Armed Forces Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

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

[Al Carns]

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.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

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.

[Al Carns]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I do not want to pre-empt what will no doubt be an erudite speech, but the key point is that there is a mechanism for doing this—we are halfway there.

If service parents get a transfer order a few months in advance, then unless they can be certain that the receiving LEA will accept their EHCP, which they may have gone through a bureaucratic minefield to achieve—I am sure we all have individual examples from our constituencies—are they going to risk it? Will they stick or twist? Or will they leave the service and try to find somewhere local to live, but at least keep the precious EHCP? The nub of the matter is whether we can make it mandatory that the transfer takes place. Having made the point, I will rest, and wait for the contribution from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey).

Amendment 4 is similar in spirit to amendments 2 and 3, but relates to the national health service rather than to education. The essence of the amendment is that military personnel who are already on a waiting list for treatment in one NHS integrated care board area should not suffer any disadvantage relative to the civilian community if, again, they have to be transferred for operational or other service-related reasons. In plain English, they should not lose their place in the queue.

[Dr Murrison]

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

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend is of course a former MOD Minister himself and represents a large number of service personnel. It is obvious from his intervention that he understands the issue very well. What he has just asked me is wholly in line with the spirit of our amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley unfortunately has a competing commitment this afternoon with the Justice Committee and the report on jury trial, which I hope the House accepts is a very important matter. He hopes to join us later in the debate when he has attended to that. Given his medical expertise, he pressed this point with the Minister for Veterans and People at the same meeting that I have referred to. Sadly, again, we received an equally uninspiring reply. For the record, given that the King’s Speech also presaged new legislation on NHS organisation, we sought to suggest that one way to proceed might be to include an amendment in that Bill rather than in this one. In other words, that medical issue could be put in a Bill introduced by Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care. I reiterate our request, perhaps to the Government more broadly, to consider what we still regard to be a sensible proposal.

I turn now to amendment 5 on court martial boards. One issue highlighted during our visit to see the service justice system was the challenge of finding sufficient officers to serve on court martial boards who are in no way connected with the defendant. That can become more of a challenge as defendants become more senior, as the pool of officers from which to draw narrows as one moves up the promotion pyramid. The essence of the amendment is to allow retired officers to be drawn upon to help comprise the membership of boards for court martial, and therefore to widen the potential pool of those who might be available to undertake this important military and, indeed, civic duty.

[Dr Murrison]

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

[Mr Francois]

Again, my right hon. Friend makes a very important point: allowing tri-service boards increases the potential pool, even of senior officers, who can serve.

When we made that visit, the Minister was not able to be with us. That is no criticism; he is an MOD Minister, and he has a lot to think about—he has a great deal to think about at the moment—but he was not able to be there on that visit, so he did not hear it from the horse’s mouth. This issue was raised with us by practitioners in the service justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

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.

[Dr Murrison]

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?

[James MacCleary]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

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.

[Dr Murrison]

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.

[James MacCleary]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jayne Kirkham]

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.

[Dr Murrison]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

No, the hon. Gentleman has had his go.

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

[Dr Murrison]

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

[Mr Francois]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We would all like to know when we are going to have it, but the reason we do not have it is simple. It is not that the staff work has not been completed—it has. It is not that the programmes have not been costed—they have. The fundamental problem is that while Ministers say they are working flat out and knocking themselves out on it, and are reduced to euphemisms about how hard they are working, it was actually done months ago. The problem is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer adamantly refuses to sign it, because if she signed it, she would have to say how she is going to pay for it. That is why MOD Ministers are completely hide-bound: the Prime Minister will not force the Chancellor to sign the equipment plan for the armed forces of the United Kingdom. The delay is becoming a farce. Indeed, we are now being widely criticised by our international partners, including, just the other day, the chairman of the NATO Military Committee.

At Defence questions, the Secretary of State was adamant that the Prime Minister wanted the DIP published by the NATO summit. That raises two questions: which NATO summit, and which Prime Minister? Assuming he means the summit in Ankara on 7 to 8 July, this vital document will be delayed for yet another month. What is worse, last year there were £2.6 billion of in-year operational cuts to the defence budget, and this year there are £3.5 billion of in-year cuts.

We will press new clause 2 to force a vote on a backstop plan to produce the DIP, to remind His Majesty’s Treasury that the first duty of government, above all others, is the defence of the realm. We cannot defend the realm with a lot of bluster and an equipment plan that does not exist.