Majesty’s Opposition have sought to act as critical friends, agreeing with the Government when we think they have done the right thing and probing them when we think they could perhaps have done better. The Government have now tabled some 81 new clauses and amendments in toto. Many, as the Minister has said, are relatively minor or technical drafting improvements, but some are quite substantial, in particular those relating to the proposed new defence housing service and the service justice system. I would like to ask the Minister a specific question about Government amendment 54, the essence of which is that, where property held by the defence housing service is to be treated as property held on behalf of the Crown, the defence housing service should have “the same immunities, privileges and exemptions in respect of its holding of that property as would apply if it were property held by or on behalf of the Crown.” It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the House exactly what that means in practice.

I reiterate the fact that there are no Members here from the party led by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), in particular because so many of the local authorities responsible for implementing the armed forces covenant are led by that particular party. It is grossly incompetent that they are not here to listen and learn.

Order. May I reiterate the comments made by the Chairman of Ways and Means earlier? The point that the hon. Lady and others have raised is not in the scope of this Bill, so perhaps it is best if we move on.

Thank you, Ms Nokes. I will not cut across your ruling, but I do nevertheless say that I wholly agree with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor). During the process of the Bill so far, we in His Majesty’s Opposition have sought to act as critical friends, agreeing with the Government when we think they have done the right thing and probing them when we think they could perhaps have done better. The Government have now tabled some 81 new clauses and amendments in toto. Many, as the Minister has said, are relatively minor or technical drafting improvements, but some are quite substantial, in particular those relating to the proposed new defence housing service and the service justice system. I would like to ask the Minister a specific question about Government amendment 54, the essence of which is that, where property held by the defence housing service is to be treated as property held on behalf of the Crown, the defence housing service should have “the same immunities, privileges and exemptions in respect of its holding of that property as would apply if it were property held by or on behalf of the Crown.” It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the House exactly what that means in practice.

Specifically, if this amendment is to grant Crown immunity to the defence housing service, which is what the wording implies, how would that affect the ability of armed forces families to raise complaints about the standards of their accommodation? The Minister will recall that we spent a lot of time in Committee debating the future operation of the defence housing service, and he stressed on several occasions his wish to raise standards. We took him at his word, so perhaps he could reassure the House that there is nothing in amendment 54 that would impede that process or make it in any way more difficult for dissatisfied military tenants to see their needs addressed.

I shall turn now to our own amendments. Amendment 1 relates to those people who might be eligible to be called up as reserves but who also perform work that is vital to defence in their civilian employment. During the second world war, people in such a situation were generally referred to as working in reserved occupations. The essence of this amendment is that the Secretary of State should be able to define, via regulations, certain categories of civilian work that would be classed as reserved occupations, and therefore be able to exempt people in that category from being mobilised. We still believe that is a practical suggestion, but I take the point that there is already some power on the statute book allowing Ministers to do that. I think we are halfway there, so I am not minded to press the amendment to a vote this evening.

Our amendments 2 and 3 refer to service personnel with children who have special educational needs, and to the related matter of service personnel who wish to foster or adopt children. Both amendments are based on one of the two key principles of the armed forces covenant—namely, that those in the armed forces and their families should suffer no disadvantage as a result of their decision to serve their country, relative to those in the civilian community.

There has been a leak: the hon. Gentleman has clearly had access to my speech. He has put a lot of work into this issue, so perhaps I can meet him halfway with what I am about to say. In fairness, there are already DFE guidelines that can facilitate the portability of an EHCP from one local education authority to another. The crucial point, however, is that that is by voluntary agreement, and there is no guarantee that if service personnel are transferred at the behest of their commanders, the LEA into which they will move will accept the EHCP on transfer. The essence of amendment 2 is that it would ensure that that process does take place, rather than leaving it as a matter of discretion for the receiving LEA, which itself may be under considerable pressure to meet the demand for SEN support. Amendment 3, which relates to adoption and fostering, is similar in spirit. It would mean that service personnel who have begun the fostering and adoption process under one local education authority would not have to go again to the back of the queue, as it were, if they were to transfer to another. The spirit of both amendments is the same.

Anecdotally, some service parents have left the armed forces in order to protect the EHCP for their child rather than risk the delay that might be incurred by having to go round the loop all over again if they were transferred for operational or other reasons. In short, they put their children before their service, and I think anyone can understand why, morally, they might make that choice.

I place on record my thanks to the shadow Minister, the APPG and others for their work on this matter. I have constituents—I am very proud to represent Weeton barracks—who have had to make that choice because of the postcode lottery to which my right hon. Friend refers. Whether an LEA accepts the transfer is down to its discretion. That is such an important point, and I thank him for making it.

My hon. Friend is bearing out the point that there are real-world examples of this issue coming into play, and he has done the Committee a service by reiterating that. The Minister for Veterans and People kindly met me and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) last month to discuss whether the Government might be able to do more on this subject, and in fact the Minister for the Armed Forces referred to that meeting in his remarks a few minutes ago. During the meeting with the Minister for Veterans and People, we suggested—here is the leak—that, given the announcement in the King’s Speech that there would be a new Bill on the whole topic of special educational needs, one way of achieving the aim of the amendment might be to include such a provision in that Bill—in a DFE Bill, rather than an MOD Bill. That would still, at the end of the day, achieve the same desirable outcome. The Minister undertook to go away and look at the matter, including potentially in consultation with colleagues from the DFE. Having received her letter of yesterday, I have to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that I was extremely disappointed in its tone. It was a classic civil service boilerplate reply that bore little relation to the discussion that we had in the Minister’s office. I can only ask her to look at this again, perhaps in the context of the new DFE legislation, as I have just suggested.

There has been a leak: the hon. Gentleman has clearly had access to my speech. He has put a lot of work into this issue, so perhaps I can meet him halfway with what I am about to say. In fairness, there are already DFE guidelines that can facilitate the portability of an EHCP from one local education authority to another. The crucial point, however, is that that is by voluntary agreement, and there is no guarantee that if service personnel are transferred at the behest of their commanders, the LEA into which they will move will accept the EHCP on transfer. The essence of amendment 2 is that it would ensure that that process does take place, rather than leaving it as a matter of discretion for the receiving LEA, which itself may be under considerable pressure to meet the demand for SEN support. Amendment 3, which relates to adoption and fostering, is similar in spirit. It would mean that service personnel who have begun the fostering and adoption process under one local education authority would not have to go again to the back of the queue, as it were, if they were to transfer to another. The spirit of both amendments is the same.

I do not want to pre-empt what will no doubt be an erudite speech, but the key point is that there is a mechanism for doing this—we are halfway there. If service parents get a transfer order a few months in advance, then unless they can be certain that the receiving LEA will accept their EHCP, which they may have gone through a bureaucratic minefield to achieve—I am sure we all have individual examples from our constituencies—are they going to risk it? Will they stick or twist? Or will they leave the service and try to find somewhere local to live, but at least keep the precious EHCP? The nub of the matter is whether we can make it mandatory that the transfer takes place. Having made the point, I will rest, and wait for the contribution from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). Amendment 4 is similar in spirit to amendments 2 and 3, but relates to the national health service rather than to education. The essence of the amendment is that military personnel who are already on a waiting list for treatment in one NHS integrated care board area should not suffer any disadvantage relative to the civilian community if, again, they have to be transferred for operational or other service-related reasons. In plain English, they should not lose their place in the queue.

I place on record my thanks to the shadow Minister, the APPG and others for their work on this matter. I have constituents—I am very proud to represent Weeton barracks—who have had to make that choice because of the postcode lottery to which my right hon. Friend refers. Whether an LEA accepts the transfer is down to its discretion. That is such an important point, and I thank him for making it.

One area that will blight the lives of many of my right hon. Friend’s constituents as it does mine is, of course, primary care dentistry. People can move from one end of the country to another into a dental desert—Wiltshire is one of those. Does he think that there is a case for putting a duty on integrated care boards to translate people’s position with an NHS dentist—where they are lucky enough to find one—to their new area? I am thinking particularly of Wiltshire and the shortage of places, especially for service children and the partners of service personnel.

My hon. Friend is bearing out the point that there are real-world examples of this issue coming into play, and he has done the Committee a service by reiterating that. The Minister for Veterans and People kindly met me and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) last month to discuss whether the Government might be able to do more on this subject, and in fact the Minister for the Armed Forces referred to that meeting in his remarks a few minutes ago. During the meeting with the Minister for Veterans and People, we suggested—here is the leak—that, given the announcement in the King’s Speech that there would be a new Bill on the whole topic of special educational needs, one way of achieving the aim of the amendment might be to include such a provision in that Bill—in a DFE Bill, rather than an MOD Bill. That would still, at the end of the day, achieve the same desirable outcome. The Minister undertook to go away and look at the matter, including potentially in consultation with colleagues from the DFE. Having received her letter of yesterday, I have to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that I was extremely disappointed in its tone. It was a classic civil service boilerplate reply that bore little relation to the discussion that we had in the Minister’s office. I can only ask her to look at this again, perhaps in the context of the new DFE legislation, as I have just suggested.

My right hon. Friend is of course a former MOD Minister himself and represents a large number of service personnel. It is obvious from his intervention that he understands the issue very well. What he has just asked me is wholly in line with the spirit of our amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley unfortunately has a competing commitment this afternoon with the Justice Committee and the report on jury trial, which I hope the House accepts is a very important matter. He hopes to join us later in the debate when he has attended to that. Given his medical expertise, he pressed this point with the Minister for Veterans and People at the same meeting that I have referred to. Sadly, again, we received an equally uninspiring reply. For the record, given that the King’s Speech also presaged new legislation on NHS organisation, we sought to suggest that one way to proceed might be to include an amendment in that Bill rather than in this one. In other words, that medical issue could be put in a Bill introduced by Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care. I reiterate our request, perhaps to the Government more broadly, to consider what we still regard to be a sensible proposal. I turn now to amendment 5 on court martial boards. One issue highlighted during our visit to see the service justice system was the challenge of finding sufficient officers to serve on court martial boards who are in no way connected with the defendant. That can become more of a challenge as defendants become more senior, as the pool of officers from which to draw narrows as one moves up the promotion pyramid. The essence of the amendment is to allow retired officers to be drawn upon to help comprise the membership of boards for court martial, and therefore to widen the potential pool of those who might be available to undertake this important military and, indeed, civic duty.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very indulgent. I agree with him and—with respect—not with the Minister, because my recollection from being the Minister at the time was that there was a shortage of officers to populate court martial boards. When in office, we ensured that the process was service agnostic, which gave a bigger pool from which to draw. Would it be a compromise to allow retired officers of a certain seniority or length of time out of service, since that would maintain the currency that clearly is troubling the Minister? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Minister is right to require OR-7s, as well as warrant officers, to serve on court martial boards since that would expand the pool of people available?

I do not want to pre-empt what will no doubt be an erudite speech, but the key point is that there is a mechanism for doing this—we are halfway there. If service parents get a transfer order a few months in advance, then unless they can be certain that the receiving LEA will accept their EHCP, which they may have gone through a bureaucratic minefield to achieve—I am sure we all have individual examples from our constituencies—are they going to risk it? Will they stick or twist? Or will they leave the service and try to find somewhere local to live, but at least keep the precious EHCP? The nub of the matter is whether we can make it mandatory that the transfer takes place. Having made the point, I will rest, and wait for the contribution from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). Amendment 4 is similar in spirit to amendments 2 and 3, but relates to the national health service rather than to education. The essence of the amendment is that military personnel who are already on a waiting list for treatment in one NHS integrated care board area should not suffer any disadvantage relative to the civilian community if, again, they have to be transferred for operational or other service-related reasons. In plain English, they should not lose their place in the queue.

One area that will blight the lives of many of my right hon. Friend’s constituents as it does mine is, of course, primary care dentistry. People can move from one end of the country to another into a dental desert—Wiltshire is one of those. Does he think that there is a case for putting a duty on integrated care boards to translate people’s position with an NHS dentist—where they are lucky enough to find one—to their new area? I am thinking particularly of Wiltshire and the shortage of places, especially for service children and the partners of service personnel.

Again, my right hon. Friend makes a very important point: allowing tri-service boards increases the potential pool, even of senior officers, who can serve. When we made that visit, the Minister was not able to be with us. That is no criticism; he is an MOD Minister, and he has a lot to think about—he has a great deal to think about at the moment—but he was not able to be there on that visit, so he did not hear it from the horse’s mouth. This issue was raised with us by practitioners in the service justice system.

My right hon. Friend is of course a former MOD Minister himself and represents a large number of service personnel. It is obvious from his intervention that he understands the issue very well. What he has just asked me is wholly in line with the spirit of our amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley unfortunately has a competing commitment this afternoon with the Justice Committee and the report on jury trial, which I hope the House accepts is a very important matter. He hopes to join us later in the debate when he has attended to that. Given his medical expertise, he pressed this point with the Minister for Veterans and People at the same meeting that I have referred to. Sadly, again, we received an equally uninspiring reply. For the record, given that the King’s Speech also presaged new legislation on NHS organisation, we sought to suggest that one way to proceed might be to include an amendment in that Bill rather than in this one. In other words, that medical issue could be put in a Bill introduced by Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care. I reiterate our request, perhaps to the Government more broadly, to consider what we still regard to be a sensible proposal. I turn now to amendment 5 on court martial boards. One issue highlighted during our visit to see the service justice system was the challenge of finding sufficient officers to serve on court martial boards who are in no way connected with the defendant. That can become more of a challenge as defendants become more senior, as the pool of officers from which to draw narrows as one moves up the promotion pyramid. The essence of the amendment is to allow retired officers to be drawn upon to help comprise the membership of boards for court martial, and therefore to widen the potential pool of those who might be available to undertake this important military and, indeed, civic duty.

indicated assent.

They told us as a Committee—I am looking round the House for nods of assent from others who were on the visit, and I am getting them—that it was a problem, and it was cramping the ability to hold court martials. All we were trying to do was justify the cost of the train ticket to the taxpayer and prove that we had listened to what we were told on the visit, so I do not quite take the Minister’s sanguine approach that there are plenty of officers to go round. I will not hammer the nail any further, but I respectfully ask him to look at this one more time, particularly after the contributions today.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very indulgent. I agree with him and—with respect—not with the Minister, because my recollection from being the Minister at the time was that there was a shortage of officers to populate court martial boards. When in office, we ensured that the process was service agnostic, which gave a bigger pool from which to draw. Would it be a compromise to allow retired officers of a certain seniority or length of time out of service, since that would maintain the currency that clearly is troubling the Minister? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Minister is right to require OR-7s, as well as warrant officers, to serve on court martial boards since that would expand the pool of people available?

Again, my right hon. Friend makes a very important point: allowing tri-service boards increases the potential pool, even of senior officers, who can serve. When we made that visit, the Minister was not able to be with us. That is no criticism; he is an MOD Minister, and he has a lot to think about—he has a great deal to think about at the moment—but he was not able to be there on that visit, so he did not hear it from the horse’s mouth. This issue was raised with us by practitioners in the service justice system.

indicated assent.

They told us as a Committee—I am looking round the House for nods of assent from others who were on the visit, and I am getting them—that it was a problem, and it was cramping the ability to hold court martials. All we were trying to do was justify the cost of the train ticket to the taxpayer and prove that we had listened to what we were told on the visit, so I do not quite take the Minister’s sanguine approach that there are plenty of officers to go round. I will not hammer the nail any further, but I respectfully ask him to look at this one more time, particularly after the contributions today.

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

The essence of amendment 6 is to speed up the potential mobilisation of group A reserves from readiness level R9, which is 180 days, to readiness level R8, which is 90 days. Again, we debated this in the Select Committee, where I was keen to point out to the Minister that this suggestion came from the shop floor, as it were, having been put to me by a number of serving reserve officers—no names and no pack drill, in order to prevent any career damage. They were very clear that they would like the Government to accelerate their potential mobilisation timetable. It is because it came from that quarter that we gave this request particular consideration.

I thank the Minister and his team at the Ministry of Defence for their engagement with the Defence Committee on this legislation, including the helpful briefing they gave us ahead of Second Reading. I also thank the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, chaired by my good friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). He and the other Select Committee members have done incredible work. I place on record my thanks to my Defence Committee colleagues, the hon. and gallant Members for North Devon (Ian Roome) and for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), who served on that Select Committee. The Defence Committee naturally takes a close interest in the areas affected by the Bill. Beginning with clause 2, we strongly welcome the Government extending the armed forces covenant to new policy areas and making the duty binding on Whitehall Departments and the devolved Administrations. That is something we recommended in our inquiry report on the covenant last year. At the time, we said that legislation would be only one part of the solution for strengthening the covenant and that the Government needed to make sure that the covenant legal duty is more consistently applied, by improving guidance and training.

I recall the Minister giving an undertaking to the Select Committee that he would take the suggestion away and look at it in more detail, in consultation with officials in his Department. We were therefore cautiously optimistic that that might lead to some change in the Government’s position. I heard what the Minister just said, but we have re-tabled this amendment to give him an opportunity to report back to the House on the fruit of those discussions. Given the strong hint that he dropped in Committee, I urge the Minister to think again on that, bearing in mind that the idea does not come from me or my right hon. and hon. Friends; it was the idea of serving reserve officers. I am passporting their plea to him to mobilise them more quickly, should the situation require it—it is as simple as that.

I thank the Committee for its indulgence; I will sit down now to facilitate other contributions, not least on education, health and care plans. By your leave, Madam Chairman, I might want to speak again towards the end, when we have heard the debate, particularly on the new clauses. For the moment, though, I will rest there.

The measures on the armed forces covenant are one of the most impressive things about this Bill, not just UK-wide, but for the 115,000 veterans in Wales and their families who will now benefit from the legal duty on public services to take into consideration their specific circumstances. Will my hon. Friend join me in wishing a very happy Armed Forces Day to Prestatyn Royal British Legion branch, as I will when I celebrate and commemorate this special day with them later this month?

I commend my hon. Friend’s intervention and join her in extending my best wishes. It is welcome that the Government have published draft guidance on the legal duty, and I am pleased that it includes an explanation of what it means to pay “due regard” to the covenant, because witnesses to our inquiry told us that that phrase can sometimes seem ambiguous. I hope the Minister will consult widely with those affected by the legal duty to ensure that the guidance meets their needs. Our Committee will be watching closely to see whether the expanded covenant is being delivered and is making a positive difference for our armed forces community. The creation of a new defence housing service in clause 3 is also welcome. I am pleased that the Government have made it a priority to modernise the defence estate and have committed £9 billion over 10 years to support that work. The challenge for the Minister will be to ensure that the funding is delivered as promised; in the current geopolitical climate it is not hard to imagine that the Government might come under pressure to divert scarce resources in response to some crisis. I hope the Government will uphold their commitment to our service families, come what may. The new powers in clause 4 to counter uncrewed devices are sorely needed. My Committee’s inquiry “Defence in the Grey Zone” examined the many kinds of hybrid threat posed by hostile states, including drones. The armed forces need the power to deal with such threats, to show our adversaries that their hybrid tactics will not work against us.

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

I thank the Minister and his team at the Ministry of Defence for their engagement with the Defence Committee on this legislation, including the helpful briefing they gave us ahead of Second Reading. I also thank the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, chaired by my good friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford). He and the other Select Committee members have done incredible work. I place on record my thanks to my Defence Committee colleagues, the hon. and gallant Members for North Devon (Ian Roome) and for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), who served on that Select Committee. The Defence Committee naturally takes a close interest in the areas affected by the Bill. Beginning with clause 2, we strongly welcome the Government extending the armed forces covenant to new policy areas and making the duty binding on Whitehall Departments and the devolved Administrations. That is something we recommended in our inquiry report on the covenant last year. At the time, we said that legislation would be only one part of the solution for strengthening the covenant and that the Government needed to make sure that the covenant legal duty is more consistently applied, by improving guidance and training.

The other day I had the opportunity to meet the Ministry of Defence Police and their chief constable at RAF Wyton in my constituency. I was impressed by the counter-drone capability that they are now equipped with; it is vastly in excess of what Home Office policing teams now have, and it is a simple solution to provide the counter-drone capability that we should have at all our bases. I urge the hon. Gentleman to put pressure on the Minister to roll out those new CPM-Wilson and CPM-Watson counter-drone weapons to all our bases, to ensure that that capability is as widespread as possible.

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that intervention. The Defence Committee had the good fortune to view some of those counter-drone measures during one of our visits, and I fully concur with his views. The measures on service justice are focused on better supporting victims of serious offences. As the Minister knows, this subject comes up time and again in the Defence Committee’s regular sessions on women in the armed forces, and I am pleased that it is a focus of the Bill. It is only right that the Bill brings protections available in the service justice system, such as domestic abuse orders and stalking protection orders, into line with those available in the civilian system. The new reporting requirements and the victims’ code are also welcome changes, but it has been our experience as a Committee—as it was for our predecessors—that new initiatives do not always have the impact we would hope for, because they take place in an environment and culture that does not take the needs of victims as seriously as it should. I know that we cannot legislate for culture, but unless there is proper training on the measures in the Bill, and a message from leaders throughout defence that things must change, it is likely that our Committee will continue to hear stories from victims who feel let down by the service justice system. The Bill also aims to update the way that defence uses reserves, and I welcome clause 31, which will make it easier to move between regular and reserve forces. That will support more flexible career paths, allowing people with military expertise to move into roles in industry, and vice versa. The changes to call-out and recall conditions in clauses 32 and 33 should help to strengthen the capacity of our reserves. Reserves are a key component of our nation’s readiness; showing that we are ready to respond to aggression deters our enemies and lets us respond more effectively, if needed. I hope that these measures will soon be followed by further steps to improve our readiness, including the promised defence readiness Bill, which is needed sooner rather than later. While the measures in the Bill will undoubtedly improve our readiness, they are focused on the strategic reserve only. The strategic defence review stated an ambition to increase the active reserve by 20% when funding allows. We do not know how and when that will be achieved. The measures in the Bill are a good start, but there is more work to do. In conclusion—I see you are giving me a stare, Madam Chair—I believe the Bill will make a positive difference to the lives of those who serve in our armed forces, and I will certainly support it as it continues to make progress through the House.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The measures on the armed forces covenant are one of the most impressive things about this Bill, not just UK-wide, but for the 115,000 veterans in Wales and their families who will now benefit from the legal duty on public services to take into consideration their specific circumstances. Will my hon. Friend join me in wishing a very happy Armed Forces Day to Prestatyn Royal British Legion branch, as I will when I celebrate and commemorate this special day with them later this month?

There is much in the Bill that deserves support. It renews the statutory basis for our armed forces, extends the armed forces covenant duty, introduces a defence housing service and reforms certain aspects of the service justice system. Those are genuine steps forward, and we acknowledge them as such. However, good intentions are not the same as good outcomes, and our amendments seek to close the gap between the two. Let me begin with the question of people—specifically, how we recruit them, retain them and treat them when they leave. The Government will shortly ask Parliament to authorise maximum numbers of service personnel across each branch of the armed forces.

I commend my hon. Friend’s intervention and join her in extending my best wishes. It is welcome that the Government have published draft guidance on the legal duty, and I am pleased that it includes an explanation of what it means to pay “due regard” to the covenant, because witnesses to our inquiry told us that that phrase can sometimes seem ambiguous. I hope the Minister will consult widely with those affected by the legal duty to ensure that the guidance meets their needs. Our Committee will be watching closely to see whether the expanded covenant is being delivered and is making a positive difference for our armed forces community. The creation of a new defence housing service in clause 3 is also welcome. I am pleased that the Government have made it a priority to modernise the defence estate and have committed £9 billion over 10 years to support that work. The challenge for the Minister will be to ensure that the funding is delivered as promised; in the current geopolitical climate it is not hard to imagine that the Government might come under pressure to divert scarce resources in response to some crisis. I hope the Government will uphold their commitment to our service families, come what may. The new powers in clause 4 to counter uncrewed devices are sorely needed. My Committee’s inquiry “Defence in the Grey Zone” examined the many kinds of hybrid threat posed by hostile states, including drones. The armed forces need the power to deal with such threats, to show our adversaries that their hybrid tactics will not work against us.

The Bill makes great strides in Ministry of Defence housing standards, and the enshrinement of the covenant is to be lauded. However, I cannot help but feel that there is a sense of strategic lethargy, with a lack of serious worked-through policies to tackle the crisis in recruitment and retention. For example, from what I can see, there is no mention of incentives or bonuses. Is that an oversight or a deliberate decision to put those issues on the back burner? To put it another way, are the Government now simply content to sit on their hands while the crisis deepens?

My hon. Friend raises questions for the Minister to answer in closing the debate, but recruitment and retention are key concerns and have been a sort of crisis in the armed forces for many years. In the context of authorising the maximum numbers of service personnel, it is reasonable that Parliament should be told how the Government plan to treat those people in service. New clause 9 would require publication of a retention strategy alongside the authorisation. It is a modest proposal, and the case for it is straightforward; recruitment alone solves nothing, if the conditions of service drive people back out of the door. We can invest in advertising, outreach and processing, and still find ourselves filling a vessel that will not hold. The problems that cause people to leave are well known: inadequate housing, unsupported families, opaque career structures and a sense that the institution does not value them as individuals. New clause 10 would require an independent review to examine precisely those factors, including diversity, inclusion, the medical discharge process and the state of defence housing, not because these are peripheral concerns, but because they are operational ones.

The other day I had the opportunity to meet the Ministry of Defence Police and their chief constable at RAF Wyton in my constituency. I was impressed by the counter-drone capability that they are now equipped with; it is vastly in excess of what Home Office policing teams now have, and it is a simple solution to provide the counter-drone capability that we should have at all our bases. I urge the hon. Gentleman to put pressure on the Minister to roll out those new CPM-Wilson and CPM-Watson counter-drone weapons to all our bases, to ensure that that capability is as widespread as possible.

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that intervention. The Defence Committee had the good fortune to view some of those counter-drone measures during one of our visits, and I fully concur with his views. The measures on service justice are focused on better supporting victims of serious offences. As the Minister knows, this subject comes up time and again in the Defence Committee’s regular sessions on women in the armed forces, and I am pleased that it is a focus of the Bill. It is only right that the Bill brings protections available in the service justice system, such as domestic abuse orders and stalking protection orders, into line with those available in the civilian system. The new reporting requirements and the victims’ code are also welcome changes, but it has been our experience as a Committee—as it was for our predecessors—that new initiatives do not always have the impact we would hope for, because they take place in an environment and culture that does not take the needs of victims as seriously as it should. I know that we cannot legislate for culture, but unless there is proper training on the measures in the Bill, and a message from leaders throughout defence that things must change, it is likely that our Committee will continue to hear stories from victims who feel let down by the service justice system. The Bill also aims to update the way that defence uses reserves, and I welcome clause 31, which will make it easier to move between regular and reserve forces. That will support more flexible career paths, allowing people with military expertise to move into roles in industry, and vice versa. The changes to call-out and recall conditions in clauses 32 and 33 should help to strengthen the capacity of our reserves. Reserves are a key component of our nation’s readiness; showing that we are ready to respond to aggression deters our enemies and lets us respond more effectively, if needed. I hope that these measures will soon be followed by further steps to improve our readiness, including the promised defence readiness Bill, which is needed sooner rather than later. While the measures in the Bill will undoubtedly improve our readiness, they are focused on the strategic reserve only. The strategic defence review stated an ambition to increase the active reserve by 20% when funding allows. We do not know how and when that will be achieved. The measures in the Bill are a good start, but there is more work to do. In conclusion—I see you are giving me a stare, Madam Chair—I believe the Bill will make a positive difference to the lives of those who serve in our armed forces, and I will certainly support it as it continues to make progress through the House.

I am concerned by the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. We have the continuous attitude survey, which does its work every year and delivers to Ministers a clear account of what is keeping people in and what is driving them away. Is he seriously proposing another set of reviews, which would add very little to what we already know?

The continuous attitude survey is a survey of service personnel, but a review is quite different, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates. We are talking about an independent review, which is not the same thing. On housing, I want to be specific. The Government’s commitment to improving service family accommodation is welcome, but new clause 13 exists because single living accommodation has for too long been treated as a secondary concern. For a significant proportion of serving personnel, that accommodation is not temporary—it is their home. It is where they recover after deployment, where they live between postings and where they begin and end each working day. If it falls below a reasonable standard, that is not merely a welfare issue; it is a retention issue. We cannot speak of our people as our greatest asset while declining to apply that in principle to where they sleep.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

There is much in the Bill that deserves support. It renews the statutory basis for our armed forces, extends the armed forces covenant duty, introduces a defence housing service and reforms certain aspects of the service justice system. Those are genuine steps forward, and we acknowledge them as such. However, good intentions are not the same as good outcomes, and our amendments seek to close the gap between the two. Let me begin with the question of people—specifically, how we recruit them, retain them and treat them when they leave. The Government will shortly ask Parliament to authorise maximum numbers of service personnel across each branch of the armed forces.

The Bill makes great strides in Ministry of Defence housing standards, and the enshrinement of the covenant is to be lauded. However, I cannot help but feel that there is a sense of strategic lethargy, with a lack of serious worked-through policies to tackle the crisis in recruitment and retention. For example, from what I can see, there is no mention of incentives or bonuses. Is that an oversight or a deliberate decision to put those issues on the back burner? To put it another way, are the Government now simply content to sit on their hands while the crisis deepens?

My hon. Friend raises questions for the Minister to answer in closing the debate, but recruitment and retention are key concerns and have been a sort of crisis in the armed forces for many years. In the context of authorising the maximum numbers of service personnel, it is reasonable that Parliament should be told how the Government plan to treat those people in service. New clause 9 would require publication of a retention strategy alongside the authorisation. It is a modest proposal, and the case for it is straightforward; recruitment alone solves nothing, if the conditions of service drive people back out of the door. We can invest in advertising, outreach and processing, and still find ourselves filling a vessel that will not hold. The problems that cause people to leave are well known: inadequate housing, unsupported families, opaque career structures and a sense that the institution does not value them as individuals. New clause 10 would require an independent review to examine precisely those factors, including diversity, inclusion, the medical discharge process and the state of defence housing, not because these are peripheral concerns, but because they are operational ones.

Veterans’ mental health challenges can be significant, for obvious reasons—trauma, stress, spending a long time away from friends and family, and so on. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, devastatingly, veterans under the age of 24 have a suicide rate that is two to four times higher than that for the civilian population of the same age. Given that mental health problems are so significant and less visible than physical health needs, does my hon. Friend agree that establishing the role of a veterans’ mental health oversight officer, as outlined in new clause 12, would ensure that mental health support is robust?

I am concerned by the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. We have the continuous attitude survey, which does its work every year and delivers to Ministers a clear account of what is keeping people in and what is driving them away. Is he seriously proposing another set of reviews, which would add very little to what we already know?

Absolutely. The suicide rate among young men in this country is already high, and the numbers relating to people discharged from the armed forces are deeply troubling. We have passed motions, published strategies and made commitments, but we have not created proper, sustained oversight. As my hon. Friend mentions, a veterans’ mental health oversight officer with a statutory remit to monitor provision, assess compliance with covenant duties and report annually to Parliament would begin that change. The covenant should not be a postcode lottery; its outcomes should be measurable, consistent and accountable. I also acknowledge the amendments tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on pension communications, the transfer of medical assessments, the reserve forces estate and the treatment of domestic abuse offences. In each case, they address the same underlying problem—that service personnel, veterans and their families are too often disadvantaged, not by malice, but by systems that do not speak to one another, and processes that were never designed with them in mind. That brings me to the covenant. New clause 14 would place national standards around the extended covenant duty, requiring statutory guidance, minimum requirements for public bodies, proper training and a framework for monitoring reporting. New clause 15 would require the annual covenant report to assess compliance against those standards, analyse outcomes and make recommendations. The objection to such measures is rarely principled. Almost no one opposes the covenant; the difficulty has always been with the consistency of delivery. One local authority may understand its obligations well, but another may not. One health body may have invested in this, but another may have done the minimum. One veteran may receive good support, but another with identical needs in a different part of the country may be left to navigate the system alone. These new clauses would make the covenant something more than just a statement of good faith. They would make it a standard that could be measured and enforced. Finally, amendment 90 would require that allegations of sexual offences and domestic abuse occurring in the United Kingdom be referred immediately to the civilian police, and those offences would be prosecuted through the civilian justice system. Let me be clear: this amendment is recognition that when serious crimes are committed by someone in service—crimes that would, in any other context, be investigated by the police, and would be cases heard in a Crown court—the victims are entitled to the same confidence in the justice system as any other civilian. The Bill introduces new protections for victims of domestic abuse, stalking and sexual harm within the service justice system. Those changes are very welcome, but they do not fully answer the question of whether victims have sufficient confidence that a system embedded in a single institution can handle the most serious offences against them with complete independence. Sexual offences and domestic abuse are not matters of military discipline; they are serious criminal matters. When they occur in the United Kingdom, there is no compelling reason why investigation and prosecution should default to a separate system. Amendment 90 would remove that ambiguity, give victims clarity, and demonstrate that justice for individuals takes precedence over institutional processes.

The question is surely whether victims are given a choice. At the moment, they are. The prosecutors’ protocol usually means that these cases are tried through the civilian criminal justice system. That is fine, but does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that justice delayed is justice denied? Through the service justice system, these cases are brought to a conclusion far more rapidly than they currently are in our civilian criminal justice system.

I understand exactly what the right hon. and gallant Member is saying, but failures in the civilian justice system—which, as he rightly observes, has a big backlog of cases—should not be a reason for reducing people’s confidence about coming forward with complaints. We know from the continuous attitude survey, to which he has referred, that the main reasons given by personnel for not making a written, formal complaint continue to be not believing that anything will be done with the complaint, and believing that it might adversely affect their career. It would encourage more people to come forward if they knew that the complaint would be dealt with in the civilian system. The amendments I have spoken to do not unpick the Bill, nor do they reverse its intentions.

New clause 12 would address something that we have discussed in this House for many years without sufficient action: veterans’ mental health.

So that I can understand, could the hon. Gentleman explain slightly more carefully why he is proposing to remove the choice that the victim has? They can say which of the two systems—the service justice system or the civilian justice system—they have more confidence in. Why would it be better for the victim if that choice were removed, and they had to go down the civilian justice system route?

Veterans’ mental health challenges can be significant, for obvious reasons—trauma, stress, spending a long time away from friends and family, and so on. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, devastatingly, veterans under the age of 24 have a suicide rate that is two to four times higher than that for the civilian population of the same age. Given that mental health problems are so significant and less visible than physical health needs, does my hon. Friend agree that establishing the role of a veterans’ mental health oversight officer, as outlined in new clause 12, would ensure that mental health support is robust?

As I am sure the hon. Member is aware, this was a recommendation of the Atherton report, and there was good reason for it. That inquiry took a lot of evidence on this subject, and the view was that this change would increase confidence. Serving personnel bringing complaints against senior officers may feel pressure to keep their complaint within the service, and so may not receive the justice they need. We have looked at the findings of the Atherton report and agree with them, so we have included that recommendation in the amendments that we tabled to the Bill. We ask the Government to go one step further and convert general commitments into specific duties, and provide the structures, standards and oversight that will determine whether those duties are genuinely met. Our armed forces are held to the highest standards in everything they do; it is not unreasonable to expect the same of the legislation that governs how we treat them. I hope that the Government and this Committee will take these amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are meant, and will support them.

Absolutely. The suicide rate among young men in this country is already high, and the numbers relating to people discharged from the armed forces are deeply troubling. We have passed motions, published strategies and made commitments, but we have not created proper, sustained oversight. As my hon. Friend mentions, a veterans’ mental health oversight officer with a statutory remit to monitor provision, assess compliance with covenant duties and report annually to Parliament would begin that change. The covenant should not be a postcode lottery; its outcomes should be measurable, consistent and accountable. I also acknowledge the amendments tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on pension communications, the transfer of medical assessments, the reserve forces estate and the treatment of domestic abuse offences. In each case, they address the same underlying problem—that service personnel, veterans and their families are too often disadvantaged, not by malice, but by systems that do not speak to one another, and processes that were never designed with them in mind. That brings me to the covenant. New clause 14 would place national standards around the extended covenant duty, requiring statutory guidance, minimum requirements for public bodies, proper training and a framework for monitoring reporting. New clause 15 would require the annual covenant report to assess compliance against those standards, analyse outcomes and make recommendations. The objection to such measures is rarely principled. Almost no one opposes the covenant; the difficulty has always been with the consistency of delivery. One local authority may understand its obligations well, but another may not. One health body may have invested in this, but another may have done the minimum. One veteran may receive good support, but another with identical needs in a different part of the country may be left to navigate the system alone. These new clauses would make the covenant something more than just a statement of good faith. They would make it a standard that could be measured and enforced. Finally, amendment 90 would require that allegations of sexual offences and domestic abuse occurring in the United Kingdom be referred immediately to the civilian police, and those offences would be prosecuted through the civilian justice system. Let me be clear: this amendment is recognition that when serious crimes are committed by someone in service—crimes that would, in any other context, be investigated by the police, and would be cases heard in a Crown court—the victims are entitled to the same confidence in the justice system as any other civilian. The Bill introduces new protections for victims of domestic abuse, stalking and sexual harm within the service justice system. Those changes are very welcome, but they do not fully answer the question of whether victims have sufficient confidence that a system embedded in a single institution can handle the most serious offences against them with complete independence. Sexual offences and domestic abuse are not matters of military discipline; they are serious criminal matters. When they occur in the United Kingdom, there is no compelling reason why investigation and prosecution should default to a separate system. Amendment 90 would remove that ambiguity, give victims clarity, and demonstrate that justice for individuals takes precedence over institutional processes.

I am grateful to my fellow member of the Defence Committee for giving way. If he supports new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), will he vote for it?

The question is surely whether victims are given a choice. At the moment, they are. The prosecutors’ protocol usually means that these cases are tried through the civilian criminal justice system. That is fine, but does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that justice delayed is justice denied? Through the service justice system, these cases are brought to a conclusion far more rapidly than they currently are in our civilian criminal justice system.

I understand exactly what the right hon. and gallant Member is saying, but failures in the civilian justice system—which, as he rightly observes, has a big backlog of cases—should not be a reason for reducing people’s confidence about coming forward with complaints. We know from the continuous attitude survey, to which he has referred, that the main reasons given by personnel for not making a written, formal complaint continue to be not believing that anything will be done with the complaint, and believing that it might adversely affect their career. It would encourage more people to come forward if they knew that the complaint would be dealt with in the civilian system. The amendments I have spoken to do not unpick the Bill, nor do they reverse its intentions.

So that I can understand, could the hon. Gentleman explain slightly more carefully why he is proposing to remove the choice that the victim has? They can say which of the two systems—the service justice system or the civilian justice system—they have more confidence in. Why would it be better for the victim if that choice were removed, and they had to go down the civilian justice system route?

As I am sure the hon. Member is aware, this was a recommendation of the Atherton report, and there was good reason for it. That inquiry took a lot of evidence on this subject, and the view was that this change would increase confidence. Serving personnel bringing complaints against senior officers may feel pressure to keep their complaint within the service, and so may not receive the justice they need. We have looked at the findings of the Atherton report and agree with them, so we have included that recommendation in the amendments that we tabled to the Bill. We ask the Government to go one step further and convert general commitments into specific duties, and provide the structures, standards and oversight that will determine whether those duties are genuinely met. Our armed forces are held to the highest standards in everything they do; it is not unreasonable to expect the same of the legislation that governs how we treat them. I hope that the Government and this Committee will take these amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are meant, and will support them.

I fully acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s point about education being a devolved matter, which makes the SEN issue more complicated. He is quite correct about that, but does he acknowledge that amendment 2 allows for that and specifically refers to it? Secondly, there is no cross-border issue in England. If I agree with him that this would best be done via an education Bill, will he agree with me that in England there is no impediment whatsoever to making the transfer of EHCPs for service children mandatory?

I am grateful to my fellow member of the Defence Committee for giving way. If he supports new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), will he vote for it?

The difference is that, while people in civilian life sometimes have to move jobs at the behest of their employer, service personnel are ordered to go. They really have no choice: once they have been posted, they have to go. Therefore, in ordering them to go, the state should have a moral obligation to deal with the consequences for special needs children. Does the hon. Member accept that that is a difference between service and civilian life, and that under the principle of “no disadvantage” in the covenant, the state should do the right thing?

I wish to speak to new clause 5, which I tabled. I start by thanking all Opposition Members—both in my party and across four other parties—who have supported this amendment. Let the record show that not one person on the Labour Benches supported it. We often speak in this House about veterans, our shared respect for those who have served and how best to support veterans in their post-military life, be it with careers, housing, mental health or simply the frailty of growing old. With that shared sense of society repaying our collective debt to those who have served must come the moral courage to do the right thing that we expect those who have served to show. During my Army career, I had the privilege to serve alongside and command soldiers from all over the Commonwealth—Australians and Canadians, South Africans and Jamaicans. As a support weapons platoon commander, a quarter of my anti-tank platoon was Fijian. As hon. Members may expect from a fine rugby playing regiment such as the Duke of Wellington’s, it was unbelievably competitive to get a spot on the wing. I therefore know well the courage and the sacrifice shown by our Commonwealth personnel not only today, but alongside me on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and during operations across the globe long preceding that. We owe those men and women the right to make a life in the country they have risked theirs to defend. Over four years ago, in April 2022, the previous Government implemented a visa fee waiver for those who have served in the UK armed forces. That waiver also applied to eligible veterans who were yet to regularise their immigration status. Having campaigned for that long before I became an MP, it was hugely welcome to see the playing field levelled somewhat for Commonwealth veterans. While that was a welcome first step, I personally felt that it was not enough. We in this Chamber often recognise the sacrifice and the challenges of those families left behind when service personnel deploy. Being a military spouse or child is not easy. This situation is made even harder for the family of a Commonwealth service member, because while we waived the fees for serving personnel in 2022, we did not extend the right to the immediate family and dependants of that service member. That means many Commonwealth veterans are saddled with significant visa fees if they wish to stay in the UK as a family after leaving the armed forces. From 8 April this year, when the cost increased once again, the base fee for applying for indefinite leave to remain is £3,226 per person. To put into context the speed of that increase, when we waived fees for service members just four years ago, it was £2,389 per person—a near £1,000 increase. That is just for indefinite leave to remain, not citizenship. In the US armed forces, a non-US citizen can achieve full US citizenship upon discharge for the price of the admin fee—just a few dollars. A service member, their spouse and two children now potentially face a cost of just shy of £10,000 for the right to live in the country they have risked their life to defend. I defy anybody to tell me that that is fair. It is not until the 12-year point that personnel become entitled to a resettlement grant of £15,047. The purpose of the resettlement grant is to do precisely what it says: to give people a head start, be it through a trade course, a deposit for a house or the funds to set up an entrepreneurial new business. None of those options is available to those who need to spend the majority of the grant on just obtaining the right to live in the country. What on earth are we doing? Why are we fleecing those who have served this country, saddling them with a five-figure burden? The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland lead the charge on this campaign. They have pushed for these changes consistently. They highlight that in delivering this manifesto pledge, the Government would fulfil their obligations under the armed forces covenant by removing those disadvantages and barriers to family life. Going into the 2024 general election, the Conservative manifesto looked to correct this issue. As part of our pledge to veterans, we announced that a Conservative Government would: “extend the visa fees waiver introduced to cover Commonwealth personnel, to include their direct dependants.” The Labour manifesto, too, made that pledge, stating: “We will also scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years, and their dependents.” So where are we with that? I have raised the question on a number of occasions. In November 2024, I asked the then Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), what the timetable was for delivering that manifesto pledge. I was told: “We are working on that. It is in the manifesto, and it will come out in due course.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 22.] In June 2025, during the Armed Forces Day debate, I asked the then Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), if he could provide an update “on the work being done to waive visa fees for families and dependants of our Commonwealth personnel”. He told me: “We have a manifesto commitment to deliver that. The Defence Secretary has spoken to the Home Secretory about this, and our officials are in dialogue about it. I hope that the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after this area, will be able to announce progress in due course. The hon. Member and I share a strong sense that there is a wrong to be righted here, and those people who serve our country for a good period of time should be able to settle here. I think progress will be made, but I recognise his interest in that happening.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1290-1291.] That was a year ago. On 5 January 2026, the new Veterans Minister told me in a written answer that the Government are “working closely with the Home Office to deliver this commitment”. She went on to state: “it is not possible at this stage to provide an implementation date”. In April, she informed me: “This Government is committed to waiving visa fees for non-UK veterans”. In total, I have asked the Government for an update on the progress of the implementation of their manifesto pledge seven times and we are no closer to an implementation date after nearly two years than we were when the Government came to power. I am not seeking to apportion individual blame here. Having spoken to Ministers individually, including the two on the Front Bench today, I do not doubt that the Defence Front Bench wishes to implement this policy, but there is clearly something that is causing it to stall, be that the Home Office or the machinery of government. There is an opportunity here to drive this policy forward. We should bear in mind that the Ministry of Defence does not even collate the information regarding the number of ILR applications submitted by family members of service personnel. It has literally no idea of the impact the failure to deliver this policy is having. After two years with no timetable for implementation on the horizon, I have little confidence this is a priority on the MOD’s to-do list. I appreciate that the Government measure working flat-out in months, but this could be measured in continental drift. It simply does not appear to be a priority for the Government. However, my greater fear is that rather than do the right thing today, the Government will churlishly and spitefully vote against new clause 5, “because politics”. Not one Labour MP signed the new clause, despite every single one being asked twice. The Government have whipped their MPs not to support it, just as they will whip their MPs to vote against it. A vote against new clause 5 is not just a vote against the Labour manifesto that each Labour MP stood on. It is a vote against our veterans. It is a vote against those who have risked their lives to defend this great nation. It is a vote that tells Commonwealth personnel that this Government do not have their back, that joining our armed forces will still see them treated as second-class citizens, with limited options post service. Those Labour MPs with a military presence in their constituencies should ask themselves how they will spin it to the service member who has to pay £10,000 to live here with their family, instead of putting down a deposit on a house or launching a business. They should ask themselves whether, for the sake of playing politics this evening, it is worth holding somebody else back.

I do not disagree. I recognise the point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is making and his passion for delivering what he describes. I am a member of said all-party parliamentary group, and I am happy to push in order to try and get this across the line. I also recognise the politics of this. Although I am not sure his party will welcome him apparently somewhat throwing the Home Office under the bus in this instance, I recognise that there are complexities around the ability to deliver from a Home Office perspective. I know that is something that the Conservatives encountered when we were in government, and I imagine it is very much the same situation for the Government now. I insist that new clause 5 is still a good new clause. It would come in the right place within the Armed Forces Bill. I recognise that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to give the Government some wiggle room to get out of voting for the new clause this evening, but I am convinced that it should be voted on, and that we should push it forward in order to put some pressure on the Home Office.

I fully acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s point about education being a devolved matter, which makes the SEN issue more complicated. He is quite correct about that, but does he acknowledge that amendment 2 allows for that and specifically refers to it? Secondly, there is no cross-border issue in England. If I agree with him that this would best be done via an education Bill, will he agree with me that in England there is no impediment whatsoever to making the transfer of EHCPs for service children mandatory?

The difference is that, while people in civilian life sometimes have to move jobs at the behest of their employer, service personnel are ordered to go. They really have no choice: once they have been posted, they have to go. Therefore, in ordering them to go, the state should have a moral obligation to deal with the consequences for special needs children. Does the hon. Member accept that that is a difference between service and civilian life, and that under the principle of “no disadvantage” in the covenant, the state should do the right thing?

I agree that it is a broader topic than simply covering Commonwealth veterans and their family members from those same Commonwealth countries. There are a number of personnel living here are UK personnel but have spouses and children who may be from overseas, and the same rules apply to them. I do not disagree with the hon. Member; I think we are very much on the same page on a number of issues—it is literally just the technicality of politics that is getting in the way. We are squeamish when it comes to discussing immigration. No party has yet demonstrated that they have the right answer, but on this specific element of the debate, it is very simple: no matter how high a bar we set for the right to live in this country—whether that is for key workers or high net worth individuals—those who have risked their lives to defend the freedoms that we enjoy deserve to settle here with their families without penalty. That should always be above that high bar. At the heart of our security are the men and women who serve and risk their lives for this country. That is in the Labour manifesto. I urge Government Members to do the right thing today and support new clause 5.

I am proud to be a Labour and Co-operative MP for a Cornish constituency with a strong military heritage. More than 30,000 Cornish residents have served or are serving in the armed forces. That is more than 6% of the population—nearly double the national average. I am also proud to have sat on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. The Committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses, who informed our report, and I am pleased that the majority of the recommendations have been taken forward by the Government. Government amendment 9 deals with paragraph 19 of the Committee’s report: “We heard concerns that the Bill’s definition of a local authority to which the Covenant will apply does not capture all kinds of local authority”. Our report recommended that the Government consider whether the definition of “local authority” needs updating. The Ministry of Defence agreed with that conclusion, and an amendment has been tabled, but unitary authorities and single foundation authorities still do not appear to be specifically included in the definition, so I would like the MOD to go back and look at that again. I am very proud to have contributed a clause to the Bill. Clause 30, which introduces schedule 4, incorporates the proposal in my ten-minute rule Bill to bring Royal Fleet Auxiliary service personnel within the remit of the new Armed Forces Commissioner. I hope this is the start of work on building recognition of the RFA, and on retention and recruitment within the service, which is so valued and valuable. I would like to speak about housing. I made my home in Cornwall because my then husband was posted to RNAS Culdrose. I know that many families move for the same reason. Even over 20 years ago when I experienced it, military housing was not in a good condition. In 2023-2024, two thirds of service family accommodation was in such a poor state that it was not fit for purpose. Clearly, that is not acceptable. That is why I am so pleased that this Government are creating the publicly owned defence housing service and providing it with a 10-year investment of £9 billion. That will benefit over 12,000 houses in the south-west, many of which are in Cornwall, by bringing them back into public ownership after the disastrous privatisation in the mid-1990s, after which they degenerated. I am pleased that the consumer charter includes commitments to improve military housing, such as a better move-in standard, more reliable repairs and a named housing officer. We discussed this on the Select Committee, and our report highlighted that, as private contracts for customer service, maintenance and repairs are to remain in place until 2029, there is a need for robust mechanisms in place to hold contractors to account for their performance. I turn now to the modernised accommodation offer, which has been promised for many years and would extend entitlement to service family accommodation to those in long-term relationships and those with shared parental responsibilities. It is true—I know it—that a lifetime of service can put a strain on relationships, sometimes culminating in divorce or separation, and in 2024, 5,000 personnel had responsibility for non-resident children. They should have a home where their children can come and stay or live with them some of the time. That was identified as a long-term objective in the housing strategy, but I appreciate that military families will want clarity. The Select Committee brought that up, and the MOD acknowledged it, saying that it will be a commitment for the Department. Our Committee recommended that within six months of its establishment, the DHS should outline a timetable for widening entitlement to SFA to include those in long-term relationships. The MOD supported the call for the DHS to clarify and accelerate those plans to better reflect the realities of modern military life. The Committee’s report also covered single living accommodation—in paragraph 52—and recommended that the MOD commit to a costed plan for improving the condition and maintenance of SLA within twelve months of the review’s completion. The MOD agreed with that recommendation too, which is positive. The Bill extends the armed forces covenant to cover central Government Departments, the devolved Administrations and, hopefully, all councils, as well as new policy areas such as employment and social care, so that no one falls through the gaps. This is very welcome, and I know that the covenant has had a positive impact so far, particularly in Cornwall. Witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee raised the need for clearer guidance and support, and highlighted lack of consistency in implementation of the covenant across the country. Public bodies are not always clear about what is expected of them.

I wish to speak to new clause 5, which I tabled. I start by thanking all Opposition Members—both in my party and across four other parties—who have supported this amendment. Let the record show that not one person on the Labour Benches supported it. We often speak in this House about veterans, our shared respect for those who have served and how best to support veterans in their post-military life, be it with careers, housing, mental health or simply the frailty of growing old. With that shared sense of society repaying our collective debt to those who have served must come the moral courage to do the right thing that we expect those who have served to show. During my Army career, I had the privilege to serve alongside and command soldiers from all over the Commonwealth—Australians and Canadians, South Africans and Jamaicans. As a support weapons platoon commander, a quarter of my anti-tank platoon was Fijian. As hon. Members may expect from a fine rugby playing regiment such as the Duke of Wellington’s, it was unbelievably competitive to get a spot on the wing. I therefore know well the courage and the sacrifice shown by our Commonwealth personnel not only today, but alongside me on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and during operations across the globe long preceding that. We owe those men and women the right to make a life in the country they have risked theirs to defend. Over four years ago, in April 2022, the previous Government implemented a visa fee waiver for those who have served in the UK armed forces. That waiver also applied to eligible veterans who were yet to regularise their immigration status. Having campaigned for that long before I became an MP, it was hugely welcome to see the playing field levelled somewhat for Commonwealth veterans. While that was a welcome first step, I personally felt that it was not enough. We in this Chamber often recognise the sacrifice and the challenges of those families left behind when service personnel deploy. Being a military spouse or child is not easy. This situation is made even harder for the family of a Commonwealth service member, because while we waived the fees for serving personnel in 2022, we did not extend the right to the immediate family and dependants of that service member. That means many Commonwealth veterans are saddled with significant visa fees if they wish to stay in the UK as a family after leaving the armed forces. From 8 April this year, when the cost increased once again, the base fee for applying for indefinite leave to remain is £3,226 per person. To put into context the speed of that increase, when we waived fees for service members just four years ago, it was £2,389 per person—a near £1,000 increase. That is just for indefinite leave to remain, not citizenship. In the US armed forces, a non-US citizen can achieve full US citizenship upon discharge for the price of the admin fee—just a few dollars. A service member, their spouse and two children now potentially face a cost of just shy of £10,000 for the right to live in the country they have risked their life to defend. I defy anybody to tell me that that is fair. It is not until the 12-year point that personnel become entitled to a resettlement grant of £15,047. The purpose of the resettlement grant is to do precisely what it says: to give people a head start, be it through a trade course, a deposit for a house or the funds to set up an entrepreneurial new business. None of those options is available to those who need to spend the majority of the grant on just obtaining the right to live in the country. What on earth are we doing? Why are we fleecing those who have served this country, saddling them with a five-figure burden? The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland lead the charge on this campaign. They have pushed for these changes consistently. They highlight that in delivering this manifesto pledge, the Government would fulfil their obligations under the armed forces covenant by removing those disadvantages and barriers to family life. Going into the 2024 general election, the Conservative manifesto looked to correct this issue. As part of our pledge to veterans, we announced that a Conservative Government would: “extend the visa fees waiver introduced to cover Commonwealth personnel, to include their direct dependants.” The Labour manifesto, too, made that pledge, stating: “We will also scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years, and their dependents.” So where are we with that? I have raised the question on a number of occasions. In November 2024, I asked the then Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), what the timetable was for delivering that manifesto pledge. I was told: “We are working on that. It is in the manifesto, and it will come out in due course.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 22.] In June 2025, during the Armed Forces Day debate, I asked the then Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), if he could provide an update “on the work being done to waive visa fees for families and dependants of our Commonwealth personnel”. He told me: “We have a manifesto commitment to deliver that. The Defence Secretary has spoken to the Home Secretory about this, and our officials are in dialogue about it. I hope that the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after this area, will be able to announce progress in due course. The hon. Member and I share a strong sense that there is a wrong to be righted here, and those people who serve our country for a good period of time should be able to settle here. I think progress will be made, but I recognise his interest in that happening.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1290-1291.] That was a year ago. On 5 January 2026, the new Veterans Minister told me in a written answer that the Government are “working closely with the Home Office to deliver this commitment”. She went on to state: “it is not possible at this stage to provide an implementation date”. In April, she informed me: “This Government is committed to waiving visa fees for non-UK veterans”. In total, I have asked the Government for an update on the progress of the implementation of their manifesto pledge seven times and we are no closer to an implementation date after nearly two years than we were when the Government came to power. I am not seeking to apportion individual blame here. Having spoken to Ministers individually, including the two on the Front Bench today, I do not doubt that the Defence Front Bench wishes to implement this policy, but there is clearly something that is causing it to stall, be that the Home Office or the machinery of government. There is an opportunity here to drive this policy forward. We should bear in mind that the Ministry of Defence does not even collate the information regarding the number of ILR applications submitted by family members of service personnel. It has literally no idea of the impact the failure to deliver this policy is having. After two years with no timetable for implementation on the horizon, I have little confidence this is a priority on the MOD’s to-do list. I appreciate that the Government measure working flat-out in months, but this could be measured in continental drift. It simply does not appear to be a priority for the Government. However, my greater fear is that rather than do the right thing today, the Government will churlishly and spitefully vote against new clause 5, “because politics”. Not one Labour MP signed the new clause, despite every single one being asked twice. The Government have whipped their MPs not to support it, just as they will whip their MPs to vote against it. A vote against new clause 5 is not just a vote against the Labour manifesto that each Labour MP stood on. It is a vote against our veterans. It is a vote against those who have risked their lives to defend this great nation. It is a vote that tells Commonwealth personnel that this Government do not have their back, that joining our armed forces will still see them treated as second-class citizens, with limited options post service. Those Labour MPs with a military presence in their constituencies should ask themselves how they will spin it to the service member who has to pay £10,000 to live here with their family, instead of putting down a deposit on a house or launching a business. They should ask themselves whether, for the sake of playing politics this evening, it is worth holding somebody else back.

Given Northern Ireland’s disproportionate contribution to the armed forces over many decades, the Minister’s answer to the question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister)—on the armed forces covenant being made compulsory within councils in Northern Ireland— does not really cut it. Sadly, in Northern Ireland we still have political parties that completely oppose the armed forces covenant and its implementation there, so does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to go further and act to protect our veterans in Northern Ireland?

I agree. To support that, I would say that the MOD is updating and strengthening the statutory guidance—as far as possible, it should cover all parts of the United Kingdom—to include that clear and prominent explanation of what having due regard to the covenant principles means. The guidance should explain how service-related disadvantage may arise in practice and how special provision can be applied within relevant policy areas.

I apologise for interrupting the flow of my hon. Friend’s speech. Linked to her point about the armed forces covenant, she may be aware that one way in which the United States supports its military personnel is through encouraging membership of the world’s biggest credit union, Navy Federal. As she will know, we have military credit unions here in the UK, but more could be done to raise awareness among military personnel of the benefits of helping recruits to manage their finances both during military life and afterwards in civilian life. Does she share my view that it would be good to hear from Ministers what more they are planning to do to help raise awareness of the military credit unions?

I do not disagree. I recognise the point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is making and his passion for delivering what he describes. I am a member of said all-party parliamentary group, and I am happy to push in order to try and get this across the line. I also recognise the politics of this. Although I am not sure his party will welcome him apparently somewhat throwing the Home Office under the bus in this instance, I recognise that there are complexities around the ability to deliver from a Home Office perspective. I know that is something that the Conservatives encountered when we were in government, and I imagine it is very much the same situation for the Government now. I insist that new clause 5 is still a good new clause. It would come in the right place within the Armed Forces Bill. I recognise that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to give the Government some wiggle room to get out of voting for the new clause this evening, but I am convinced that it should be voted on, and that we should push it forward in order to put some pressure on the Home Office.

As a fellow Co-operative Member, I agree that credit unions can do so much and are very important. I certainly agree that if members of the armed forces could be signposted towards them, that would be beneficial to them.

As we are talking about services and access, figures show that fewer than 31% of female serving personnel register as veterans, which makes it much more difficult for them to access services, particularly if they have faced problems such as violence or bullying in the armed forces. Does the hon. Member think that more needs to be done to encourage female veterans to come forward?

We discussed in the Select Committee that some people simply did not consider themselves veterans for certain reasons, including those she gave or because they had not served for long. An awareness campaign is important so that people can understand that they are entitled to all these things; on leaving the military, a lot of people do not think about it again and they have no idea that these options are open to them. I certainly agree with the hon. Member. We have talked a bit about SEND provision, and hon. Members here who sit on the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community know much more about that than me. I simply point out that we know our SEND provision has been broken for a long time and that a White Paper is coming, which should deal with and standardise some of these provisions so that people do not miss out. It will not be a postcode lottery—that is the ideal—and our SEND provision should improve so that whether someone is in Basingstoke, Shawbury or Cornwall, the provision they need will be there and will be transferable. Finally, and briefly, I would like to attest to the importance of the veteran question in the census, as raised in the Select Committee and in our report. Data from the 2021 census has been vital for the local authorities, including in helping them to find some veterans. It has enabled them to understand where veterans are, the challenges they face, and how best to deliver and design services to meet their needs. Retaining the veteran question in 2031 would allow for standardisation and the ability to track changes in trends. The question has also been essential for veterans’ charities and organisations that rely on the evidence to bid for funding. I very much support its inclusion in the next census. Cornwall has a proud military heritage. Many families have someone who served or is still serving, making extraordinary sacrifices to keep this country safe. They obviously deserve safe homes, fair treatment and a system that understands the unique demands of military life. I am pleased that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is included in the Bill and that I have played a tiny part in shaping it. I am also pleased that those who keep our armed forces moving around will be properly recognised and protected. As a Government, we promised to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and we are starting to deliver on that.

I agree that it is a broader topic than simply covering Commonwealth veterans and their family members from those same Commonwealth countries. There are a number of personnel living here are UK personnel but have spouses and children who may be from overseas, and the same rules apply to them. I do not disagree with the hon. Member; I think we are very much on the same page on a number of issues—it is literally just the technicality of politics that is getting in the way. We are squeamish when it comes to discussing immigration. No party has yet demonstrated that they have the right answer, but on this specific element of the debate, it is very simple: no matter how high a bar we set for the right to live in this country—whether that is for key workers or high net worth individuals—those who have risked their lives to defend the freedoms that we enjoy deserve to settle here with their families without penalty. That should always be above that high bar. At the heart of our security are the men and women who serve and risk their lives for this country. That is in the Labour manifesto. I urge Government Members to do the right thing today and support new clause 5.

I am proud to be a Labour and Co-operative MP for a Cornish constituency with a strong military heritage. More than 30,000 Cornish residents have served or are serving in the armed forces. That is more than 6% of the population—nearly double the national average. I am also proud to have sat on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. The Committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses, who informed our report, and I am pleased that the majority of the recommendations have been taken forward by the Government. Government amendment 9 deals with paragraph 19 of the Committee’s report: “We heard concerns that the Bill’s definition of a local authority to which the Covenant will apply does not capture all kinds of local authority”. Our report recommended that the Government consider whether the definition of “local authority” needs updating. The Ministry of Defence agreed with that conclusion, and an amendment has been tabled, but unitary authorities and single foundation authorities still do not appear to be specifically included in the definition, so I would like the MOD to go back and look at that again. I am very proud to have contributed a clause to the Bill. Clause 30, which introduces schedule 4, incorporates the proposal in my ten-minute rule Bill to bring Royal Fleet Auxiliary service personnel within the remit of the new Armed Forces Commissioner. I hope this is the start of work on building recognition of the RFA, and on retention and recruitment within the service, which is so valued and valuable. I would like to speak about housing. I made my home in Cornwall because my then husband was posted to RNAS Culdrose. I know that many families move for the same reason. Even over 20 years ago when I experienced it, military housing was not in a good condition. In 2023-2024, two thirds of service family accommodation was in such a poor state that it was not fit for purpose. Clearly, that is not acceptable. That is why I am so pleased that this Government are creating the publicly owned defence housing service and providing it with a 10-year investment of £9 billion. That will benefit over 12,000 houses in the south-west, many of which are in Cornwall, by bringing them back into public ownership after the disastrous privatisation in the mid-1990s, after which they degenerated. I am pleased that the consumer charter includes commitments to improve military housing, such as a better move-in standard, more reliable repairs and a named housing officer. We discussed this on the Select Committee, and our report highlighted that, as private contracts for customer service, maintenance and repairs are to remain in place until 2029, there is a need for robust mechanisms in place to hold contractors to account for their performance. I turn now to the modernised accommodation offer, which has been promised for many years and would extend entitlement to service family accommodation to those in long-term relationships and those with shared parental responsibilities. It is true—I know it—that a lifetime of service can put a strain on relationships, sometimes culminating in divorce or separation, and in 2024, 5,000 personnel had responsibility for non-resident children. They should have a home where their children can come and stay or live with them some of the time. That was identified as a long-term objective in the housing strategy, but I appreciate that military families will want clarity. The Select Committee brought that up, and the MOD acknowledged it, saying that it will be a commitment for the Department. Our Committee recommended that within six months of its establishment, the DHS should outline a timetable for widening entitlement to SFA to include those in long-term relationships. The MOD supported the call for the DHS to clarify and accelerate those plans to better reflect the realities of modern military life. The Committee’s report also covered single living accommodation—in paragraph 52—and recommended that the MOD commit to a costed plan for improving the condition and maintenance of SLA within twelve months of the review’s completion. The MOD agreed with that recommendation too, which is positive. The Bill extends the armed forces covenant to cover central Government Departments, the devolved Administrations and, hopefully, all councils, as well as new policy areas such as employment and social care, so that no one falls through the gaps. This is very welcome, and I know that the covenant has had a positive impact so far, particularly in Cornwall. Witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee raised the need for clearer guidance and support, and highlighted lack of consistency in implementation of the covenant across the country. Public bodies are not always clear about what is expected of them.

Given Northern Ireland’s disproportionate contribution to the armed forces over many decades, the Minister’s answer to the question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister)—on the armed forces covenant being made compulsory within councils in Northern Ireland— does not really cut it. Sadly, in Northern Ireland we still have political parties that completely oppose the armed forces covenant and its implementation there, so does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to go further and act to protect our veterans in Northern Ireland?

I agree. To support that, I would say that the MOD is updating and strengthening the statutory guidance—as far as possible, it should cover all parts of the United Kingdom—to include that clear and prominent explanation of what having due regard to the covenant principles means. The guidance should explain how service-related disadvantage may arise in practice and how special provision can be applied within relevant policy areas.

I apologise for interrupting the flow of my hon. Friend’s speech. Linked to her point about the armed forces covenant, she may be aware that one way in which the United States supports its military personnel is through encouraging membership of the world’s biggest credit union, Navy Federal. As she will know, we have military credit unions here in the UK, but more could be done to raise awareness among military personnel of the benefits of helping recruits to manage their finances both during military life and afterwards in civilian life. Does she share my view that it would be good to hear from Ministers what more they are planning to do to help raise awareness of the military credit unions?

As a fellow Co-operative Member, I agree that credit unions can do so much and are very important. I certainly agree that if members of the armed forces could be signposted towards them, that would be beneficial to them.

As we are talking about services and access, figures show that fewer than 31% of female serving personnel register as veterans, which makes it much more difficult for them to access services, particularly if they have faced problems such as violence or bullying in the armed forces. Does the hon. Member think that more needs to be done to encourage female veterans to come forward?

We discussed in the Select Committee that some people simply did not consider themselves veterans for certain reasons, including those she gave or because they had not served for long. An awareness campaign is important so that people can understand that they are entitled to all these things; on leaving the military, a lot of people do not think about it again and they have no idea that these options are open to them. I certainly agree with the hon. Member. We have talked a bit about SEND provision, and hon. Members here who sit on the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community know much more about that than me. I simply point out that we know our SEND provision has been broken for a long time and that a White Paper is coming, which should deal with and standardise some of these provisions so that people do not miss out. It will not be a postcode lottery—that is the ideal—and our SEND provision should improve so that whether someone is in Basingstoke, Shawbury or Cornwall, the provision they need will be there and will be transferable. Finally, and briefly, I would like to attest to the importance of the veteran question in the census, as raised in the Select Committee and in our report. Data from the 2021 census has been vital for the local authorities, including in helping them to find some veterans. It has enabled them to understand where veterans are, the challenges they face, and how best to deliver and design services to meet their needs. Retaining the veteran question in 2031 would allow for standardisation and the ability to track changes in trends. The question has also been essential for veterans’ charities and organisations that rely on the evidence to bid for funding. I very much support its inclusion in the next census. Cornwall has a proud military heritage. Many families have someone who served or is still serving, making extraordinary sacrifices to keep this country safe. They obviously deserve safe homes, fair treatment and a system that understands the unique demands of military life. I am pleased that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is included in the Bill and that I have played a tiny part in shaping it. I am also pleased that those who keep our armed forces moving around will be properly recognised and protected. As a Government, we promised to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and we are starting to deliver on that.

I am privileged to be called in this debate. I start by declaring my interests as a reservist and as the author of a book called “Tommy This an’ Tommy That: The military covenant”—which is sadly no longer in print, but is available, I am told, from good charity shops. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). said, the covenant is not about advantaging the men and women of our armed forces, but about not disadvantaging them. It is important to make that clear. Servicemen and servicewomen do not expect to be given anything particularly; they are usually the greatest pragmatists going and do not expect that at all. However, they do expect not to be messed around, if that can be avoided. Much of what is in the Bill, as is always the case now with armed forces Bills, is trying to mitigate some of the disadvantages that they necessarily have to put up with by virtue of the unique circumstances that they find themselves in.

Clause 30 deals with the Armed Forces Commissioner. It is worthwhile remembering why we have one: there was pressure to have some sort of representation of serving people, which was wisely resisted by the Government, and the Armed Forces Commissioner was a sort of compromise. The commissioner is there to recognise the fact that the men and women of our armed forces do not have trade union representation. That is its purpose. Although the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is very close to my heart—my grandfather served at the beginning of the last century, in its early days, so I am very sympathetic to it, and members of my family have continued to serve in that way—it is nevertheless a civilian merchant operation. I am therefore slightly concerned that this change may confuse the Armed Forces Commissioner and the trade unions, notwithstanding the attempts made in paragraph 4(a) to (c) in proposed new schedule 14ZB to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 to cover off that ambiguity and that grey area.

What about other organisations, including civilian organisations, that work very closely with our armed forces and can deploy with them, such as the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes? An argument could be made for them to be covered as well. It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister has any plans for that—maybe not in this measure, but in future—because that is the logic of that particular extension of the role of the Armed Forces Commissioner.

I thoroughly approve of removing the artificial barrier between the reserves and the regulars—I speak as a reservist and as somebody who perhaps in the past might have had a greater interest in that than I do now. The Haythornthwaite review of armed forces incentivisation is made flesh by the some of the measures in the Bill, in particular zig-zag careers and the ability to move from one part of defence to another and back again. It is complete madness that people have to leave, going through the rigmarole of filling out the forms that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who is no longer in his place, and the medical and all the rest of it. It makes no sense, it is hugely wasteful and it puts people off, encouraging them simply to leave.

In the Bill, there is a clear distinction between commissioned and non-commissioned. I sometimes think we get too wrapped up in all that, when simplicity is usually the best course of action. It would be good to hear from the Minister why he feels that separate arrangements are needed for officers. I understand that they will not be included in the initial tranche of people going through the system, but will be dealt with at some future date, if my reading of the Bill is correct. If it is not, I am sure the Minister will tell me.

My only concern about recall for service—it is certainly not at all a philosophical one—is that it makes service more onerous. At a time when we want volunteers in our system to join the armed forces with either the regulars or the reserves, extending their recall liability from six to 18 years and from 55 to 65 years of age might not be a particularly attractive proposition for many who do not necessarily want to commit to that kind of thing, notwithstanding the fact that many of our allies have something rather similar.

On the subject of our allies, it would be useful in encouraging a strategic reserve—at the moment I am afraid it is more hypothetical than actual—to emulate perhaps the Nordics, who insist that their reservists come back for a day or two a year in order to have a kit muster, a bit of a briefing and a bit of bonding. In that way they seem to hold people in, in a way that we simply do not. In this country, we still have the assumption that people will do their time as a regular, and then they will leave and not look back. I am sure the Minister would agree that that needs to change, and that it is a cultural rather than a management or structural issue at the moment. Until we get into the mindset that service is, if not for life, then ideally for a working life, I fear we will not be able to provide the Government with the sort of person-power that is necessary to sustain future operations in a pre-war environment.

Many hon. and right hon. Members today have talked about the service justice parts of the Bill, and in many ways those are among the most important elements of it. It is worthwhile saying that, certainly during my time as a Minister, there was difficulty populating court martial boards. The Minister gave a slightly different impression and, if the position has improved, that is a good thing, but broadening the base certainly makes it much more administratively straightforward to ensure that people are available on the days concerned and that the courts martial do not have to be interrupted. There is nothing worse for victims than finding that, for whatever reason, a court martial board that they thought was going to be held on a particular day cannot be constituted. I very much welcome the extension of eligibility to OR-7 staff sergeants and chief petty officers; that seems to make complete sense, and in any event I hope it will encourage people’s sense of confidence in the system.

I have problems with the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 90, which implies that civilian structures are better than service ones. That simply is not the case. The service justice system is much quicker. There is nothing worse for victims than having to hang on for months, or potentially years, to have their day in court. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, which is why it is perfectly reasonable to have the court martial option open, particularly for victims, but in any event as a matter to be determined under the prosecutor’s protocol, which seems to operate perfectly well at the moment. I would be very reluctant to see that changed.

Clauses 38 and 39 hark back to 1688 and Parliament’s desire to control the size of the British Army. Of course, in those days there was not really a navy to speak of—certainly not in the way we would think of it today—and there most certainly was not an air force, so having to split the numbers down by service was not an issue then. It was simply a question of the number of men we had under arms. While I understand the purpose of the changes that the Minister is proposing in clauses 38 and 39—that is to say, aggregating numbers and simply presenting the results to Parliament—it will reduce the granularity of data available to us.

I am not clear that there will be much cost involved in providing us with the much more granular data on numbers of reservists, regulars and other members of the three armed forces that we have at the moment. I want to preserve that, while at the same time understanding that what really matters overall is the total size of our armed forces, which we all want to ensure is brought up to spec.

I commend this Bill; overall, it does things that we all want to see and, as is the tradition with Bills of this sort, there is no great controversy between the two sides of the House. I wish it well.

I begin by offering my deepest thoughts and prayers to the family, friends and colleagues of the British soldier who tragically died in Iraq on Sunday. The world we live in today is more perilous, volatile and unpredictable than at any point in our living memory. We saw that last night, when Russia fired more than 650 drones and 73 missiles into Ukraine, killing 13 people and injuring more than 100, including a little girl aged only 11. In this fragmented world, a strong, modern, highly capable military is not a luxury; if we are to secure Britain’s future, it is a necessity. National security must always come above all else. That is why I strongly welcome the decisive steps that this Labour Government continue to take to rebuild our defence after it was hollowed out by the Conservative party, and why I support the Bill and the Government amendments tabled to it. Week after week, this Labour Government are getting on with the job of investing in our defence. Just yesterday, the Government announced a vital new munitions deal, supporting 700 jobs in Belfast. Last week, the Government signed a joint missile programme with Poland and a new Swedish fighter jet deal to strengthen Ukraine and boost British jobs. We do those things not simply because those are security agreements and deals, but because it is the moral duty of this Government. Doing so also creates highly skilled jobs right across the United Kingdom, including for the people of my Paisley and Renfrewshire South constituency. The substance of the Bill begins the urgent work of undoing years of systemic damage. I will focus my comments on two areas where the legislation delivers the deepest, most vital changes: defence housing and justice for victims of abuse. First, I warmly welcome the armed forces covenant, for which the Royal British Legion has been calling for more than a decade, and which is finally being delivered in full by this Labour Government. In the words of the Royal British Legion, our armed forces covenant “will ensure the needs of the Armed Forces community are considered when making decisions”. It goes on to say that it welcomes our decision to fully implement the covenant in law. This matters immensely, because it delivers directly on our manifesto commitments to our armed services. The brave men and women who dedicate their lives to defending our country deserve far more than our gratitude. They deserve the peace of mind that while they are serving our country around the world, their families are safe in secure, high-quality homes. Instead, we inherited a shocking legacy. Between April 2022 and December 2023, service family accommodation fell into disrepair: more than 20,000 heating failures were reported in military homes, nearly 7,000 properties completely lost hot water and more than 1,100 families were forced out of their homes entirely due to severe maintenance issues. Is it any wonder, then, that the previous Government missed their military recruitment targets every single year that they were in office? If we cannot guarantee a soldier that their child will not grow up in a house without a working heating system, how can we expect them to stay in the ranks? That is why I welcome this Government’s commitment to a £9 billion investment in defence housing, the measures set out in the Bill to establish the Defence Housing Service, and the generational renewal of military housing, which will see nine in 10 military homes modernised or upgraded. The Royal British Legion has rightly welcomed the Defence Housing Service, calling it crucial to ensuring that armed forces personnel and their families are provided with the high-quality housing they deserve. The strategy will directly benefit our forces, including those living in the 43 service accommodation homes in my constituency. That is no less than our personnel and their families deserve. Secondly, I strongly welcome the Bill’s protections for victims of sexual harm and domestic abuse. Every single victim of sexual harm deserves justice, yet for too long, the experiences of too many victims have been ignored. The Bill will change that. By introducing a strict legal duty on commanding officers to report serious offences to civilian authorities and the service police, we are ensuring that there can be no scope for anyone to look the other way. We are ensuring that, when those heinous crimes have been committed, nobody can say, “I didn’t know.” The Bill will give the service police increased powers for their investigations and the service courts more powers to deal with perpetrators and improve the experience of victims. We are bringing our system into line with the civilian sector by introducing service domestic abuse protection orders and service stalking protection orders, and by strengthening sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders. By doing that, we are ensuring that we protect victims and target predatory behaviour head-on, and ensuring that survivors get the unwavering support and justice that they deserve. The Bill proves that this Labour Government are cleaning up the legacy of neglect left by the Conservatives. We are getting on with the task of building a military fit for the future, and with restoring absolute dignity to our armed forces, and I commend the Bill to the Committee.

I speak in support of amendment 88, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). It would require the Secretary of State to review the way that former service personnel are communicated with about their pension entitlements, and I support that wholeheartedly. I want to use this opportunity to raise again in this Chamber an injustice that goes far deeper than communication; it goes to the heart of what this country owes its veterans. I want to share with the House, for the sixth or seventh time, the story of legendary Eastbournian Pauline Cole. Pauline was a staff sergeant, and served this country with distinction during the conflict in Aden in the ’60s. As a direct result of her service, she suffered solar skin damage, resulting in cancer and post-traumatic stress disorder. After years of tribunals, the Government recognised her sacrifice and awarded her military compensation in the form of a war disablement pension. Before receiving that compensation, Pauline had been in receipt of £76.96 a week in pension credit. After receiving that compensation, her pension credit collapsed to just £9.23 a week. That is because military compensation is considered income for the purposes of calculating pension credit, even though compensation awarded in a civil context is disregarded from such calculations. Indeed, military compensation is disregarded from universal credit calculations, but not from pension credit. In this case, the Government gave with one hand and took with the other. In order to sustain herself on that new income, Pauline was forced to seek lower-cost accommodation, and moved out of her Eastbourne home to somewhere else in the county of Sussex. I raised the case with the Pensions Minister. Pauline came with me to the Department for Work and Pensions. I have raised the matter in this Chamber at Prime Minister’s questions, and Pauline sat in the Gallery. Sadly, she passed away a few months after having to move, in November 2025, never having seen this issue corrected. I have pledged to continue this fight around pension communications and pension entitlement in her honour, together with her sons Simon and Les Haffenden. The Royal British Legion has been clear that the current state of affairs is, in its view, a violation of the armed forces covenant. When I raised this injustice with the Government via the DWP, they said that the Government have no plans to change this policy. When I asked a written parliamentary question on what it would cost to exempt military compensation from pension credit entitlements, the answer was that “no formal assessment has been made.” The Government say that they cannot afford to fix this, but they have not undertaken to find out what fixing it would even cost. They cannot hide behind affordability when they have never looked at the price tag. The Government have shown that they can act differently: after the Etherton review on LGBT veterans, the Minister confirmed that those compensation payments would, as is right, be exempt from tax and would not affect benefits. The Government have accepted the principle; it just has not been applied to Pauline, or the thousands of veterans like her. It must be applied to them, and that must be communicated to all of them. I urge the Minister to begin correcting this injustice by undertaking a financial assessment of this change, and communicating that to veterans in receipt of the war disablement pension. I urge him to meet me and Pauline’s sons, Simon and Les Haffenden, who are continuing the campaign, so that we can discuss provisions to correct this injustice before the Bill’s Report, and can ensure that no veteran is ever again penalised for serving our country.

It has been a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee set up to scrutinise this important legislation, which, as Members will know, renews our mandate for a standing Army and takes important strides on the covenant, service housing and service justice. The thrust of my speech will be against new clause 2, which is an attempt by the Opposition to play a political game with the timing of the publication of the crucial defence investment plan. First, I pay tribute to the armed forces community across my constituency. As I said on Second Reading, North Durham is home to a large number of veterans and families of serving personnel. As their Member of Parliament, I want to use my voice to stand up for those people in our community who are serving, or have served, our country. That is why I was so keen to play a role in the passage of this Bill. The Select Committee also allowed me to highlight the work of the combined cadet force at Park View school in Chester-le-Street. I welcome the provisions to better integrate cadets into our armed forces by transforming the reserve forces and cadets associations into a non-departmental public body. I turn to new clause 2. I would like to think that there is no one—with the possible exception of my hon. Friends the Ministers at the Ministry of Defence—who wants the defence investment plan tabled more than me. As I said in the defence estimates debate in this place on 4 March to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry: “My message to the Minister is to take back into the Whitehall system the support on both sides of the House for seeing the defence investment plan sooner rather than later”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 895.] We cannot afford more delay, because in the event of a war with a dangerous opponent, every month we delay could, in just a few years’ time, be a month in which our troops do not have the right kit in their hands. As a north-east MP, I am aware of the strong industrial case for providing certainty about the footprint of our defence spending, so that we can drive investment towards communities like the one I represent. Many of my constituents are proud to travel to work for BAE Systems in Washington, where they make munitions for the British armed forces and our gallant allies in Ukraine, or work at Pearson Engineering in Newcastle, making essential components for armoured vehicle programmes, such as the turrets for Challenger 3. My constituents also hope that future MOD contracts will lead to the north-east of England becoming a major centre for the space industry. We need to get this right. We only have one shot at dealing with the equipment implications of the strategic defence review. We do not have an infinite pot of money. In fact, all of us know that the state of the public finances that this Government inherited in 2024 means that the pot of money for many pressing priorities, including defence, is decidedly, and sadly, finite, so we must make the right decisions about where to allocate resources. As I have now said three times to the House, the political commitment of this Labour Government to finding the funding for defence equipment and procurement should not be doubted, given the early decision to cut the overseas development budget by half in order to increase defence spending. That was extremely painful and politically contentious, given that the aid budget is close to the hearts of many Labour Members, but it was the right thing for the Labour Government to do. That represented a historic commitment to the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. Given that, no one should be in any doubt of this Government’s preparedness to make the further tough political decisions needed to properly fund the defence of the nation. Indeed, I am hopeful that the DIP will be published before the plan would be that new clause 2 is trying to bounce the Government into. The Defence Secretary confirmed yesterday in the House that the Prime Minister is determined to publish the DIP before the NATO summit, which starts on 7 July. The plan in new clause 2 would be left until the end of the year, which is when the Bill will complete its passage. The Conservatives lost the political and moral right to dictate the timetable for how we best prepare for conflict after the British people ejected them from office, following over a decade of the tragic underfunding of our armed forces. Indeed, in their first year in government, the Conservative party cut defence spending by £2 billion. That is in stark contrast to this Government, who are spending over £11 billion more on defence than in the last year of the previous Government. Rather than tacking a timetable on to the Bill—a Bill that will play a hugely important role in improving how the state delivers for our armed forces community—I will be supporting the Government in publishing a well-thought-out DIP, that is not rushed but is published as soon as possible, so that we can start directing investment towards those industries that will play a key role in defending our nation in the coming years.

It was a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee, and I thank the Clerks and all those who made it run so smoothly. Today I will focus on one area. “I certainly think it is bizarre that there is not an English commissioner. That is 85% of the veteran population, while the other 15% have three commissioners to represent them. I would certainly support that.” Those are not my words, but those of retired Lieutenant Commander Susie Hamilton, the Veterans Commissioner for Scotland, in response to a question from the Minister for the Armed Forces on the Select Committee earlier this year, regarding whether there should be a veterans commissioner for England. The view shared by all three commissioners for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland is that the circa 1.4 million veterans who live in England lack their own veterans commissioner. They believe it is vital that we have parity and consistency across the nations, and an independent statutory advocate for veterans in England, so today I once again call for a national veterans commissioner for England, as proposed in new clause 3.

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and apologise for interrupting her flow. The point about consistency across the UK is important, and I support the creation of a veterans commissioner for England. In Scotland, the role is particularly important, because the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans in the Scottish Government is not a veteran, but a career politician. I think he moved from working for the party to working for an MSP, so that is the difference. The commissioner is a really important role in Scotland, as it bridges that gap. Will the hon. Lady join me in encouraging the SNP Government to create a veterans Minister who is himself or herself a veteran?

All experience of military life is valuable, but speaking as someone without military experience, I still think that something can be brought to the table by those who do not have such experience. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am sure the Scottish Government will have heard it put on record. The Royal British Legion launched a campaign to create the role of veterans commissioner for England back in 2023. The last Conservative Government accepted that request, and in 2024, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs began recruiting for the position. However, the 2024 general election was called shortly afterwards, and all progress was ceased. In the Select Committee, the response to that request was, “We now have an Armed Forces Commissioner, and Op Valour. That means that the role is not required.” We welcome former Air Commodore Polly Miller-Perkins CBE as the first Armed Forces Commissioner, and I wish her well in her role. However, that role was created to benefit serving personnel and their families. It will investigate general welfare matters in the armed forces. The Service Complaints Ombudsman will be abolished, and its functions and responsibilities will be transferred to the commissioner. Veterans would only be covered by the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner if a complaint related to their time in service, when they were subject to service law. There are, however, time limits for submitting a complaint, so generally that will apply only to veterans who have recently left the armed forces. We recognise the Government’s £50 million funding for Op Valour, which is the national programme designed to increase veterans’ access to relevant charities, services, and support across the UK. However, if Valour was the answer to all veterans issues, why has the position of Veterans Commissioner remained for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales? There is still fundamental value in establishing a veterans commissioner for England too. It should be a question not of either/or but of both. What would the veterans commissioner do? They would serve as an independent advocate and voice for veterans and their families in England, signpost veterans and their families to relevant charities and services based on their individual need, produce regular policy recommendations based on unmet need, work closely with Government agencies to develop and refine policies and services, and promote the community, leverage their skills and highlight what they offer to society.

In addition, this role would be able to assist with the armed forces covenant extension. One of the most critiqued aspects of the armed forces covenant is that it is poorly signposted and inconsistently enforced, and that compliance significantly varies from region to region. Speaking to serving personnel, the issue is that many are not aware of what it offers and do not feel genuine value from it. Enforcement is therefore a key issue.

Indeed, that very point was made last year in the Defence Committee report that stated that the issue was not about how the covenant was legislated for or the nature of the services provided, but about how it was enforced and provided for. Given that the Government seem content to expand the extent of the covenant, we should welcome the role of a veterans commissioner, because it would play a crucial role in accountability and in monitoring the implementation and impact of that extended covenant duty.

Equally, the veterans commissioner could play an important role in implementing the veterans strategy, with its three core themes to celebrate, contribute and support. They could also play an important role in co-ordinating responses of the veterans advisory and pensions committees across England to provide local outreach and independent co-ordination. The veterans advisory and pensions committees are an under-utilised resource and co-ordination by the veterans commissioner could support efforts to enhance their efficacy. Through regular reporting, the veterans commissioner could use this network to identify trends and evidence, and present those findings.

It is the Royal British Legion’s recommendation that the UK Government should introduce a veterans commissioner for England, ensuring that veterans and their families know who to turn to for advocacy and providing someone to campaign for and champion their needs at the heart of Government. I strongly urge the Government to listen.

It was an honour to serve on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and to help deliver on our general election promise to extend the armed forces covenant to every area of Government, to better support armed forces personnel and veterans. I was delighted to be joined on the Committee by so many veterans with experience, particularly the Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for South Ribble (Mr Foster), the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) and, not to forget, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst)—I would not want to upset him as he is almost a neighbour. Their input to the Committee and the work that we were able to do, across parties and with good temper, was extremely valuable, and the time spent was worth while. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has mentioned, it was extremely helpful to visit veterans and armed forces housing, and to meet members of the armed forces justice system and ask them questions. While our recollections of some of those conversations may differ slightly, it was still extremely useful to see how that system works in contrast to how our non-military justice system works. I welcome this Government’s commitment to placing a legal duty on public services to consider the circumstances of armed forces personnel and their families. My constituents want veterans to be supported and for those who serve to be able to do so with dignity and respect. It was encouraging to hear evidence from representatives of armed forces charities, the service families federations, officials from the service justice system and personnel from across the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence. They all recognised the importance of the changes we are making to turn the tide after years of under-investment by the Conservatives. Our armed forces are a source of national pride, and I want younger generations to see the armed forces as a future for themselves and an opportunity to do more for their country and contribute to the security of our nation. To make that a reality, armed forces personnel and their families need our full support and respect as they make daily sacrifices in their service to our country. That is why I am pleased that after years of military families being forced to deal with the lowest level of satisfaction with service family accommodation on record, we have brought 36,000 family homes back into public ownership, with the savings being reinvested in fixing and improving forces housing.

In my constituency, nearly 1,000 homes have been brought back into public ownership with the creation of the defence housing service. Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 13, which addresses the question of single living accommodation, threatens to undermine the new defence housing service before it has got off the ground? Although single living accommodation needs attention, that attention should be given within the armed forces umbrella.

I thank my hon. Friend for her valuable intervention and for sharing her experience, with so many military families living in her constituency, and I agree with her. New clause 13 focuses on single living accommodation, which is often of a relatively temporary nature. Our focus really needs to be on the catastrophic situation in family homes up and down the country, which we both saw on a visit down south. Service families deserve high-quality housing that meets military operational requirements while providing them with the comfort they need to support their family. The Bill’s establishment of the defence housing service will go a long way to meeting those needs with a generational renewal of more than 40,000 military homes, which will be modernised and upgraded, together with a historic programme of house building, with the potential for more than 100,000 new homes on surplus defence land for civilian and military families, with serving personnel and veterans coming first. This is the most significant plan in 50 years and a stark contrast with the scandal of the botched Tory privatisation that cost us billions, let military families down and left the country worse off. It was a real eye-opener to see at first hand the standard of accommodation that military families have been putting up with and the work needed to make those properties fit for our heroes and their families. I am immensely proud that in this Bill, we stand by our pledge to halve violence against women and girls. The service justice system is being modernised so that it can provide better victim support and ensure that the victims of the most serious offences have access to protection orders. Criminal behaviour does not belong in our armed forces. The UK has a strong record of cultivating the highest values and standards in some of the toughest conditions. We are bringing change to service justice, creating a victim-centred approach that will support personnel who are the victims of unacceptable sexual assault, domestic abuse, stalking and harassment. In a period of significant global instability, our commitment to the security of our country requires us to invest in our armed forces so that we can combat any challenges that we face as a country. Part of that must be about expanding our reserve forces. Individuals, including Members of this House, use their free time to make up an integral part of our armed forces, and I am incredibly proud when constituents of mine tell me that they are part of our reserves. Bedworth in my constituency hosts the largest and one of the most famous Armistice Day parades in Britain, held always on the 11th day of the 11th month. We truly are a town that never forgets. I pay tribute to all the veterans and service personnel in my constituency and all those who work in the defence industry supply chains. My constituents are proud that this Labour Government are backing our armed forces and improving the lives of our country’s bravest while putting our nation’s security first. I will continue to do what I can to support military families and veterans from my constituency, and I commend the Bill to the Committee. Before I close, I want to put on record at the start of Pride Month how proud I am to have seen the LGBT financial recognition scheme implemented, with a £75 million investment and a memorial, “An Opened Letter”, dedicated and unveiled by the King in October 2025. I recommend that everyone in this House and across the country makes a visit to the National Memorial Arboretum to see that memorial, which is a powerful reminder of the absolute injustice that was done to hard-working service personnel who were serving their country first to the best of their ability.

It was a pleasure to be a member of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, and it is an honour to speak on the Armed Forces Bill for a second time. It is to the Government’s credit that the responds to a number of the key challenges that our armed forces face in the 2020s. However, today I want to argue the case for new clause 13, which addresses the need to give every member of our armed forces a safe, decent home whatever their family circumstances. That is something the Liberal Democrats pushed for in the Select Committee, and it is a cause that is very close to my heart. Some who serve live in single living accommodation for decades—for their whole career. Not everyone chooses to be in a relationship, and many live in single living accommodation away from their wives and go home at the weekend, so sometimes they are there for their whole career, not just as a stepping stone until they find a partner and move into quarters. The Secretary of State has promised “the biggest renewal of Armed Forces housing in more than 50 years.” I echo his words—the least British forces personnel deserve is “a decent home”. Last year, the Government rightly agreed with our party that armed forces housing should meet the decent homes standard, and it was encouraging to see that commitment make its way into the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. However, there are two types of armed forces housing: service family accommodation and single living accommodation. In 2021, the Public Accounts Committee estimated that the latter may support as many as 80,000 people, more than half of our armed forces personnel. At that time, more than a third of armed forces personnel were believed to be living in the poorest grade of service housing, and 3% in accommodation so poor that they were exempt from paying rent. Section 101 of the Renters’ Rights Act misses out single living accommodation, despite many new recruits being young and too much of the defence housing estate being in a shocking state of repair. New clause 13 is our opportunity to begin to fix that. I speak from personal experience, having lived in single living accommodation myself as a still-wet-behind-the-ears young airman posted to Braunton block at what was then RAF Chivenor in North Devon in the late 1980s—it is now RMB Chivenor, a Royal Marine base. The nicest way I can describe that accommodation is to say that it was basic, but before family life happened, it was home to me and my mates for at least the two years I was at Chivenor. My room on that base is still there, and whichever Royal Marine has it today has every right to be housed somewhere without mould or damp while they serve King and country. We must ensure that by the time the next armed forces Bill comes before this House in 2031, the shameful findings of the last service accommodation report are a thing of the past. That is something that I believe this Government are attempting to do, as we saw on our visits as a Committee. As such, this Armed Forces Bill should amend the phrase “service family accommodation” wherever it appears in relation to the standard of forces housing, so that it also covers single living accommodation and any Ministry of Defence building being used for that purpose. Why should those serving who are single be treated any different from those serving who choose to be with their families? The Armed Forces Bill will have united support from parties across this House, and so should new clause 13. I urge the Government to be bold, to accept no half-measures and to deliver decent housing for every member of our armed forces.

You will be pleased to hear, Chair, that I will be relatively short. I am proud to welcome this Armed Forces Bill. It represents a vital step towards renewing our contract with those who keep us safe. As an MP with Redford barracks, Dreghorn barracks and RAF Kirknewton in my constituency, this Bill is of immense pride to me, but it is also of urgent necessity. I will focus on new clauses 3 and 5, but I start by welcoming the increased investment that underpins this renewal. Our new £9 billion defence housing strategy will be the biggest renewal of military accommodation in half a century and our forces families will benefit. I can see that already in Edinburgh South West. For too long, the state of service accommodation, as we have heard already, has been a source of deep frustration, but now it is slowly becoming a source of envy in my constituency as people watch these homes being upgraded. I am happy that this landmark strategy will significantly improve the state of service housing up and down the country. I have to thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for stepping in. The MOD was about to sell surplus homes in my constituency on the open market, but he stepped in to make sure that they were instead transferred to the council. Those ex-Army homes are now council homes, which is a fantastic outcome. New clause 3 relates to support for veterans. The Royal British Legion has rightly highlighted the outstanding vacancy for a veterans commissioner for England, which was advertised just a few days before the last general election. That is something we have to question. In Scotland, we have long seen the clear impact of our veterans commissioner, which I spoke about earlier, and it is only right that England has one too. I urge the Government to think about the issue seriously, but two points have to be considered. First, we have to look at the existing Veterans Commissioners to understand what is working and what is not, and to build on best practice. Secondly, Operation Valour is being rolled out at pace and at scale, so we have to get the interaction right between the Veterans Commissioner and Op Valour. We want action in this area, but we also have to show a little caution to make sure that we get it right first time. Through new clause 5, we have an opportunity to tear down some of the unfair barriers facing non-UK armed forces personnel. I welcome the intent behind the new clause, which seeks to amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications from spouses and children of current or former service personnel. A constituent recently raised with me the painful administrative hurdles affecting Commonwealth soldiers, veterans and their families who now call Edinburgh, Scotland and the wider UK their home. I met him at a fantastic open evening at the All Nations Christian Fellowship church on Oxgangs Avenue that culminated with some excellent food. He said that Edinburgh was his home now and he told me how proud he was to serve in 3 Rifles. I have never met anybody prouder to serve in our armed forces, despite the fact that he was not born in the UK. He also told me how he had lost some of his friends in Afghanistan. He is an amazing man in all sorts of ways, but I was ashamed to hear that he is expected to pay visa fees for his family to settle in the UK. He has left the forces now and is a proud veteran, but he is on a modest income. The fees he faces are incredible for him. He was not just advocating for himself—he is not a selfish person—but for others in his network too. It is right that the Government take this issue seriously. If someone is prepared to lay down their life for this country, their family should not face a financial penalty to live in it. We must give these brave individuals a fair and dignified pathway to settlement. I accept that is best led by the Home Office, but this debate has shown that Members from across the House, and certainly those in the Chamber, want to see action—I do not think anybody opposes that. We have to remember that, and we have to demand action. I am hopeful that this Bill will finally deliver the settlement that our military deserves. The promise is there, but we must ensure that it is matched by our delivery of housing, recruitment and fairness. I want to make three final points. The journey of this Bill will not be completed today; there will be other opportunities to amend it, and I hope that we will find space for the intent behind new clauses 3 and 5. There is no bigger supporter of devolution than me, but there is nothing worse than being on the wrong side of the border when it comes to accessing services. Military families who move between England and Scotland really feel the difference in childcare. It has different impacts, depending on the children’s age. If someone’s spouse happens to be a teacher, moving from Scotland to England, and vice versa, can be a huge hurdle. As we think about amending this Bill to make lives better for our armed forces personnel, the House should think carefully about families who move between England and the devolved nations, and make sure that we have a safety net in place so that they are never disadvantaged through serving our country. The last time I mentioned RAF Kirknewton, I made the point that it is the home of 661 Volunteer Gliding Squadron—the net zero fleet of the air force. It flies a fleet of four Grob Viking T1 gliders, and provides excellent experience for the Royal Air Force air cadets. What I did not say is that RAF Kirknewton is also the home of a meticulously recreated world war one Sopwith 1½ Strutter aircraft, which has been built by the Aviation Preservation Society of Scotland. I mention that because the big military installations in my constituency—Redford and Dreghorn barracks, and the airbase—have fences around them, but that does not mean that they are not well connected with the community. When I am out in Colinton, I meet serving armed forces people at the bus stop, at the school gates and in Colinton Mains Tesco. I do worry about the diet of some of our younger servicemen, but that is perhaps a debate for another day. When Colinton primary school closed due to snow a few years ago, it was the Army that came down and cleared it. Perhaps the parents were desperate to get their kids back to school—we have all been there! When there was a barbeque at the school a couple of years ago, it was the Army that provided it. Service personnel brought with them the rarest piece of military equipment that I have ever seen deployed: the Army’s bouncy castle, which was fully camouflaged. I have no idea what the Army does with it the rest of the year—perhaps there is a written question there somewhere. In my constituency, particularly around Colinton, the armed forces are fully integrated. This is something that I and local people cherish, and I really hope that this Bill and the covenant are about creating, maintaining and sustaining that kind of culture; all of us here have a duty to maintain that.

I thank everybody involved in bringing the Bill to this point today, particularly Ministers and members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. It has been a serious amount of work, because this is not a typical Armed Forces Bill through which we are performing our constitutional duty in this House to renew our armed forces; it goes much further than that. It pushes forward our armed forces covenant and makes it real across the country, it finally gives our armed forces the housing and justice that they deserve, and it gives our reserves a true role to play in the defence our nation. That is why we have to pass the Bill. Some really important amendments have been tabled, and I particularly want to cover Government amendment 9 on the armed forces covenant, and Government amendments 48, 51 and 54, which relate to the new defence housing service. First, the armed forces covenant goes to the heart of this country’s commitment to our armed forces. We have talked about it so much for so many years, but in reality is it justly applied across the country? This Bill goes to the heart of that question, and tries to put the covenant into practice. When we talk about our armed forces, we are talking about a community of those who have served of 4.5 million people, including 2 million veterans who are alive today. Yet for many of them, support has depended less on the principles, and more on a postcode lottery. For too long, the covenant has been the right idea, but too often the wrong experience on the ground. We have had the principle of no disadvantage, yet delivery has been uneven and inconsistent. Let us take my county of Hertfordshire as an example. It has 11 councils, including four in my constituency. I can tell hon. Members from my own experience that the way those councils apply the covenant varies tremendously. Amendment 9 is so important because it applies the covenant to the new combined authorities, which we will soon have in my county. By expanding that legal duty, we are recognising the simple truth that the decisions that shape people’s lives—in housing, planning, local services—are not all taken in one place, and if the covenant is going to work, it has to exist everywhere that those decisions are made.

I commend the hon. Gentleman on his speech. The Minister knows this, because he has practical experience and knowledge of Northern Ireland, but we want to see the covenant in its totality there. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) is right that want it to be the same, whether in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Portadown—or Newtownards in my constituency. There are anomalies in Northern Ireland. For instance, a veteran who has served in and has now left the forces should be getting priority housing. That does not happen, but it should happen, because conditions in Northern Ireland are different from here on the mainland. There are other shortcomings and shortfalls too. In my council area of Ards and North Down, a fellow called Councillor Trevor Cummings is responsible for veterans, and he works very hard to make the covenant happen. The point I am trying to make is that there needs to be fairness everywhere. The hon. Member for Stevenage is right to say that—I support him 100%. Perhaps the Minister, when he comes back in, will give us some reassurance in that regard.

As ever, the hon. Member speaks up not just for his constituents, but for the welfare of the armed forces community in Northern Ireland, and I am sure this Government will treat them with the respect they deserve. In my area, Stevenage borough council has signed the armed forces covenant. However, this is not just about a piece of paper; it is about working to turn that commitment into something real. We are working with the armed forces community, including with initiatives such as the Muster Point—a grassroots mutual support veterans organisation, where veterans talk to each other. The group brings cases to the council and think, “Let’s work out a solution to make sure that this person is not left behind”, making sure that council staff understand the needs of the veterans who come to them. That work in Stevenage is led locally by our armed forces champion, Councillor Claire Parris, who works with veterans at the Muster Point—like Stu Mendelson, Steve Black and many others who have visited this place, including earlier today—to ensure they are not left behind, and that places like this and others across the country are truly for them too. The reality, though, is that such joined-up, practical delivery has not been consistent across the country. For too long, service families have been told that the covenant exists, only to find that their experience depends on the postcode in which they live. When we look at the Bill, and at amendment 9, the question is not whether we need more frameworks, new office holders or more statements; the question is whether we finally ensure the covenant works everywhere in this country of ours, not just in the places where there is strong local leadership. The duty in this Bill embeds the covenant across the system and ensures that the approach in my constituency of Stevenage is not the exception, but the standard. After years during which the covenant was talked about but not consistently delivered, this Bill will start to make that consistency real. Secondly, I turn to amendments 48, 51 and 54 on service housing. As we have heard in this debate, for too long service families were expected to put up with conditions that simply would not be tolerated anywhere else. Two thirds of service family accommodation needs major work, repair satisfaction has collapsed to as low as 16% and tens of thousands of complaints have been made year upon year. Let us be honest about how we got here. That is the legacy of a failed housing model, a botched privatisation that left families living in substandard homes while taxpayers continued to foot the bill. This Government are now putting that right, making a £9 billion investment in our service housing, upgrading or rebuilding tens of thousands of homes and, crucially, bringing homes back into public ownership so that we can finally take back control of standards and delivery. It is not just about comfort; it is about capability too. When only four in 10 personnel are satisfied with service life and morale has fallen to record lows, housing is not a side issue. It is central to retention, readiness and the future of the armed forces.

I have not served in the armed forces, but like many other Members I have had the privilege of being part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, through which we get to visit bases around the country, as I did with the RAF last year. The personnel we met are proud—they are proud not just of their service, but of their families—but they want homes for those families as well, and the homes that they have vary massively. We have seen some great examples of what can be done, but we have also seen examples of things that have not been dealt with for generations. We owe it to them to ensure a future for them and their families in that accommodation.

The creation of the defence housing service is a decisive break with the past. It puts forces families first, and it gives the Government the tools to act and to start the job of properly rebuilding the estate. Members of this House, and indeed the wider British public, are rightly proud of our armed forces and our veterans, but we need to demonstrate that pride in meaningful action. That is what the Bill will do.

Thank you, Mrs Cummins, for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. As an MP who represents the west coast of Scotland—a large part of my seat is on the River Clyde—I felt it was important to contribute to this debate. In my constituency, there are quite a number of serving and retired servicemembers, and we have many families who settled in the constituency to work in the war effort during the second world war. It is a constituency with strong connections to the armed forces, and the veterans charity Erskine was founded there in the former Erskine veterans hospital. The measures in the Bill will be welcomed across Great Britain. I was fortunate enough to join local service personnel to learn about the armed forces covenant shortly after my election and I have been greatly encouraged to learn of local employers signing it and embracing it. It is well past time that the Government did the same. I know, too, that the provisions on service family housing will be broadly welcomed across the country. I look forward to seeing the benefits of concerted efforts to improve housing for families in my constituency. Housing in our communities is so important, not just in providing a place to sleep, but for access to the local community, schools, health services and so on. Our communities are open and generous, and they appreciate the sacrifices made by service personnel. I look forward to welcoming more retired and serving service personnel to Paisley and Renfrewshire North.

It is a privilege to speak in support of the Bill and the Government amendments tabled today, which improve housing, strengthen protections for serving personnel and their families, and ensure that our armed forces are prepared for the challenges of an increasingly uncertain world. Much of this debate rightly focuses on structures, powers and processes, but the strength of our armed forces ultimately comes down to the brave men and women who choose to serve our country, and the families who support them. In South East Cornwall, we see that every day through the close connection between our communities and the Royal Navy. People arrive from across the UK to begin their service careers at HMS Raleigh, and many leave with lifelong friendships, skills and a deep sense of purpose. The recruits of Gould 25/37 successfully passed out from their initial naval training just recently. I know the whole House will join me in congratulating them on this significant achievement and in wishing them every success as they begin their careers in service to our country. One recruit marked the occasion in particularly memorable fashion, by proposing to his now fiancée; I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating Cameron and Lexi on their engagement and in wishing them a long and happy future together. Their engagement is a reminder that places such as HMS Raleigh are not simply training establishments; for many, they are where futures are built and the values of service, commitment and community are lived every day. As we consider the Bill, we must remember that behind every policy and every provision are the people who make our armed forces great. That is why I particularly welcome Government amendments to clause 3, which creates a new defence housing service, as I think about that young couple and the home they hope to build together. We cannot hope to strengthen recruitment, retention and national readiness if service personnel and their families are living in unacceptable accommodation.

Like my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, I have many serving folks in my patch. We have a particular issue in Plymouth related to South West Water, which I know she also deals with. Unlike their neighbours, when there are outages, people in service accommodation cannot immediately access compensation pay. While their neighbours who are not in service accommodation pay South West Water directly, those in service accommodation go through a kind of third-party service and therefore do not get that compensation immediately. The Minister is well aware of the matter, because he helped me out with some related casework last year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must look at that in the Bill, to ensure that people in service accommodation get compensation just as quickly as their neighbours and are not disadvantaged by being in the forces?

I agree that we must work together on these important issues. We cannot hope to strengthen our recruitment, retention and national readiness if the accommodation is unacceptable. The Bill delivers a landmark programme of investment to build, renew and repair military homes and put forces families first. The Tory privatisation of military housing cost taxpayers billions, while leaving many service personnel and their families in accommodation that simply was not good enough. I also welcome amendments to clause 2 on the expansion of the armed forces covenant, which will extend to recognise that service life presents unique challenges, including frequent relocations, disruption to education, difficulties accessing healthcare and impacts on family life. Ensuring that public bodies properly recognise those challenges is an important step towards delivering the support that serving personnel, veterans and their families truly deserve. This issue matters to our armed forces. We know that military morale fell to deeply concerning levels under the previous Government—something that should worry every Member of this House. I represent a constituency with proud military communities, and I know the challenges faced by serving families and children with special educational needs and disabilities. Frequent moves can disrupt education and support networks at the very moment when stability is most needed. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome the work being undertaken in partnership with the Department for Education to improve continuity and support. I am also particularly pleased to welcome the amendments to clause 7 to strengthen protections against sexual violence, domestic abuse, stalking and harassment. Violence against women and girls remains one of the greatest challenges facing our society. No one should ever face abuse, intimidation or violence, and certainly not those who serve our community in this way. In a few weeks’ time, I will have the privilege of attending another passing-out parade at HMS Raleigh. The Minister has previously joined me to meet veterans in Torpoint, home to one of the country’s largest veteran populations; I hope he will accept my invitation to revisit South East Cornwall at the earliest opportunity, to meet the recruits who represent the bright future of our armed forces and to discuss the vital role that my constituency continues to play in supporting our nation’s defence. This Bill recognises that a strong armed forces depends on strong people, strong families and strong communities such as mine, and I am proud to support it. I look forward to seeing the difference that these measures will make for those who serve.

On Second Reading, I spoke about the armed forces covenant and the importance of translating our gratitude to those who serve into practical support. Today, I am proud to speak in support of the Government’s housing measures in clause 3 and the associated amendments, which address perhaps the most tangible test of whether we are keeping our side of the bargain with our armed forces community: the homes they live in. As the Member for Aldershot, the home of the British Army, I represent around 1,800 service family homes—one of the largest concentrations anywhere in the United Kingdom. The success of these reforms will thus be felt directly by thousands of military families in my constituency. For those families, the quality of their accommodation is not an abstract policy issue; it affects family life, children’s wellbeing, retention, morale and operational effectiveness. For years, too many service families have lived in homes that fall short of the standards that they deserve. I hear from families who face persistent maintenance problems, personnel who are frustrated by repair systems that feel difficult to navigate and parents who simply want a safe, decent home in which to raise their children. I therefore welcome the action that the Government are taking on defence housing. I welcome the £9 billion investment, the refurbishment of nine out of 10 these houses, and the housing officers who will be on the streets of Aldershot as a result of this Government. The creation of a new defence housing service, alongside the wider defence housing strategy, represents a serious and necessary step forward, and the commitment to long-term investment, clearer accountability and better standards will matter enormously to constituencies such as mine. Welcoming those measures does not mean lowering our ambitions, but rather the opposite. If we are to rebuild trust with service families, the reforms must be felt in everyday life—in repairs completed quickly, damp and mould dealt with properly and a system that listens, responds and follows through. I gently urge Ministers to ensure that the defence housing service has the authority, funding and accountability it needs to succeed, with service families placed at the heart of its design and delivery. Defence housing is not just about families, however; single living accommodation matters too. For many serving personnel, particularly younger personnel or those living away from their families, single living accommodation is their home. It shapes their daily lives, morale and wellbeing and their sense of whether they are valued by the country they serve. That is why I welcome the Government’s review of single living accommodation and the overseas estate. It is right that we look carefully at the standard of accommodation being provided to those who serve, whether they live with their family or in single accommodation. As the strategic defence review recognised, accommodation is not simply an estates issues, but a retention issue, a recruitment issue and a readiness issue. The test for us now is delivery. Before I conclude, I want to reflect on a letter I recently received from a constituent who is the father of a serving RAF member. He wrote to me about helping his son move into accommodation at the start of a new posting—his first. As any parent would be, he was proud that his son had chosen to serve his country and proud to see him beginning the next chapter of his career; but when he saw the room that his son had been allocated, that pride turned to concern. The room was small, outdated and in poor condition; there was no heating, and basic facilities were inadequate. His son had to leave behind many of his possessions that made him feel at home, because there simply was not the space. What struck me most was the father’s description, not of the building itself, but of leaving his son behind. As policymakers, it is easy for us to talk about estates, stock, programmes and investment. Those things matter, but perhaps the best test is a simpler one. When we make decisions about military housing, we should ask ourselves first: if those were our sons or daughters, would we be content to leave them there? Would we feel reassured driving away? Would we believe that they were being treated with the dignity and respect that their service deserved, and would we feel that the nation was keeping its promise to them? If the answers are no, then we must do better. That is why I welcome the action that this Government are taking and the commitment to improve service family accommodation and review single living accommodation. I hope that Ministers will continue to push forward with urgency and ambition, because those who serve our country deserve decent homes and their families deserve peace of mind. Their service deserves our respect, and our gratitude must be matched by action.

I call the shadow Minister.

Having addressed our amendments towards the opening of the debate, I will now speak to the new clauses. New clause 3 would create a veterans’ commissioner for England. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) made a good case for doing so during the Select Committee on the Bill, and did so again this afternoon. She received cross-party support—certainly in principle—from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who made an extremely thoughtful contribution. He also gave my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) some support for new clause 5, which I will come to in a moment. When I was debating the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill—now the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025—with the Minister some months ago, he gave a commitment that the veterans’ commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be mirrored by the appointment of a veterans’ commissioner for England. However, that has still not come to pass. Could he explain to the Committee where the Government now sit on this issue? When can we expect them to honour their pledge to create a veterans’ commissioner for England? Have they begun any interview process, to at least begin to identify a suitable candidate for the role? The Government gave their word on this. The Committee would be grateful for an update from the Minister on where the Government are with this matter. I turn to new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, which has the support of over 20 hon. Members. The essence of the new clause is that no fees should be charged to serving or previously serving members of the armed forces, or their family members, who are applying for indefinite leave to remain under the immigration rules appendix for His Majesty’s armed forces. In practical terms, the new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 so that when members of the armed forces apply for ILR, in return for their willingness to serve the Crown, the attendant fees would be waived. This is a particular issue for Gurkha families, and foreign and Commonwealth personnel who are serving, or have served, in the armed forces.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Gurkha community. I want to pay tribute to the Queen’s Gurkha Regiment and the 30th Signal Regiment, based just outside my constituency. The Gurkhas who served are an essential and integral part of our community; they offer great value, and integrate into the community. I thank him for mentioning them, and for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to those Gurkhas who live in or around my constituency.

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I think she may have been here just a few months ago when we had a debate about the history of the Gurkhas in British service. I echo everything she said about the bravest of the brave. I therefore look forward to her supporting the new clause in the Division Lobby this evening. The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland have campaigned on this matter for a number of years. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon for taking up the cudgels so effectively on their behalf this afternoon. As he argued powerfully, Governments of both colours have indicated in the past that they were minded to make this change. Indeed, it is worth reiterating that this proposal was in both the Conservatives’ and Labour’s 2024 general election manifestos, but the change has yet to come to pass. Having re-examined the issue within His Majesty’s Opposition and consulted shadow departmental colleagues, I am pleased to tell the Committee that should my hon. Friend seek to press the new clause—and should you grant that request, Madam Chairman—we on the Opposition Front Bench will support it. We encourage all hon. Members to do so, too. There would be a cost to the process, but we believe that, in return for service to this country, the Ministry of Defence should absorb that cost in its wider budget. The annual cost would be a very modest outgoing, given the scale of the defence budget. In other words, the Department would bear the cost, not those who have served or their families. People should not be disadvantaged for having offered to serve this country in uniform. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon put the case very well, and I will not try the House’s patience by repeating it. Suffice it to say that I believe that there is a strong moral case for doing this, and I very much hope that the Government might be prepared to accept the amendment. If they are not, I hope that my hon. Friend will press his amendment to a vote, and in that case, I hope that the whole House will find it in their heart to support it. New clauses 1 and 6 relate to the European convention on human rights and its effect on armed forces personnel, including, potentially, reservists who might be mobilised under the auspices of the Bill. How did we get to a situation in which the convention has spread to the battlefield, not just in Europe, but globally? The history is significant here; it lies behind why we tabled the two new clauses. This all came about because of something called the al-Jedda case, which was heard before the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords a couple of years or so before the United Kingdom Supreme Court was created back in 2009. The al-Jedda case was about the treatment of a prisoner detained in Iraq during Operation Telic, and was brought by a now disgraced lawyer called Phil Shiner. His name will be known to anyone who has ever served in the British Army. For the record, Shiner was subsequently convicted of fraud and struck off as a practising solicitor. Phil Shiner instructed legal counsel to put forward his case to the House of Lords. The lead appellant in that case, before he became a Member of Parliament, was one Keir Starmer QC. The Minister for Veterans and People got into some trouble over that, because when we highlighted the matter in the Commons, she was adamant that he had not been working for Shiner. Unfortunately for the Minister, we had the court records from the House of Lords, which showed very clearly that Keir Starmer, as he then was, was the lead appellant appointed and instructed—that word is used in the records—by Phil Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers. The Minister had the embarrassment of having to come to the Commons in February to correct the record and admit that our version of events, as explained to the Commons, was true. Phil Shiner was a persistent man, particularly when money was at stake, so several years after losing in the House of Lords, he took the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. To be clear, Keir Starmer was not acting in that action. Shiner won, so the Strasbourg Court ruled that the European convention on human rights would then apply to any theatre in which British armed forces personnel were serving. Through that judgment, an industry was effectively created, which Shiner then massively exploited. He brought literally hundreds of cases against current and past British armed forces personnel. Many of the cases were funded by British taxpayers through legal aid, and were completely and utterly fabricated for money. It was the use of the ECHR that allowed him to do that. In other debates in the Chamber, we have heard senior Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, say that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution. Self-evidently, there must be, because otherwise why was Shiner struck off and convicted of fraud by a court of law? There can be—in fact, there were—hundreds of vexatious prosecutions against British military personnel. It was, for the record, Johnny Mercer, a former Member of this House, when he served on the Defence Committee some years ago, who led a sub-Committee investigation into this issue. Its very powerful report helped to bring Shiner to book, no doubt saving the taxpayer a lot of money, and leading to Shiner’s career ending in disgrace. To come to the present day, what if there were a ceasefire in Ukraine? Let us posit a situation in which, under the auspices of the coalition of the willing, British service personnel were deployed to Ukraine. If, by some happenstance, they became involved in a firefight with Russian troops who had made an incursion across the line of ceasefire, who is to say that years—maybe decades—later, those personnel would not end up in a court of law for obeying what they believed to be perfectly legitimate orders, after some second-guessing by a human rights lawyer, perhaps with Russian assistance? In short, we cannot allow this Government’s obsession with human rights to put our armed forces at risk, either now, in the future or historically, and potentially force them to fight ruthless opponents with one arm tied behind their back. This issue will not go away, and at some point, the Government will be forced to address it, be it through the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill or some other mechanism. The purpose of these new clauses is to force them to address it today.

I should like to quote a few words from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), speaking just a couple of months ago in this Chamber: “This month marks 20 years since I returned from serving on Operation Telic 7 in Iraq. While I was there, we patrolled Basra in Snatch Land Rovers, and 34 British soldiers died in Snatch Land Rovers. They were called “mobile coffins” and “suicide wagons” for a reason. In 2006, it was highlighted to the Government that those vehicles were unsuitable, and it was not until years later that they were replaced.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2026; Vol. 783, c. 842.] It was not the ECHR that put British soldiers’ lives at risk in Iraq, but it was the ECHR that provided the legal basis for the families of those victims to seek justice. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is looking through the wrong end of the telescope on this one. By seeking to remove us from the ECHR, he is potentially putting British service people at greater risk, rather than offering them protection.

It is extremely sad that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to conflate two completely different issues, and I suspect that anyone who actually served on Operation Telic would understand that. Having made that point, let me turn to the Opposition’s new clause 2, which would require the Secretary of State for Defence to lay a defence investment plan before Parliament within a month of the passage of this Act, if it had still not been published by then, which, for reasons I will come to in a minute, is not as fantastical as it might seem. For context, today is the one-year anniversary of the publication of the Government’s much-vaunted strategic defence review. There is a lot of good in the document, but one of the criticisms made at the time was that much of the programmatic detail on which new equipment the Government intended to purchase for our armed forces was omitted. For instance, the Government talked about buying “up to” 12 new nuclear attack submarines. That could mean two. All that detail was going to be provided in the defence investment plan, but one year on, it has still not been published. This has drawn serious criticism from right across the defence industry, and also from the authors of the SDR. Indeed, the lead author, Lord Robertson, a lifelong Labour man to his fingertips, has accused the Prime Minister of “corrosive complacency” because of the ongoing delay in saying how the Government will fund the strategic defence review and its attendant equipment requirements. When we were in government, we used to publish a 10-year plan for the purchase of military equipment, universally known as the equipment plan.

In a moment. The plan allowed industry to make rational decisions about where to invest, helped to improve the morale of our armed forces by letting them know about the new equipment they could expect to come into service, and had an important deterrent effect on our potential adversaries by laying out exactly what we intended to buy for the defence of the realm. All those things have now been put at risk by a year of the Government’s endless prevarication and inaction.

As a matter of fact, that is not how I interpret what the NAO said—not at all.

No, the hon. Gentleman has had his go. The Committee may remember that we were promised that the DIP would be published in the autumn; then, we were faithfully promised it by Christmas; and then we were absolutely, definitely going to get it in the new year. But here we are in June—and, incredibly, still no DIP.

Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at the report published by techUK, which represents a lot of small and medium-sized companies in the defence tech sector, and seen what it has to say, objectively, about the number of jobs that are being lost in the sector, the lack of investment in the sector, the pressure that its members are coming under and the sector’s lack of viability given this continued, unbearable delay? It needs certainty. When are we going to have it?

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We would all like to know when we are going to have it, but the reason we do not have it is simple. It is not that the staff work has not been completed—it has. It is not that the programmes have not been costed—they have. The fundamental problem is that while Ministers say they are working flat out and knocking themselves out on it, and are reduced to euphemisms about how hard they are working, it was actually done months ago. The problem is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer adamantly refuses to sign it, because if she signed it, she would have to say how she is going to pay for it. That is why MOD Ministers are completely hide-bound: the Prime Minister will not force the Chancellor to sign the equipment plan for the armed forces of the United Kingdom. The delay is becoming a farce. Indeed, we are now being widely criticised by our international partners, including, just the other day, the chairman of the NATO Military Committee. At Defence questions, the Secretary of State was adamant that the Prime Minister wanted the DIP published by the NATO summit. That raises two questions: which NATO summit, and which Prime Minister? Assuming he means the summit in Ankara on 7 to 8 July, this vital document will be delayed for yet another month. What is worse, last year there were £2.6 billion of in-year operational cuts to the defence budget, and this year there are £3.5 billion of in-year cuts. We will press new clause 2 to force a vote on a backstop plan to produce the DIP, to remind His Majesty’s Treasury that the first duty of government, above all others, is the defence of the realm. We cannot defend the realm with a lot of bluster and an equipment plan that does not exist.

I thank all Members who have spoken today for their contributions and for upholding cross-party support for our armed forces. The Bill takes significant steps to improve the conditions of service life, and renews the contract between our nation and those who serve. It delivers on a manifesto promise to extend the armed forces covenant to every area of Government—from three to 12 policy areas. We will go further, backed by a £9 billion defence housing strategy, to build, renew and repair tens of thousands of military homes. We are modernising and improving victim support and ensuring that the service justice system can protect the victims of the most serious offences from further harm. We will expand the reserve pool by changing the maximum age limit at which some personnel can be recalled, so that we would, if needed, be able to call on some of the most experienced volunteer reservists. These are significant but necessary changes to boost preparedness in an era of ever-increasing threat. I will now address some of the major issues highlighted in the debate, starting with new clause 5. I have served all over the world with Gurkhas, Fijians and broader Commonwealth troops. They serve our country, and they serve it with honour and courage. The very least we can do is help them and their dependants by scrapping visa fees after four years of service. This is not about politics or a difference of opinion; it is about language and bounding the commitment in legislation in the correct way. There is already a settlement fee waiver in place for serving personnel, introduced in 2022, to recognise the burden of settlement fees at the point of discharge for those who have served for six or more years or been medically discharged due to their service. However, that fee waiver did not extend to dependants or recognise serving personnel who become eligible for settlement after four years of service. That is why this Government have committed to scrap visa fees for non UK veterans who have served for four years or more and their dependants, and Home Office and Ministry of Defence Ministers are working closely together to deliver it; my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People met the relevant Home Office Minister just recently. We remain firmly committed to this manifesto pledge and will deliver it fully. I understand the intention behind new clause 5 and the desire to make progress quickly. However, as drafted, it would not clearly achieve the intent set out in the explanatory statement, which appears to be narrower. While the explanatory statement refers to “spouses or children”, the new clause itself appears to waive fees for serving personnel, previously serving personnel and “their family members”, using broad and undefined categories that would create significant uncertainty and a lack of clarity about who precisely was within scope. It also contains no clear link to length of service or a time limit after discharge. Taken together, that risks creating a broader and unclear statutory entitlement with unintended consequences, rather than a targeted and coherent measure that families and dependants can easily understand. In addition, section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014 provides that fee exceptions should be set out in secondary legislation. By introducing a fee exception into the 2014 Act, new clause 5 would cut across that existing statutory framework and reduce clarity in the fee structure by creating an alternative mechanism for controlling fees. The Government are committed to delivering the manifesto commitment in full, and it is important that Ministers retain the ability to determine the appropriate scope, eligibility and delivery approach so that it is implemented fairly.

I recognise that the Minister wants to deliver this manifesto commitment as much as I do. However, after two years we have made little progress, mostly due to the machinery of government within the Home Office. This new clause was tabled some time ago, and the Government have had ample opportunity to refine the detail of it in order to make it acceptable to be voted on this evening and passed by the Government. Why have the Government taken no steps to work with me to get this measure across the line, given that it is a manifesto pledge of the Government? Can he also give some indication of when the pledge will be delivered, if the Government choose wrongfully to vote against my new clause this evening?

We need to move this legislation forward in the right manner and as fast as possible. I recommend that the hon. Member continues to push this case. My hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People and I have heard him loud and clear, we have heard the armed forces community loud and clear, and we are committed to delivering this in line with the intent.

Will the Minister give way?

I will make some progress. New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to lay a defence investment plan before both Houses of Parliament. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the defence investment plan will be published before the NATO summit, and we are working hard to finalise it. I recommend that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) reads the NAO report which says that when we came into government, we were left a huge deficit and 47 out of 49 major programmes were not on budget or on time.

Have the Minister and the Veterans Minister now seen the defence investment plan?

I commend that fantastic question. Yes, I have seen the defence investment plan. Importantly, we are primarily focused on learning the lessons from Ukraine and acting upon them—something that the last Government failed to do at the right scale, hence why I left the military. New clauses 1 and 6 seek to exempt members of the reserve forces deployed on operations from the ECHR, and would require any future Secretary of State to consider whether to make a derogation under article 15. The UK has binding international obligations under the ECHR, including in limited extraterritorial circumstances where we exercise control over individuals or areas. Those obligations have implications for the way UK forces, including reserve forces, conduct UK operations. I will not shy away from the fact that we hold our armed forces to the very highest legal standards, and time and again they deliver. New clause 1 seeks to change domestic law, but it would not remove our international obligations. The UK cannot opt out on a case-by-case basis; doing so would simply shift cases to Strasbourg. New clause 6 is also unnecessary as the Secretary of State can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR. I will read that again: new clause 6 is also unnecessary as the Secretary of State can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR, meaning that the provision does not provide them with any additional powers. I do not want to be in the same club as Belarus or Russia.

Ukraine has derogated from the ECHR. Does that put it in the same bracket as Belarus and Russia?

I remind Conservative Members that clause 12 of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, introduced by the previous Government, would have required any future Secretary of State to consider whether to make a derogation under article 15 in relation to significant overseas operations. The previous Government removed elements of clause 12 during the Bill’s final stages, because concerns were raised that the provision risked damaging the UK’s reputation for upholding the rule of law and being committed to human rights. It was the previous Government who did that. Clause 12 was also seen as unnecessary in that the Government can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR, meaning that the provision did not add any additional legal powers. New clause 3 seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to appoint a national veterans commissioner for England, and it sets out the functions for the proposed office holder. I acknowledge the sentiment behind the new clause, which is to ensure that those who have served receive the recognition and support they deserve. The Veterans Commissioners for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not statutory offices, so such a role would not in itself require legislation. We are putting in place the Valour programme, which will first look at digital. There will be a Valour lead and a digital headquarters, and there will then be Valour officers and centres. Once that is in place, we will need to consider whether we need a veterans commissioner for England, how that docks into the Valour programme, and how it docks into the Veterans Commissioners in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. We will update the House in due course once that is in place.

On new clause 5, we do not yet have the date for the second day on this Bill for Report and Third Reading, but it seems likely that it will be before the summer recess on 16 July. Taking the Minister at his word, and knowing where his heart lies on this issue, will he give the House an assurance that when we get that second day—whenever it is—and we table a similar amendment on Report, he will be able to come back to us with some progress, including with the Home Office?

We will provide an update on progress once we have spoken to the Home Office and when the Bill comes back to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who makes fantastic efforts with the Defence Committee, highlighted the binding commitment across Whitehall Departments that the covenant will be expanded from three to 12 different policy areas. That is a fantastic move for the armed forces community, and it places a duty of care on Government to consider the armed forces in almost everything we do. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) highlighted recruitment and retention. I remind him that we have seen a 12% increase in recruitment and a 9% decrease in outflow. We have put in retention payments for critical roles and made two inflation-busting pay rises. Morale is up and satisfaction with housing is up, as indeed is satisfaction with pay. When it comes to using the civilian justice system or the service justice system, the onus must be on giving the victim the choice over their preference—that has come through time and again. The Atherton report was in 2021, and a huge amount of change has been put in place. I have spoken to a variety of different individuals across defence, and they always return to ensuring that there is preference at the point of choice.

On that point, will the Minister give way?

No, I will make some progress. The advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and his support for the armed forces has been remarkable. The Minister for Veterans and People has met Ministers from the Department for Education and the Home Office to discuss both the points that my hon. Friend raised. His support for the covenant, and for ensuring that other Government Departments abide with it, is essential. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) that we will bring the language up to date to reflect the unitary and single authorities. I thank her for her support in ensuring that the RFA comes under the Armed Forces Commissioner. That was truly outstanding work. I also remind the House that the credit union service for the participation of service personnel and MOD civil servants celebrated its 10-year anniversary last year—so the offer to take part in the credit union service is already there.

The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), with his extensive experience, highlighted that the Bill increases the recall age of reserves to 65 years. Although it should not be a surprise, I remind him that there is an opt-in for those who have already left the armed forces and an opt-out for those who are serving. The option is definitely there, but he is right that we need to put in place mechanisms for tracking and involving reserves, and to change the culture around how we treat our strategic reserve.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for highlighting the barbaric invasion of Ukraine by Russia, in particular the continual bombardment of Kyiv, and for championing the defence housing strategy, through which nine out of 10 houses will get modernisation—that is 40,000 houses across the entire estate. We have also put in a place a consumer standard and are going to refurbish a minimum of 10,000 houses across the estate.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) set out his valiant and impressive support for Pauline, who was a fantastic example of the veterans community; we will continue to take his argument forward in Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) supported delivering the DIP before the NATO summit. We will move forward with that.

The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) highlighted the utility of an English veterans commissioner and how that could connect into Valour. As she said, the role of veterans commissioner is not a statutory office, so legislation is not required but could provide utility in the future; I think this point is about how the role docks into Valour overall.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) was correct to talk about the importance of getting the relationship between Valour and the English veterans commissioner right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) was right to highlight the postcode lottery of the covenant. We have now extended the covenant to over 12 areas of policy to ensure that people can be held to account. Equally, although the covenant can be accepted, in some cases it will indeed be applied differently.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) was right to champion veterans across the entire country, from Scotland to Northern Ireland, Wales and England, and to set out the support they give back to the country once they have left the armed forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) mentioned Cameron and Lexi. I congratulate Cameron on proposing after completing initial training—I can tell the House that after I completed my initial training, I was in no fit state to propose to anyone!

The right hon. Members for Rayleigh and Wickford and for South West Wiltshire asked whether it is right to include veteran officers on boards to increase the depth and wealth of experience on courts martial. Since 2021, we have increased the potential pool of board members and OR-7s—the equivalent of Royal Marine colour sergeants, staff sergeants, chief petty officers and flight sergeants—are now able to sit on boards. We have mixed service boards to ensure that there are women and men on every board. Both reserves and regulars may sit on boards. I remind Members that we have 331 one stars in the military, so there is no shortage of senior ranks to sit on those boards, although convincing them to do so may be the problem.

This Bill is a great step forward for the armed forces. It renews our armed forces at a time of heightened geopolitical tension. It delivers a defence housing service—a once-in-a-generation chance to deal with the acute problem, and with the systemic failure of the last 14 years. The covenant expands from three to 12 policy areas, and it is the heart of our country’s commitment to our armed forces communities and to our veterans, and it allows us to hold other Government Departments to account to ensure that they deliver.

The service justice system will provide better protections and better services to all who serve with our armed forces. The amendments to reserves will simplify the system and enhance our strategic reserve, should we need it at a time of crisis. There are also smaller amendments, such as freedoms to counter drones and protect our wrecks across our oceans.

I will finish where I started: by thanking everyone across the entire House, the Committee, the Clerks and the staff for pulling the Bill together and making it a success.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Armed forces covenant

Amendments made: 8, page 3, line 35, after “borough council,” insert—

“(iv) the Greater London Authority,”.

This amendment and Amendment 9 specify further local authorities in England which must have regard to the matters which comprise the armed forces covenant when exercising certain functions.

Amendment 9, page 3, line 36, at end insert—

“(vii) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or

(viii) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.”—(Al Carns.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Defence housing and other property

Amendments made: 10, page 10, line 9, leave out “or Wales” and insert “, Wales or Scotland”.

This amendment and related Government amendments to clause 3, clause 52 and Schedule 1 enable the compulsory acquisition of land in Scotland (as well as in England and Wales) by the Defence Housing Service, for purposes connected with its functions, or by the Secretary of State for other defence purposes. See Amendment 11 for corresponding powers in relation to Northern Ireland.

Amendment 11, page 10, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) Where the Defence Housing Service proposes to acquire land in Northern Ireland otherwise than by agreement—

(a) it may apply to the Secretary of State for an order vesting the land in the Defence Housing Service, and

(b) on an application under paragraph (a), the Secretary of State may make such an order.

(1B) References in this section to the acquisition of land or rights over land include the vesting of the land or rights under an order made under subsection (1A).”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 12, page 10, line 11, leave out “power under subsection (1)” and insert—

“powers under subsections (1) and (1A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 11.

Amendment 13, page 10, line 14, leave out

“power under subsection (1) includes”

and insert—

“powers under subsections (1) and (1A) include”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 11.

Amendment 14, page 10, line 18, after “subsection (1)” insert “or (1A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 11.

Amendment 15, page 10, line 22, leave out

“power under subsection (1) includes”

and insert—

“powers under subsections (1) and (1A) include”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 11.

Amendment 16, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

“in England, Wales or Scotland”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 17, page 10, line 30, after “space or” insert—

“(in relation to England or Wales)”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 18, page 10, line 34, leave out

“Part 4 of Schedule 11A makes”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 19, page 10, line 36, at end insert “is made by—

(a) Part 4 of Schedule 11A, in relation to England and Wales;

(b) Part 5 of that Schedule, in relation to Scotland;

(c) Part 6 of that Schedule, in relation to Northern Ireland.”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 20, page 11, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 7 and insert—

““common” and “open space”—

(a) in relation to England or Wales, have the same meanings as in section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;

(b) in relation to Scotland, have the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (see section 277(1) of that Act);

“Crown land” —

(a) in relation to England or Wales, has the same meaning as in Part 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (see section 293 of that Act);

(b) in relation to Scotland, is to be construed in accordance with Part 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in Part 12 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/1220 (N.I. 11));

“fuel or field garden allotment” has the same meaning as in section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;

“land” , in relation to Northern Ireland, has the meaning given by section 45(1)(a) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.));

“statutory undertaker” —

(a) in relation to England or Wales, has the same meaning as in section 16 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;

(b) in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (see section 214 of that Act);

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (c.11 (N.I.)).”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 21, page 11, line 9, leave out “or Wales” and insert “, Wales or Scotland”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 22, page 11, line 11, leave out

“, within the meaning given by section 343E(8)”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 23, page 11, line 12, leave out “Part 4” and insert “Parts 4 and 5”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 24, page 11, line 16, at end insert—

“(3) If the Secretary of State—

(a) requires land in Northern Ireland for defence purposes, and

(b) proposes to acquire the land otherwise than by agreement,

the Secretary of State may make an order vesting the land in the Secretary of State.

(4) Subsections (3) to (10) of section 343H apply in relation to (or to matters connected with) the compulsory acquisition of land by the Secretary of State by means of an order under subsection (3) as they apply in relation to (or to matters connected with) the compulsory acquisition of land by the Defence Housing Service.

(5) Part 7 of Schedule 11A makes further provision in relation to the compulsory acquisition of land by the Secretary of State by means of an order under subsection (3).

(6) In this section “defence purposes” has the meaning given by section 343E(8).”—(Al Carns.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Interference with uncrewed devices

Amendment made: 25, page 17, line 21, leave out from “under” to end of line 25 and insert—

“section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (conduct endangering ships, structures or individuals);”.—(Al Carns.)

This amendment removes an unnecessary entry from the list of “relevant offences” for the purposes of the new powers relating to drones etc under clause 4 of the Bill.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Service restraining orders: enforcement etc by civilian courts

Amendments made: 26, page 19, line 1, at end insert—

“(A1) In section 229(1) of AFA 2006, omit paragraph (b) and the “and” before it.”

This amendment is to ensure that a service restraining order may be made by a service court when convicting or acquitting a person of an offence, even if the person has left the armed forces by the time of the conviction or acquittal.

Amendment 27, page 19, leave out line 17.

This amendment leaves out an unnecessary consequential amendment of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Amendment 28, page 19, line 20, at end insert—

“(and subsection (2A) is to be read accordingly)”.

This amendment clarifies the effect of a consequential modification of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Amendment 29, page 19, line 23, at end insert—

“(and subsection (2A) is to be read accordingly)”.

See the explanatory statement to Amendment 28.

Amendment 30, page 20, line 39, at end insert—

“(3) After section 234AZA of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 insert—

“234AZB Service restraining orders

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person is subject to an order made by the Court Martial or the Service Civilian Court under section 229 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (a “service restraining order”), and

(b) the person is no longer subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline.

(2) Subject as follows, the service restraining order is to be treated as a non-harassment order made against the person by a sheriff court—

(a) in a case falling within section 234A(1)(a), if the service restraining order was made on conviction of the person for an offence;

(b) in a case falling within section 234A(1)(b) or (c), if the service restraining order was made on acquittal of the person for an offence.

(3) Section 234A applies as if—

(a) subsection (3) were omitted;

(b) in subsection (6)—

(i) the reference to the prosecutor at whose instance the order is made were to the procurator fiscal;

(ii) the reference to the court which made the order were to any sheriff court.

(4) In this section, the following terms have the same meanings as in the Armed Forces Act 2006—

“civilian subject to service discipline” (see section 370 of that Act);

“subject to service law” (see section 374 of that Act).”

(4) In section 109 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 (offences relating to protective orders made outwith Scotland), in subsection (4) (relevant UK orders)—

(a) in paragraph (b), at the end insert “but not an order treated as having been made under that section by virtue of section 5B of that Act (service restraining orders)”;

(b) in paragraph (e), at the end insert “but not an order treated as having been made under that section by virtue of section 363A of that Act (service restraining orders)”.

(5) After Article 7A of the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1180 (N.I. 9)) insert—

“Service restraining orders

(1) This Article applies where—

(a) a person is subject to an order made by the Court Martial or the Service Civilian Court under section 229 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (a “service restraining order”), and

(b) the person is no longer subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline.

(2) Paragraphs (3A) to (7) of Article 7 apply to the service restraining order as they apply to an order under that Article, with the following modifications—

(a) the reference in paragraph (3A) to the prosecution, and the reference in paragraph (4) to the prosecutor, are to be read as references to the Chief Constable;

(b) the reference in paragraph (4) to the court which made the order is to be read as a reference to the Crown Court.

(3) In this Article, the following terms have the same meanings as in the Armed Forces Act 2006—

“civilian subject to service discipline” (see section 370 of that Act);

“subject to service law” (see section 374 of that Act).””—(Al Carns.)

This amendment provides for service restraining orders to be enforceable as equivalent orders in Scotland and Northern Ireland in certain circumstances. The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 is also amended to avoid overlapping enforcement regimes.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Entry for purposes of obtaining evidence etc

Amendment made: 31, page 29, line 12, at end insert—

“(d) sections 93ZB(1)(a), 93ZC(1) and 93ZD(4).”—(Al Carns.)

This amendment ensures that types of premises which can be searched without a warrant for electronically tracked stolen goods (under provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006 inserted by the Crime and Policing Act 2026) are the same as those for which search warrants can be issued.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

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

Amendment made: 32, page 34, line 32, at end insert—

“(A1) In section 50 of AFA 2006 (jurisdiction of the Court Martial), in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) an offence under section 109A (breach of requirement relating to attendance at hearing);”.”—(Al Carns.)

This amendment is consequential on the offence created by the amendments made by clause 21 (power to impose post-charge conditions on persons not in service detention), so as to ensure the Court Martial will have jurisdiction in relation to the offence.

Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Guidance on exercise of criminal jurisdiction

Amendments made: 33, page 43, line 23, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) Guidance under this section must include guidance about—

(a) the information to be given so as to explain the similarities and differences between—

(i) proceedings in a service court and in a civilian court, and

(ii) the conduct of investigations in connection with the bringing of such proceedings;

(b) the manner in which information is to be given;

(c) the keeping of records in relation to—

(i) information given to victims, and

(ii) their views on whether they would prefer an offence to be tried in a service court or a civilian court.

(3A) Guidance of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(b) must in particular address the need to ensure that information is given—

(a) in an objective and impartial manner, and

(b) in a way that takes into account the particular circumstances of the offence and the needs of the victim.

(3B) Guidance under this section may include guidance about any other matters that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for furthering the purpose mentioned in subsection (2).”

This amendment provides further clarification as to what guidance given under new section 320D of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (inserted by clause 25) should contain.

Amendment 34, page 44, line 3, at end insert—

“(aa) the Lord Advocate;”.—(Al Carns.)

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Lord Advocate, as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland, before issuing guidance about the information to be given to victims of alleged offences triable in either a service court or a civilian court.

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 26 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Exceptions for spent cautions when taking administrative action

Amendments made: 35, page 49, line 9, at end insert—

“(1) The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is amended as follows.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 37.

Amendment 36, page 49, line 10, leave out

“to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 37.

Amendment 37, page 50, line 2, at end insert—

“(3) In Schedule 3 (protection for spent alternatives to prosecution: Scotland), after paragraph 7 insert—

7A “(1) Paragraph 4 does not apply in relation to any question asked by or on behalf of a person, in the course of their duties as a superior officer in relation to a member of His Majesty’s forces (“A”), where—

(a) the question is asked in connection with the taking of administrative action in relation to A, and

(b) A is informed at the time the question is asked that, by virtue of this paragraph, alternatives to prosecution that have become spent and ancillary circumstances are to be disclosed.

(2) Paragraph 5(1) does not apply in relation to any obligation to disclose an alternative to prosecution that has become spent, or any ancillary circumstances, imposed for purposes related to the taking of administrative action.

(3) Paragraph 5(2) does not apply in relation to the taking of administrative action in connection with an alternative to prosecution that has become spent or any ancillary circumstances.

(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) do not apply in relation to an alternative to prosecution given to a person at a time when they were not a member of His Majesty’s forces.

(5) In this paragraph—

(a) “superior officer” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act, read together with section 377(3) of that Act);

(b) “administrative action” means action (other than service disciplinary proceedings) that—

(i) is taken by a superior officer acting under their powers of command in accordance with King’s Regulations, and

(ii) is taken for the purpose of rehabilitating, censoring or sanctioning another member of His Majesty’s forces of inferior rank in order to safeguard or restore the operational effectiveness and efficiency of those forces;

(c) references to the taking of administrative action include the making of any decision as to whether to take such action.””—(Al Carns.)

This amendment provides that provisions requiring the disclosure of spent cautions in connection with the taking of administrative action, as set out in clause 29 of the Bill, will also apply in relation to Scotland in respect of alternatives to prosecution that have become spent.

Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 30 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Recall for service

Amendments made: 38, page 51, line 39, at end insert—

“(ai) in the words before paragraph (a), after “(1)(b)” insert “or (c)”;”.

This amendment and Amendment 39 omit exemptions from recall liability under Part 7 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 based on the amount of time which has passed since a person’s discharge from service or transfer to the reserves.

Amendment 39, page 52, leave out lines 2 to 13 and insert—

“(ii) omit paragraphs (b) and (c);”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 38.

Amendment 40, page 52, leave out lines 14 to 18 and insert—

“(c) omit subsection (3);”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 38 and 39.

Amendment 41, page 52, line 19, leave out from “for” to end of line 20 and insert

““subsections (1) and (2)” substitute “subsection (1)”.”—(Al Carns.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 38 and 39.

Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 34 to 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Governance and administration of Ministry of Defence Police

Amendment made: 42, page 59, line 17, after “proceedings)” insert

“—

(a) in the heading, after “disciplinary” insert “and other”;”.—(Al Carns.)

This is a clarifying amendment to the heading of section 4 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987.

Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 43 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Extent in the United Kingdom

Amendments made: 43, page 62, line 33, leave out

“Chapter 2 of Part 16C of, and”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 44, page 62, line 35, at end insert—

“(ba) section 7(1) and (2);”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.

Amendment 45, page 63, leave out line 4 and insert—

“(3) The following provisions extend to Scotland only—

(a) section 3 and Schedule 1, so far as they insert Part 5 of Schedule 11A to AFA 2006;

(b) section 7(3) and (4);

(c) section 28(3) and (4).”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10. This amendment is also consequential on Amendment 30.

Amendment 46, page 63, leave out line 5 and insert—

“(4) The following provisions extend to Northern Ireland only—

(a) section 3 and Schedule 1, so far as they insert Parts 6 and 7 of Schedule 11A to AFA 2006;

(b) section 7(5);

(c) section 48.”—(Al Carns.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10. This amendment is also consequential on Amendment 30.

Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Extent in the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and British overseas territories

Amendment made: 47, page 63, line 18, leave out “Part 4” and insert “Parts 4 to 7”.—(Al Carns.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Commencement and transitional provision

Amendment made: 48, page 64, line 16, at end insert—

“(aa) section 3 and Schedule 1;”.—(Al Carns.)

This amendment provides for clause 3 and Schedule 1, which establish the Defence Housing Service, to come into force on Royal Assent.

Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 4

Service image deletion orders

“(1) After section 232G of AFA 2006 insert—

“Service image deletion orders

232H Service image deletion orders

(1) A service image deletion order is an order which—

(a) is made in respect of an offender for an offence,

(b) relates to a photograph or film which is in the offender’s possession or under their control, and

(c) requires the offender to take steps specified in the order to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the photograph or film is put beyond use.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), a photograph or film is put beyond use if—

(a) in the case of a physical item, it is destroyed;

(b) in the case of data stored by any means by or on behalf of the offender, it is deleted;

(c) in the case of content on an internet service, it is removed from the service or permanently hidden.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

(a) something is “deleted” if it is irrecoverable;

(b) “content”, in relation to an internet service, has the meaning given by section 236(1) of the Online Safety Act 2023;

(c) “internet service” has the meaning given by section 228 of that Act (and section 204(1) of that Act applies).

232I Service Image deletion orders: availability

(1) This section applies where a person commits an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is an offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—

(a) section 66AA (sharing semen-defaced images);

(b) section 66AB (taking or recording intimate photograph or film);

(c) section 66AE (creating a copy of intimate photograph or film shared temporarily);

(d) section 66B (sharing or threatening to share intimate photograph or film);

(e) section 66E (creating a purported intimate image of adult);

(f) section 66F (requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult);

(g) section 67A(2B) (recording a person breast-feeding child).

(2) This section also applies where a person’s attempt, agreement or encouragement or assistance, or a person’s aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, in relation to an offence specified in any of paragraphs (a) to (g) of subsection (1) is an offence under section 42 by reason of section 43, 45, 46 or 47.

(3) The Court Martial or the Service Civilian Court—

(a) may make a service image deletion order in respect of a photograph or film to which the offence relates, and

(b) must give reasons if there is an image to which the offence relates in respect of which it does not make a service image deletion order.

(4) The court may make a service image deletion order in relation to any other photograph or film—

(a) which shows, or appears to show, the subject of the photograph or film to which the offence relates in an intimate state,

(b) which is a semen-defaced image of the subject of the photograph or film to which the offence relates, or

(c) which shows the subject of the photograph or film to which the offence relates breast-feeding a child.

(5) The following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 apply for the purposes of this section—

(a) section 66AA(2) (meaning of “semen-defaced image”);

(b) section 66D(5) to (9) (meaning of “showing, or appearing to show, another person in an intimate state”);

(c) section 67A(3A) and (3B) (meaning of references to a person breast-feeding a child) ignoring, for these purposes, references to the intention of the person who recorded the photograph or film.

(6) In relation to an offence under section 42 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales is an offence under section 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a photograph or film is a photograph or film to which the offence relates for the purposes of this section if—

(a) it appears to be of a person who was the subject of the request to which the offence relates (whether or not it is what was requested), and

(b) it was in the offender’s possession, or under the offender’s control, as a result of that request.

(7) A service image deletion order is not available if the offence was committed before the day on which section (Service image deletion orders) of the Armed Forces Act 2026 comes into force.

232J Period for complying with requirements

(1) A service image deletion order must specify, in respect of each step the order requires the offender to take, the date by which the step must be taken (and different dates may be specified in respect of different steps).

(2) Where the order requires the offender to take a step in relation to a photograph or film that would result in the offender being unable to recover the photograph or film—

(a) the order must not require the step to be taken before the end of the relevant appeal period in relation to the conviction or order, and

(b) where an appeal against the conviction or order is brought or an application for leave to bring such an appeal is made, the offender is not required to take the step until the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn or the application for leave is refused.

(3) In subsection (2) the “relevant appeal period” is—

(a) in relation to an appeal from a decision of the Court Martial, the period within which an application for leave to appeal must be lodged (but ignoring any power for that period to be extended);

(b) in relation to an appeal from a decision of the Service Civilian Court, the initial period for bringing an appeal mentioned in section 285(3)(b) (28 days from date of sentence).

232K Offence of failing to comply with a service image deletion order

(1) It is an offence for a person in respect of whom a service image deletion order made under section 232I is in force to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement included in the order.

(2) A person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, who commits an offence under this section is, if guilty of the offence, liable to any punishment mentioned in the Table in section 164, but a sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of the offence must not exceed five years.

(3) A person who is no longer subject to service law, or a civilian who is no longer subject to service discipline, who commits an offence under this section is, if guilty of the offence, liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).

232L Service image deletion orders: interpretation

(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 232H to 232K.

(2) “Photograph” includes the negative as well as the positive version.

(3) “Film” means a moving image.

(4) References to a photograph or film also include—

(a) an image, whether made or altered by computer graphics or in any other way, which appears to be a photograph or film,

(b) a copy of a photograph, film or image within paragraph (a), and

(c) data stored by any means which is capable of conversion into a photograph, film or image within paragraph (a).”

(2) In consequence of the amendment made by subsection (1), in section 50 of AFA 2006 (jurisdiction of the Court Martial), in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) insert—

“(ca) an offence under section 232K (failure to comply with a service image deletion order) committed by a person within subsection (2) of that section;”.”—(Al Carns.)

This new clause makes provision for image deletion orders in the service justice system of a similar kind as introduced into the civilian justice system by Chapter 4A of Part 7 of the Sentencing Code (which was inserted by section 102 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Laying of the Defence Investment Plan

“Within one month of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Mr Francois.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament within a month of the passage of this Act.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

I call Ben Obese-Jecty to move new clause 5 formally.

Where is he?

I will move it, Ma’am! New Clause 5 Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or dependants of serving or discharged member of the armed forces “(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows. (2) In section 68, after subsection (11) insert— “11A Fees may not be charged No fees may be charged in respect of a serving or previously serving member of the armed forces or their family members applying for indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules Appendix HM Armed Forces.”” —(Mr Francois.) This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).

New Clause 6

Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights

“After section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 insert—

‘14A Duty to consider derogation in relation to overseas operations

(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must consider whether it is appropriate for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1) of the Convention.

(2) In this section—

“overseas operations” means operations of Her Majesty’s forces outside the British Islands in the course of which members of those forces may come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance;

“Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).’” —(Mr Francois.)

This new clause reinstates a duty, removed during passage of the Overseas Operations Act 2021, requiring the Secretary of State to consider derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights during significant overseas operations.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

Single living accommodation standards

“(1) The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 101 (The standard of MOD accommodation), after “service family accommodation”, in each place it occurs, insert “and single living accommodation”.

(3) In subsection (10), at the appropriate place insert—

““single living accommodation”” means any building or part of a building which is provided for the use of a person subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline as living accommodation, but which is not service family accommodation;”.” —(James MacCleary.)

This new clause amends the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 to ensure defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation.

Brought up.

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

Schedule 1

Defence Housing and Other Property

Amendments made: 49, page 65, line 15, leave out “sub-paragraph (3)” and insert “sub-paragraphs (3) and (8)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 54.

Amendment 50, page 65, line 29, after “sub-paragraphs” insert “(4A),”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 51.

Amendment 51, page 65, line 31, at end insert—

“(4A) Property held by the Defence Housing Service for defence purposes (as defined by section 343E(8)) is to be treated as if it were property of the Crown.”

This amendment provides that any property that is held by the Defence Housing Service for defence purposes is to be regarded as Crown property.

Amendment 52, page 66, line 2, at end insert

“(if it would not otherwise be so treated by virtue of sub-paragraph (4A)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 51.

Amendment 53, page 66, line 4, leave out “for defence purposes”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 51.

Amendment 54, page 66, line 12, at end insert—

“(8) Where property held by the Defence Housing Service is to be treated as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown by virtue of this paragraph, the Defence Housing Service has the same immunities, privileges and exemptions in respect of its holding of that property as would apply if it were property held by or on behalf of the Crown.”

This amendment clarifies that the Defence Housing Service will be treated in the same way as a Crown body in respect of its holding of any property that is to be treated as Crown property.

Amendment 55, page 73, line 6, leave out “for Defence Housing and other purposes: supplementary provision” and insert

“by Defence Housing Service or Secretary of State: England and Wales”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Amendment 56, page 80, line 39, at end insert—

“Part 5

Compulsory purchase by Defence Housing Service or Secretary of State: Scotland

Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947

41 The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 applies to the compulsory acquisition of land by the Defence Housing Service under section 343H as if—

(a) the Defence Housing Service were a local authority within the meaning of that Act, and

(b) this paragraph had been in force immediately before the commencement of that Act.

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

42 (1) The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 specified in sub-paragraph (2) apply in relation to land acquired compulsorily by the Defence Housing Service under section 343H as they apply in relation to land acquired compulsorily by statutory undertakers.

(2) The provisions are—

(a) section 197 (provisions as to churches and burial grounds);

(b) section 198 (use and development of land for open spaces);

(c) sections 224 to 227 (extinguishment of rights of way, and rights as to apparatus, of statutory undertakers).

Part 6

Compulsory purchase by Defence Housing Service: Northern Ireland

Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972

43 (1) Schedule 6 to the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (c. 9 (N.I.)) applies to the compulsory acquisition of land by the Defence Housing Service by means of an order under section 343H(1A) of this Act as it applies to the acquisition of land by means of an order under section 97 of that Act, subject as follows.

(2) References to that Schedule are to be read as references to that Schedule as modified by this paragraph.

(3) References to the council which proposes to acquire land otherwise than by agreement are to be read as references to the Defence Housing Service.

(4) References to the Ministry concerned are to be read as references to the Secretary of State.

(5) Paragraph 5(1)(b) applies as if both references to the powers conferred by the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 were to the powers conferred by section 343H(1A) of this Act.

(6) Paragraph 6(2) applies as if, for the words from ‘fund out of which’ to the end, there were substituted ‘funds of the Defence Housing Service (in this Schedule “the compensation fund”) and discharged by payments made by the Defence Housing Service’.

(7) Paragraph 12(2) applies as if, for ‘the clerk of the council’, there were substituted ‘such person as the Defence Housing Service may designate for the purposes of this Schedule’.

Enactments relating to the assessment of compensation

44 The enactments for the time being in force relating to the assessment of compensation in respect of land vested in a district council by an order made under Schedule 6 to the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 apply, subject to any necessary modifications, in relation to land vested in the Defence Housing Service by an order under section 343H(1A) of this Act.

Part 7

Compulsory purchase by Secretary of State: Northern Ireland

Schedule 6 to the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972

45 (1) Schedule 6 to the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (c. 9 (N.I.)) applies to the compulsory acquisition of land by the Secretary of State by means of an order under section 343I(4) of this Act as it applies to the acquisition of land by means of an order under section 97 of that Act, subject as follows.

(2) References to that Schedule are to be read as references to that Schedule as modified by this paragraph.

(3) References (however expressed) to—

(a) the council which proposes to acquire land otherwise than by agreement, and

(b) the Ministry concerned,

are to be read as references to the Secretary of State.

(4) Paragraphs 1, 19 and 20(2) are to be treated as omitted.

(5) Paragraph 2 applies as if—

(a) for the words before sub-paragraph (a) there were substituted ‘Where the Secretary of State proposes to acquire land otherwise than by agreement, the Secretary of State’s notice of intention to do so—’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (c), for ‘as may be prescribed’ there were substituted ‘as the Secretary of State considers appropriate’;

(c) after sub-paragraph (c), there were inserted ‘and each notice published or served under this paragraph must specify the period within which objections to the proposal may be made to the Secretary of State’.

(6) Paragraph 3 applies as if—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), for the words in brackets there were substituted ‘(if it appears to the Secretary of State necessary to do so)’;

(b) in head (ii) of that sub-paragraph, for ‘refuse’ there were substituted ‘decide not’;

(c) in sub-paragraph (2), ‘the council and’ and ‘or refusing’ were omitted.

(7) Paragraph 4 applies as if the words from ‘and may provide’ to the end were omitted.

(8) Paragraph 5 applies as if—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a)—

(i) ‘in the prescribed form and manner’ were omitted;

(ii) for the words from ‘, having given notice’ to the end there were substituted ‘has given notice to the Secretary of State of the person’s objection to the making of the vesting order’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), both references to the powers conferred by the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 were to the power conferred by section 343I(4) of this Act;

(c) in sub-paragraph (1)(d), ‘in the prescribed form’ were omitted;

(d) in sub-paragraph (2), for ‘as may be prescribed’ there were substituted ‘as the Secretary of State considers appropriate’.

(9) Paragraph 6(2) applies as if, for the words from ‘fund out of which’ to the end, there were substituted ‘Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom (in this Schedule “the compensation fund”), and discharged by the Secretary of State’.

(10) Paragraph 11(3) applies as if ‘in the prescribed form’ were omitted.

(11) Paragraph 12 applies as if—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), ‘such’ and ‘as may be prescribed’ were omitted;

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for the words from ‘clerk’ to ‘directs,’ there were substituted ‘Secretary of State as correct, and publish’.

(12) Paragraph 14(1) applies as if ‘in the prescribed form’ were omitted.

(13) Paragraph 15(1) applies as if for ‘the prescribed form’ there were substituted ‘such form as the Secretary of State may direct’.”—(Al Carns.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

Protection from Domestic Abuse and Stalking

Amendments made: 57, page 88, line 34, leave out “falling within subsection (2)” and insert “aged 18 or over”.

This amendment and Amendment 59 ensure that a service domestic abuse protection order may be made against a person who is before a service court in respect of an offence, even if they have left the armed forces.

Amendment 58, page 88, leave out line 39.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 59, page 89, line 1, leave out from beginning to “and” on line 2 and insert

“An application under subsection (1)(b) may be made only in respect of a person who”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 57.

Amendment 60, page 89, line 35, leave out “236C(3)” and insert “236C(1)(b)”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 61, page 92, line 2, leave out from “may” to “necessary” on line 3 and insert

“by a service domestic abuse protection order impose any requirements that the court considers”.

This amendment is to more closely reflect the wording of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

Amendment 62, page 92, line 16, leave out “and (6)” and insert “to (8)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 63.

Amendment 63, page 92, line 34, at end insert—

“(7) A service domestic abuse protection order may require the defendant to participate in an assessment to determine whether the defendant should be required to participate in a programme of activities.

(8) A service domestic abuse protection order may provide that if, following an assessment required under subsection (7), the person carrying out the assessment determines that the defendant should participate in a programme of activities, then the defendant is required to participate in that programme of activities.”

This amendment reflects amendments of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 made by the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

Amendment 64, page 92, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 25 on page 93

This amendment reflects amendments of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 made by the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

Amendment 65, page 94, line 29, at end insert—

“(za) of its own motion,”.

This amendment reflects amendments of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 made by the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

Amendment 66, page 97, line 37, leave out from “person” to “(the” in line 1 on page 98.

This amendment and Amendment 67 ensure that a service stalking protection order may be made against a person who is before a service court in respect of an offence, even if they have left the armed forces.

Amendment 67, page 98, line 22, after “if” insert

“the defendant is subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline and”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 66.

Amendment 68, page 98, line 32, after “satisfied” insert

“on the balance of probabilities”.

This amendment reflects amendments of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 made by the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

Amendment 69, page 99, line 17, after “satisfied” insert

“on the balance of probabilities”.

This amendment reflects amendments of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 made by the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

Amendment 70, page 100, line 13, after “satisfied” insert

“on the balance of probabilities”.

This amendment reflects amendments of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 made by the Crime and Policing Act 2026.

Amendment 71, page 106, line 35, leave out “a person”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 72, page 107, leave out line 16.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 73, page 107, line 22, leave out “to (4) and (6) (and references to those provisions)” and insert “(3) and (4)”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 74, page 107, leave out lines 27 and 28.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 75, page 107, leave out line 30.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 76, page 108, line 15, leave out “a person”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 77, page 109, line 21, after “applies” insert “, subject to subsection (7A),”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 80.

Amendment 78, page 109, line 23, leave out “a person”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 79, page 109, line 27, leave out “a person”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 80, page 109, line 29, at end insert—

“(7A) Section 9 does not apply in relation to a service stalking protection order or interim service stalking protection order to which a person is subject if section 14 of the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 applies in relation to that order by virtue of section 16A of that Act.”

This amendment ensures that a person subject to notification requirements in Northern Ireland in relation to a service stalking protection order (under changes to Northern Ireland legislation made by Amendment 84) is not also subject to notification requirements in England and Wales.

Amendment 81, page 110, leave out lines 1 to 3.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 84.

Amendment 82, page 110, line 17, leave out “a person”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 83, page 110, line 31, leave out “a person”.

This is a drafting refinement.

Amendment 84, page 111, line 6, at end insert—

“Amendment of Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) Act 2022

8A After section 16 of the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 insert—

‘Service stalking protection orders

16A Service stalking protection orders

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person is subject to—

(i) an order made under section 236N of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (a “service stalking protection order”), other than one made on conviction of the person for an offence, or

(ii) an order made under section 236R of that Act (an “interim service stalking protection order”);

(b) the person is no longer subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline, and

(c) the person resides in Northern Ireland.

(2) Sections 10 and 13 to 16 of this Act apply to the service stalking protection order as they apply to a stalking protection order under this Act, with the following modifications—

(a) section 13 applies as if, in subsection (5), the words “the clerk of petty sessions or” were omitted;

(b) section 14 applies as if—

(i) in subsections (1) and (7), references to the date on which the order comes into force were to the date on which the person first resides in Northern Ireland after ceasing to be subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline;

(ii) in subsection (6)(b), the reference to the time the order is made were to the date on which the person first resides in Northern Ireland after ceasing to be subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline.

(3) Sections 11(7) to (9) and 13 to 16 of this Act apply to the interim service stalking protection order as they apply to an interim stalking protection order under this Act, with the following modifications—

(a) section 11(9) applies as if the words from “on the main” to the end of that subsection were omitted;

(b) section 13 applies with the modification specified in subsection (2)(a) above;

(c) section 14 applies with the modifications specified in subsection (2)(b) above.

(4) In this section, the following terms have the same meanings as in the Armed Forces Act 2006—

“civilian subject to service discipline” (see section 370 of that Act);

“subject to service law” (see section 374 of that Act).’” —(Al Carns.)

This amendment provides for a person to be subject to notification requirements in Northern Ireland in relation to a service stalking protection order or an interim service stalking protection order.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5

Call out and Recall for Service: Transitional Classes

Amendments made: 85, page 121, line 25, leave out “subsections (1)(c), (2A) and (3A)” and insert “subsection (1)(c)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 38 and 39.

Amendment 86, page 121, leave out lines 28 to 31 and insert—

“(c) after paragraph (a) of subsection (2) there were inserted—

‘(b) in the case of a person who was discharged or transferred to the reserve from the regular army or the Royal Air Force, after the end of the period of 18 years beginning with the day on which he was so discharged or transferred; or’”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 38 and 39.

Amendment 87, page 121, line 37, at end insert—

“(e) in subsection (4), the reference to subsection (1) were to subsections (1) and (2).”—(Al Carns.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 38 and 39.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill to be considered tomorrow.