Armed Forces Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is a rare privilege to open this debate. This is only the second ever Labour Armed Forces Bill, yet the provenance of this legislation reaches all the way back to the Bill of Rights, and more than three centuries on, granting authority to maintain our armed forces remains one of the most important—if not the most important—formal constitutional responsibilities of Members of this House.

This is a substantial Bill—a reflection of just how much the world has changed over the past five years. It is more dangerous and much less certain, and this new era of threat demands a new era for defence. That is why our Government have committed an extra £5 billion to defence spending this year and committed to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, switching funding directly from overseas aid. It is why we are proposing, through this Bill, to increase our warfighting readiness and homeland security, and why we are putting the men and women in our armed forces at the heart of defence plans.

In the coming years, we will ask more of our service personnel, and it is only right that they expect more of their Government. The Bill takes significant steps to improve service life and strengthen the bond between society and our forces. At the general election, we pledged to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and I am proud to say that we are delivering on that promise: the largest pay increase for our armed forces in more than two decades, expanded wraparound childcare support, an independent Armed Forces Commissioner and a funded plan for a safe, decent home for every forces family. Through this legislation, we continue the work of renewing that commitment, with better housing, better services and better protections for those who serve.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that we have a good turnout in the House tonight to debate the Armed Forces Bill, which affects the quality of life and the service of the brave people who keep us safe? Yet again when we debate this vital subject, not a single Reform Member of Parliament is in the Chamber. Is it not wrong that these people wrap themselves in the flag, but never come along to defend the people who actually protect that flag?

[John Healey]

There is a general support for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on both sides of the House. This Armed Forces Bill, as I will go on to say, commands all-party support, and it is a shame that we have not got all parties in this House to demonstrate that.

The bond between the British people and those sworn to defend them is a proud part of our nation’s security. The purpose of the armed forces covenant is to strengthen that bond. The policy and principles underpinning the covenant were first set out in a Command Paper in 2008 under the last Labour Government, and to this day—this relates to the right hon. Gentleman’s point—the covenant maintains strong cross-party support across this House and across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I know about the right hon. Gentleman’s good news and bad news. We will return to that discussion when we return to Committee stage of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. When we do so, we will have in place strengthened protections for veterans, and that will be a result of the detailed discussions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, military leaders, the Prime Minister and I have had in recent weeks with representatives of the forces and special forces, and with former military chiefs, who have a point of view on this—

[Mr Francois]

Ah! Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

[John Healey]

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman for the last time.

[Mr Francois]

The Secretary of State mentions such a wide spread, but when we debated the remedial order last Wednesday, over 100 Labour MPs abstained, including the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, the Armed Forces Minister and two thirds of the Cabinet. If it is such a good idea, why did the Secretary of State not come here and vote for it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is 100% correct. At such times, it is to be expected that all parties attend the debate—that point has been eloquently made by my hon. Friend. If Reform Members are serious about defence, they should attend defence debates and questions on a regular basis.

Clause 2’s strengthening of the covenant is welcome.

[Mr Francois]

On that point, there are rumours that Reform is going to announce a shadow Cabinet. Constitutionally, there is only one shadow Cabinet, which belongs to the Opposition—even the Lib Dems do not have one. Instead, we are going to call it the drinks cabinet, because Nigel likes a drink, and so does Lee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that drinks cabinet should have a defence spokesman in it?

[Mr Dhesi]

The shadow Defence Minister is right on both counts. There is only one Opposition, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition—obviously, that is the Conservative party at present—and while I certainly would not use the term “drinks cabinet”, the shadow Defence Minister makes a very valid point.

The Secretary of State will remember that in our report, we cautioned that those who are expected to deliver the covenant must be involved in co-designing the new duty, and must be appropriately resourced to deliver it; otherwise, there is a real risk of diluting their existing commitments. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State or Ministers reassured the House on that point. The Secretary of State will also be aware that our inquiry concluded that updating the covenant in law is

“only part of the change that needs to occur.”

During the course of our work, we found that adherence to the existing covenant legal duty is very patchy. Too often, organisations that are subject to that duty do not understand it or, worse yet, disregard it. Understandably, this leads to disillusionment among the forces community, so in his winding-up speech, can the Minister for the Armed Forces please update the House on the Ministry of Defence’s plans to improve implementation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, I understand that it is rare to see a ten-minute rule Bill progress all the way into law. That is why I was so pleased when I learned that the Armed Forces Bill has incorporated the proposal from my Bill to bring Royal Fleet Auxiliary personnel within the remit of the new Armed Forces Commissioner. When the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 received Royal Assent at the end of last year, it created for the first time an independent statutory voice for service personnel, reporting directly to Parliament. However, the RFA did not get that protection, despite the vital role that its crews play in supporting our armed forces.

Falmouth is home to the Bay-class RFA ships, and I have spent time with their crews in Falmouth docks. RFA personnel are not armed combatants, but they are deployed in warzones and they face danger, and there is no doubt that they are absolutely vital to the UK’s defence, security and maritime power. They have been deployed all over the world on anti-narcotics missions, following earthquakes, providing support during the Ebola crisis, and recently in operations apprehending shadow vessels and protecting our subsea cables. Crews face challenging conditions, including an ageing fleet and staff shortages. Personnel regularly have long sea tours, with less time off per day worked than any other sector. This Government have been working with the RFA and its unions closely on improving terms and conditions, and I hope that will be concluded speedily.

[Mr Francois]

As the Minister who oversaw Operation Gritrock, when RFA Argus was deployed to Freetown as part of Britain’s relief effort to fight Ebola in Sierra Leone, may I endorse everything that the hon. Lady has said and pay a personal tribute to the wonderful work that the RFA did to help combat that wicked virus?

[Jayne Kirkham]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I remember the ship sailing from Falmouth and coming back.

Clause 30 of the Armed Forces Bill now delivers what I argued for and formally brings RFA personnel within the scope of the Armed Forces Commissioner. The reform does not change the RFA’s legal status or distinct identity, which is very important, but it finally gives the men and women who sustain our Royal Navy and Royal Marines an independent route to raise concerns about bullying, unsafe conditions, discrimination or misconduct.

Schedule 4 sets out in detail the new powers and responsibilities of the Commissioner in relation to the RFA. These include promoting welfare, improving public understanding of the RFA’s challenges and investigating systemic issues, such as staffing, crew fatigue and safety. It also gives the Commissioner the authority to enter RFA premises, request evidence and issue recommendations that the Secretary of State has to consider. It is worthy of the contribution that the RFA makes, and I am glad to have helped in a tiny way to secure it. The contract with those who serve should not end at the gates of a naval base or the stern of an auxiliary ship. RFA personnel serve this country with dedication and often without recognition, and it is right that our policy reflects their contribution.

I welcome the wider reforms in the Armed Forces Bill, which will benefit thousands of service personnel and more than 30,000 veterans across Cornwall, many of them in Truro and Falmouth. The Bill extends the covenant across all levels of Government so that no one falls through the gaps, and it strengthens the service justice system to ensure fair treatment and proper accountability. It also provides for the publicly owned Defence Housing Service, which will benefit 12,334 homes in the south-west, many of which are in my constituency.

The provisions in the Bill are accompanied by initiatives such as the fantastic Operation Valour, and there is a bid for my constituency to become a hub. Cornwall has the second highest number of veterans of any local authority area, so we believe that it would make a lot of sense to have that provision there.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) made a point about young people. The Government announced an armed forces gap year plan over Christmas to give Britain’s young people under the age of 21 a taste of the extraordinary skills and training on offer across the Army, the Royal Navy and the RAF. It is a really important scheme.

I had very little experience of the military before I met my ex-husband. Everybody knows about the potential risks, but there are huge positives and opportunities that many are not aware of. People can do all sorts of things in the forces—they can learn to be a pilot, a medic, an engineer or even a champion snowboarder—and they gain connections that last a lifetime. My Navy friends are like family to my son, and I consider myself very lucky to have been part of a forces family.

Cornwall has a proud military heritage. Many families have someone who served or is still serving. They make extraordinary sacrifices to keep this country safe, and they deserve safe homes, fair treatment and a system that understands the unique demands of military life. I am pleased that the RFA 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 now be properly recognised and protected. As a Government, we promised to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and we are delivering on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my fellow Essex MP, the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), not least as she has the privilege of representing Merville barracks, which I have visited a number of times down the years and which is the home of our elite unit, the 16 Air Assault Brigade. I have to be careful in saying that, because I have a former royal marine, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), sitting on the Benches behind me.

I thank the Minister for the helpful briefing on the Bill that he arranged for me at the Ministry of Defence last week. I am prepared to admit to the House that there was a slight communications mix-up. When I was originally invited into the Department, I left my phone in my office, thinking I was going into a briefing about events in Iran. I was both surprised and delighted when I was ushered into one of the historical rooms at the MOD to be pleasantly confronted by the entire team of officials responsible for the Bill. I am grateful to them for their subsequent briefing, which was extremely helpful.

The Armed Forces Bill is a very necessary piece of legislation that has to be passed by Parliament at least every five years. By tradition, this quinquennial Bill is relatively non-controversial. In that spirit, as the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), said, just as we did with the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, the Opposition see our role as that of a critical friend to the Bill by engaging in debate with an aim to improving it where possible—although we do, of course, reserve the right to hold the Government to account on a variety of matters. I may take the liberty of returning to two such matters in particular.

Although the Bill’s 55 clauses and seven schedules cover a variety of topics, with everything from drones—a particular hot button for the Minister, and indeed for my line manager—to powers of commanding officers, the Bill mainly encompasses four principal areas: reserves in clauses 31 to 37; defence housing and other property in a lengthy clause 3; the armed forces covenant in an equally lengthy clause 2; and potential changes to the service justice system, which is covered in several clauses, but principally clauses 5 to 16 and 20 to 26. I should like to say a little about each of those areas in turn.

Before I do, though, I place on the record that in this debate on the Armed Forces Bill—a very important piece of legislation regarding the future and welfare of His Majesty’s armed forces—not a single Reform MP has been present in the Chamber, let alone made a speech. If these people want to wrap themselves in the flag, they should at least take the trouble to turn up to support those who actually defend it, both in this country and around the globe. Reform Members have been too busy today spreading misinformation about my party’s attitude to Northern Ireland veterans—another reason, I suspect, that they did not want to come into the Chamber and face the music.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The shadow Minister will remember that one of the first things I did on leaving the Army in 2013 was to write a policy paper for Policy Exchange titled “The Fog of Law” on lawfare—that legal intervention on the battlefield that causes confusion and leads so many down a terrible path, of which Northern Ireland is one example, although there are many others. He will remember that our party has been on this for years, trying to clear the obstacles that have been created by various different constructs such as the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. I am sure he will now be one of the champions, along with the Leader of the Opposition, on finding a proper solution to answer that. Will he agree that this is how real government is done—by doing the hard work over many years to find the real answers that apply, and not simply by shouting at others?

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend is right. There is an old saying in politics that the world is run by those who turn up. Well, Reform did not turn up.

On the reserves, I should first declare an interest. I served as a Territorial Army infantry officer in the 1980s in the 5th Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment, a NATO-roled battalion that formed part of the 49th Infantry Brigade, which in turn was part of the 2nd Infantry Division, whose core mission was essentially to reinforce what was then the British Army of the Rhine, or BAOR, in the event of world war three. Including service in the Officers’ Training Corps prior to joining 5 Royal Anglian, I did some seven years in total. I was on Exercise Lionheart in 1984 as an officer cadet and also exercised in Cyprus and West Berlin as a junior officer.

Nevertheless, I was at no time deployed on active service and so, unlike the Minister, I have no medals at all, because I never did anything that merited one. Despite that, I am still proud to carry the late Queen’s Commission, and I like to believe that had the balloon gone up, our battalion would have done our best to defend the bridge over the Leine river, which was our wartime task.

[Peter Swallow]

Can I just say, as much as we have occasionally sparred across the Chamber, what the right hon. Member just said speaks volumes for the role that our reservists play up and down the country? Whether or not they are deployed or get medals, so many ordinary men and women step forward to say that they would serve this country if push came to shove—and I say that as somebody who has not done it myself, and I hold my hands up to that. That is so important, so I want to pay tribute to what the right hon. Member said and to all our reservists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind intervention. It is true that we have sparred in this Chamber—famously, on one occasion—but I utterly agree with the spirit of his intervention, which I am sure carries the support of the entire House tonight.

There are a number of measures in the Bill to improve reserve service, which was mentioned by multiple Members, including the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). The measures cover the potential transition to war and the regularising of call-up liabilities across all three services. We think that the proposals largely make sense—though I have to confess that I recently turned 60, and seeing that the Minister wants to extend the call-up liability to 65, I had best dust off my old set of webbing at the back of the garage somewhere just in case.

[Richard Foord]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

I want to make a bit of progress, but perhaps later if I have time.

Turning to housing, I should declare a different interest, as this was an area I cared about very much when I served as an MOD Minister. When I left ministerial office in 2016, the then Prime Minister Theresa May commissioned me and a small team to write a report about military recruitment, including terms of service such as service housing. We eventually entitled it “Filling the Ranks”, and it was submitted to the Prime Minister, with a copy to the Defence Secretary, in 2017. The report made 20 recommendations for improving recruitment, ranging from better advertising and further expansion of cadet units through to taking a more realistic approach to minor medical ailments such as mild eczema and temporary childhood asthma. Nineteen of the recommendations were accepted and actioned, to varying degrees, but unfortunately the one that was not was to consider sacking Capita—or according to Private Eye “Crapita”. Unfortunately, I never managed to persuade our Ministers to do that, despite the company’s truly awful record on Army recruitment.

The peer review of “Filling the Ranks” was positive. However, as we were making visits to military establishments and interviewing everyone from privates to very senior officers, including on many of the issues contained in the Bill, in nearly every case within 15 minutes of talking about recruitment, we found ourselves involved in a related conversation about retention. In simple terms, we learned very quickly that there was no point widening the aperture of the recruitment tap if we could not put a retention plug in the sink.

We were, therefore, delighted to be recommissioned to undertake a second report specifically into retention, which we subsequently entitled “Stick or Twist?”, as we thought that that encapsulated the serviceman’s dilemma, and which was eventually submitted to the new Prime Minister—one Boris Johnson—in February 2020, a month before the country went into lockdown. This report touched on a number of facets of the armed forces covenant, which are also part of the Bill. I have copies of both reports here with me.

Quite a few of the recommendations in “Stick or Twist?” were adopted, and the then Defence Secretary Ben Wallace used it to persuade the Treasury to provide some extra tens of millions of pounds to improve childcare facilities at a number of bases around the country. It was worth doing the report if only for that. I should like to pay tribute to the small team that helped me to compile the two reports: Colonel—now Brigadier—Simon Goldstein, himself a former distinguished reservist; and my two researchers Mrs Sophie Doward-Jones and Mr Rory Boden, who worked tirelessly to produce two documents written in a Select Committee style, with all the work that that entails, for the attention of the Prime Minister and Defence Secretary.

Again, however, the most controversial suggestion in “Stick or Twist?” was not adopted. It was a proposal to form a forces housing association and thus bring in expertise from the registered social landlord sector to better manage service families accommodation—SFA. Frankly, at the time this was simply too much for the vested interests in the MOD’s Defence Infrastructure Organisation to accept. Nevertheless, I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Defence Secretary, announced a few months ago our intention to introduce such a body if we return to government. The Armed Forces Bill has much to say on this topic—as indeed have many Members this evening—especially in clause 3, which heralds the creation of a defence housing service. This is conceptually similar in some ways to what was first recommended in “Stick or Twist?” six years ago, but with some important differences. I genuinely look forward to debating the respective merits of the two approaches with the Minister in Committee.

The Bill also touches on the issue of the armed forces covenant, which is a matter that we have discussed in this House on many occasions. In essence, the intention is to spread the authority of the covenant to cover other Government Departments, including Education and the NHS. We have a number of suggestions for how this process might be improved—for instance, in special needs education, which we hope to explore in Committee. I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for what she said about the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham. I had the privilege of visiting the military unit there on two occasions—once in the company of His Royal Highness, the then Prince of Wales, now His Majesty the King—and I echo everything she said about the excellence of that department at that hospital in caring for those who have served their country.

The Bill goes into some detail about potential improvements in the service justice system. This touches in part on a number of quite sensitive areas, not least those highlighted by my former Defence Committee colleague Sarah Atherton in what became known as the Atherton report. We shall again attempt to explore the merits and details of those proposals in Committee.

Before I conclude, I want to refer to the remarks of President Trump about the brave soldiers who fought alongside the United States and other allies in Afghanistan. Would that he had not said such things, especially as our troops also fought with the Americans in Iraq and in the caves of Bora Bora in 2001 after the United States invoked article 5 after 9/11—the only nation ever to do that. We traditionally avoid discussing royal matters in this House, but if it is true that President Trump’s volte face on this was in some way due to royal intervention, all I can say is: God save the King.

We should endeavour to take a broadly positive attitude to the Bill, but I must caution that there are two areas where the traditional consensus might struggle. First, the Government claim to be fully committed to the two principles of the armed forces covenant—namely, that no members of the wider armed forces family, be they regulars, reservists, veterans or their loved ones, should suffer any disadvantage as a result of their military service, and that special treatment may in some cases be appropriate, especially for the wounded or bereaved. All that rings hollow, however, when we see what the Government are currently doing to our brave Northern Ireland veterans—a matter we were debating in the House just last Wednesday evening over Labour’s remedial order to undermine the Conservative legacy Act, which protects our veterans. Over 100 Labour MPs failed to back that order on the night, including, interestingly, the Prime Minister himself, who abstained, as did over half the Cabinet, including the Defence Secretary and even the Armed Forces Minister. The Government have performed 13 U-turns in the past few months alone, and we very much hope for a 14th U-turn over two-tier justice and facilitating lawfare, especially against our own vital special forces, allowing our brave Northern Ireland veterans to live out their lives in peace instead.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

No.

Secondly, with regard to readiness, as the international skies darken, we fail to see how we can improve our deterrence posture through the Government’s imposing £2.6 billion of in-year spending cuts in the MOD’s operating budget this year, thus reducing training exercises, sea days and flying hours, all in the name of short-term cash control. The Government constantly claim that they are increasing defence spending while concurrently slashing our own armed forces’ operational spending and also stalling on the defence investment plan, which we were faithfully promised last autumn. Similarly, we have been promised a defence readiness Bill, which is not ready yet. It is like a serious defence strategy turning into “Waiting for Godot”.

With those two important provisos, we welcome the Bill. I genuinely look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply, including on why he abstained last Wednesday.

Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. This clause is an essential part of each and every Armed Forces Bill, as it provides for the Armed Forces Act 2006 to be renewed for a further five-year period. Without it, the 2006 Act would expire on 14 December 2026.

For constitutional and legal reasons, an Armed Forces Act is required every five years. That requirement for Parliament’s agreement for continuation has its origin in the Bill of Rights of 1689, which provides that the raising of a standing army is against the law unless Parliament consents to it. Primary legislation, an Armed Forces Act, is therefore required every five years, this one to renew the 2006 Act to provide for the armed forces to be recruited and maintained as disciplined bodies. The most recent Armed Forces Act was the 2021 Act, which provided for annual continuation in force of the 2006 Act by an Order in Council, but not beyond the end of 2026. That means that this Armed Forces Bill must receive Royal Assent before 14 December 2026.

Clause 1 replaces section 382 of the 2006 Act with a proposed new section 382 that provides for the 2006 Act to be continued until the end of 2031. It provides specifically for the 2006 Act to expire one year after the Royal Assent of this Bill, but it also provides for it then to be continued annually—rather than expiring—by an Order in Council up to, but not beyond, the end of 2031. As a consequence of clause 1, section 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2021, which inserted existing section 382 and the expiry date of 2026 into the 2006 Act, is repealed.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

By way of some brief introductory remarks, Mr Offord—

[The Chair]

Order. Let us get it right from the beginning —it is Efford, not Offord.

[Mr Francois]

I am sorry, Mr Efford. I was thinking of a previous Member.

[The Chair]

Mr Offord is your former colleague.

[Mr Francois]

I apologise, Mr Efford. As you say, get it right!

This was not a contentious Bill on Second Reading. As we said during that debate, we think our role is primarily to act as a critical friend to the Bill. That does not mean we will not disagree on anything at all, but it does mean that, now we are in Committee, we will attempt to approach the Bill in a constructive manner. I hope we can do a lot of that in a collegial way.

I want to place on record our thanks and, I am sure, those of all right hon. and hon. Members, to the Clerks and yourself, Mr Efford, for organising some extremely effective evidence sessions—we have already taken a lot of evidence on the Bill—and in particular for organising an extremely effective visit to Portsmouth to look, among other things, at the operation of the service justice system and defence housing. That has all been a positive start and, within reason, we will attempt to continue in the same manner. We have no objection to clause 1 standing part of the Bill.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

In the same vein, we see the Bill as part of our constitutional duty, and one that will help us to deliver the best for our service personnel—an aim that we all share. I echo the shadow Minister’s thanks to the Clerks and you, Mr Efford. I, too, look forward to working collegially across the Committee to ensure that we get the best Bill possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the words that we have used in the amendment are taken verbatim from the Minister’s letter of 9 March 2026? We asked him to provide a definition of due regard; he duly wrote to the Committee very promptly, and we have quoted the first sentence verbatim. These are not random words; this is the Minister’s definition. All we are seeking to do is place it in the Bill.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful, as always, to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, because he has hit the nail on the head. This is not something novel; it is merely codifying—formalising in the Bill—what has already been written in evidence to us, which seems eminently sensible.

It is important to consider the practical impact of the amendment on public bodies. The definition would not impose a new or onerous requirement. Public bodies are already accustomed to taking into account statutory duties and policy considerations in their decision-making processes. A requirement to think about the covenant and give it appropriate weight would fit squarely within that existing framework. It would not require extensive additional processes or resources. It would not mandate detailed reporting or specific outcomes. Instead, it would provide a clear instruction about how the covenant should be treated alongside other relevant factors. In practice, that may involve ensuring that decision makers are aware of the covenant and understand its implications. It may involve considering how policies affect members of the armed forces community and whether adjustments are needed to avoid disadvantage. Those seem eminently sensible and wise factors to put in this piece of legislation.

In education, that could mean taking into account the particular challenges faced by a service child who moves schools frequently. In healthcare, it could involve considering continuity of care for families who relocate. In housing, it could involve recognising the impact of service-related mobility on access to accommodation. In each of those cases, the duty does not require a specific result; it requires consideration of the relevant factors, including the covenant, and a balanced decision based on those factors. Amendment 8 would therefore support decision making without constraining flexibility.

We often hear concerns that defining duties in legislation may increase the risk of legal challenge. In my view, in this case, the greater clarity that the amendment would introduce is more likely to reduce that risk and be a protective factor. Where duties are clearly defined, public bodies are better able to understand and comply with them, which reduces the likelihood of disputes arising from uncertainty about what is required. Conversely, where duties are unclear, there is a greater risk of inconsistent application and challenge.

By setting out what due regard means in this context, the amendment would provide a clearer basis for compliance. Importantly, it would reduce ambiguity. It is also relevant that the definition is framed in general terms; it does not describe details or steps that must be followed in every case. That would allow public bodies to apply the duty in a way that is proportionate to the circumstances that they face. That flexibility is important given the range of functions and decisions to which the duty will apply.

The amendment aligns with the overall purpose of the Bill. The intention is to embed the principles of the armed forces covenant in the work of public bodies. A clearly defined duty would support that objective by ensuring that the covenant is considered in a consistent and meaningful way. If the duty is left undefined, there is a risk that its impact will vary significantly between organisations, which would undermine the aim of the Bill. The amendment would strengthen the Bill by supporting a more effective and consistent implementation. It would also reflect the practical realities of service life.

Members of the armed forces and their families frequently experience moves and disruption as part of their service. They rely on public services in different parts of the country and need those services to respond in a consistent and informed way. A clear definition of due regard would help to support that consistency, providing a common framework for decision making that recognises the particular circumstances of the armed forces community. It is not about giving preferential treatment in all cases; it is about ensuring fairness in line with the principles of the covenant. That includes avoiding disadvantage and, where appropriate, providing additional support. The amendment would ensure that those principles are properly taken into account.

Amendment 8 would make a targeted and practical improvement to the Bill. It would support a more consistent application of the armed forces covenant by public bodies, provide greater clarity for decision makers and those affected by their decisions, strengthen accountability, and reduce the risk of inconsistent interpretation. Most importantly, it would help to ensure that the covenant is applied in a way that has a real effect on day-to-day decision making. For those reasons, I view the amendment as a useful and proportionate clarification that would strengthen the operation of the duty as set out in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I agree with the premise of the hon. Member’s point. Where I disagree is in how local authorities may view that and how it may restrict their ability to deliver services across other requirements, in line with local priorities. In my letter to the Committee, I wrote:

“When developing the Armed Forces Covenant Legal Duty, due regard was deliberately chosen to bring about lasting positive change…whilst at the same time retaining some flexibility for public bodies to make decisions that are right for their local context and circumstances.”

That is really important, because some of our constituencies will have different levels of need compared with others. Some may have large veteran populations; others may not. Some may have a large number of cancer patients, for example. Prioritising veterans in a very narrow, bounded line above those individuals may skew a whole list of requirements and needs across other public services, hence my point about communication and education, and then the yearly accountability in line with the covenant, which is critical to ensure a level of accountability.

Government Departments are also demonstrating how covenant considerations are driving change in practice. For example, this Government have gone further than before by removing local connection requirements for access to social housing for all veterans. I would be really interested if the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has examples of where that local connection requirement has not been removed; if he does, I ask him, please, to highlight them to my office so that we can take them on and deal with them, because we removed the requirement last year.

Our experience of the public sector equality duty also shows that a duty of due regard, when properly supported, is sufficient to drive lasting cultural and organisational change, but I do accept that this is the first step to moving in that direction. In addition, the covenant’s statutory guidance, which we can scrutinise in due course, will include a dedicated section explaining what due regard means in practice, including the key issues faced by the armed forces community that bodies must consider. I would welcome the whole House’s view on how that can be improved—if, indeed, it thinks it should be.

[Mr Francois]

I do not think the Minister ever served in local government—he was serving his country in uniform, so I mean no slight by that comment—but I did for four years, albeit in the last century. I remember that primary legislation had more effect than guidance on councils, not least because even then we were drowning in such guidance—there is even more of it to drown in now. Would he accept that having something in primary legislation is more likely to get a councillor to do something about it than if it is included in reams of guidance, which they tend to drown in anyway on a weekly basis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service, both in the military and in local government, and as an armed forces champion. The honest reality is that as the duty is broadened from three areas to 12 plus two, local councils will be held to account to deliver for the armed forces community—and not just for veterans, but for families and others. The statutory guidance will be really clear. Combine that with field officers, under Op Valour, holding councils to account, with clear terms of reference that are standardised across the UK, and I think we will see a massive improvement in services, not just for veterans but for the broader armed forces community.

[Mr Francois]

I do not want to labour the point, but in reality, a lot often comes down to the calibre of the armed forces champion in a particular council; I am sure that the hon. Member for North Devon was an excellent one. If such a champion were in a debate in full council—on how to amend housing policy to advantage veterans, say—it would be far more effective for them to be able to point to a section in an Act of Parliament than to paragraph 212B(III) of some Government circular. An argument is far more effective in a council chamber if a person can wave an Act of Parliament; I have seen people do it. Does the Minister not accept that if we are trying to empower armed forces champions to deliver at ground level, having a definition in the Bill would be very helpful?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I promise the Minister that this will be the last time I intervene.

[Mr Francois]

On this point.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Yes, on this particular point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for his intervention. This is about placing a clear, time-bound duty on the Secretary of State to secure continuity of secondary care for dependants within six months. We want their clinical need to transfer horizontally across, as opposed to vertically downwards. That is the nuisance that amendment 10 is intended to address.

Amendment 10 sets out the substance of the regulations that I have suggested that the Secretary of State introduce. They are deliberately straightforward. First, where a patient is already receiving treatment, their status should be preserved when the responsibility for their care is transferred to a different health authority—that is, a horizontal move across. In practical terms, it would mean that a patient should not lose their place in the system because they crossed administrative boundaries. Instead, they should have a seamless transfer of care.

Secondly, the amendment would ensure that patients are not required to obtain a new referral solely by virtue of having moved, which would be ridiculous. The need for a referral is, and should remain, a clinical matter. It should not be triggered by geography and movement. Requiring a new referral in those circumstances adds delay, creates duplication and serves no meaningful clinical purpose.

Thirdly, the amendment calls for clear guidance on the practical steps necessary to support continuity, including the timely and efficient transfer of patient records, the recognition and continuation of existing treatment pathways, and the preservation of procedures that have been booked or recommended. Those are not novel concepts; in many ways, they are already part of good administrative practice. What is lacking is the consistency of application across the country.

It is perhaps worth emphasising what amendment 10 would not do, as much as what it would. It would not confer preferential treatment on service families. It would not seek to move them ahead of others in the queue, nor to secure access to services beyond what is clinically necessary. Its purpose is much more modest: to ensure that service families are not disadvantaged as a result of circumstances beyond their control. That is entirely in keeping with the armed forces covenant, which commits to removing disadvantage, not to creating advantage. In that context, the disadvantage is clear; it arises not from clinical need, but from the intersection of mobility and administrative fragmentation. Addressing it is therefore both entirely justified and absolutely necessary.

There is also a broader point about fairness and the implicit contract between the nation and those who serve. Service personnel accept a range of constraints and obligations that do not apply to the general population. They relinquish a degree of control over where they live, where they move and how they organise their family life. In return, it is entirely reasonable for them to expect that the state will take reasonable steps to ensure that those constraints do not translate into avoidable hardship for their families.

Continuity of healthcare is a particularly important aspect of that understanding. Health is not a peripheral concern; it is central to the wellbeing and stability of service families. Disruption to care can have a cascading effect on education, employment and the overall resilience of the family unit. In that sense, addressing the issue is a matter not only of fairness, but of operational effectiveness. A serviceperson who is worried about the health of their family cannot fully focus on their duties. At a time of critical need, their ability to do so is absolutely essential.

Some may raise questions about the practicalities of implementing such a system, particularly in the context of devolved health systems across the United Kingdom. It is therefore important to be clear about the scope and intent of amendment 10. It would not seek to override devolved competencies or impose a uniform model of service delivery. Rather, it would require that whatever the organisational arrangements are, mechanisms be in place to ensure continuity when patients move between them.

In many respects, the steps required are administrative rather than structural. They involve ensuring that information flows effectively, that existing clinical decisions are recognised, and that waiting positions are honoured, based on clinical need. These are matters of co-ordination, communication and guidance; they do not require wholesale reform of the system.

There are already examples of good practice in this area. In some parts of the country, arrangements have already been put in place to facilitate the transfer of patients between trusts with minimal disruption to their care. The amendment seeks to ensure that such practice becomes the norm rather than the exception.

It is also worth noting that the increasing digitalisation of healthcare records and the development of more integrated healthcare systems provide a foundation upon which this kind of continuity can be built. In many cases, the infrastructure already exists; what is needed is a clearer expectation, backed by regulation, that it should be used to support service families consistently and reliably.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. As he and the Committee know, there is a major reform of NHS England going on. At the ground level, it means that there will be far fewer integrated care boards. In Essex, we are going from three to one, and that approach is mirrored across the country. Is not my hon. Friend’s amendment therefore very timely, because—this should appeal to the Minister—we are trying to slim down NHS bureaucracy and give ICBs more power within the system? Would my hon. Friend’s proposal not tie in extremely well with the reorganisation of integrated care boards, which hold much of the budget within the NHS?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is about not only streamlining the process, but giving more heft to those who wield the power to ensure that we get improved patient outcomes at the end of it. That is what we should all be seeking.

Ultimately, the question before us is very straightforward: are we content to allow a situation to persist in which service families can lose their place in the healthcare system simply because they are required to move in the course of service, or do we consider it reasonable to take targeted steps to prevent that outcome? In my view, the answer is clear. Where treatment has begun, it should continue. Where a place on a waiting list has been earned, it should be respected. Administrative boundaries should not dictate clinical outcomes. They certainly should not impose additional burdens on those who have little choice but to cross them.

The amendment provides a measured and practical mechanism to achieve that objective. It respects the structure of the NHS, acknowledges the reality of devolution and focuses squarely on the removal of a specific and identifiable disadvantage. In doing so, it gives tangible effect to the principles of the covenant. It recognises that our obligations to service families are not merely symbolic; they require a practical expression in the design and operation of public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East is leading for the Opposition on clause 2, I nevertheless want to make a particular point in relation to special educational needs and to adoption and fostering. I want to emphasise some issues related to educational aspects of the armed forces covenant. I shall therefore speak to amendment 11, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends, which relates to the continuity of special educational needs plans, and to amendment 12, tabled by the same Members, which relates to fostering and adoption.

I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members on the Committee will be familiar from their constituency casework with the challenges presented by the special educational needs issue. I therefore rather hope they might have some sympathy with amendment 11, the essence of which is to allow serving families with a child who has been awarded an education, health and care plan, or its equivalent in the other nations of the United Kingdom, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move between bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area of the country to another.

In the modern parlance, I have been on a journey in relation to this issue, so let me explain briefly to the Committee why I feel so strongly about it. Over the past few years, multiple parents have come to my constituency advice surgeries in connection with this issue. In a number of cases, they have been through what I admit is a bureaucratic assault course, sometimes lasting two years or longer, to establish an EHCP for their child or children. Having been through that gruelling experience, which can sometimes even involve attending an appeal hearing in front of a judge, they have often been confronted with the further challenge—even having won such a valuable document, which provides important additional support for their child—that they still cannot find a special needs place. Their child therefore has to be accommodated somehow in mainstream education, even if their condition is such that mainstream education is simply not appropriate in their case.

[Pam Cox]

I cannot help noting that the poor performance of SEN services in Essex is largely down to Conservative-run Essex county council, whose arrangement the right hon. Member and I share.

[Mr Francois]

I was hoping to approach this in a relatively non-partisan manner, but if the hon. Lady wants to mix it, I am happy to do so.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

Let me just reply to the first intervention, and then I will be happy to take another. It is definitely true that there is a backlog in granting EHCPs in Essex, for a number of contractual reasons. To be fair to the county council, it now has a new contract and has invested heavily in catching up, but let me get back to the service personnel aspect.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I have great sympathy with what the right hon. Member is saying. We face this issue all over the country, particularly in Cornwall. However, he will be aware that the amendment may be out of date soon because the Government are introducing new SEN reforms that will introduce national standards, so hopefully it will no longer be needed.

[Mr Francois]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point. Having looked at the White Paper in a fair bit of detail, I have tried to incorporate how the system will change into what I am going to say. There is still a fundamental problem, however, which I hope I can explain to her satisfaction.

I have come to understand at least a bit about the complexities of the situation, including the important fact that some 99% of appeals to SEN tribunals for an EHCP to be granted are eventually approved anyway. That is a phenomenally high percentage. It struck me that the system was expending a tremendous amount of resource in trying to exercise the judgment of Solomon as to whether child A was marginally more entitled to a scarce SEN school place than child B. That can apply to the children of service personnel as well. It therefore seemed to me, after some years of experience, that the only way to cut the Gordian knot was to increase the supply of special needs education. With all the SEN schools in south Essex already heavily oversubscribed, that meant creating a new special needs school from scratch. I spent three years trying to do exactly that.

I am delighted to tell the Committee that Wolsey Park school, the first ever SEN school in the Rochford district, is now under construction and will hopefully open in the spring of next year for 150 children with severe or profound learning difficulties—the most challenging SEN cases—in Rayleigh. There will also be an annexe with a further 100 places on the former Chetwood primary school site in South Woodham Ferrers. The school will be called Wolsey Park, although light-heartedly I thought “Francois academy” had a certain ring to it. Others, unfortunately, disagreed. It should provide high-quality education for those very special children.

As a result of that process, I have been on an educational journey that has taught me quite a lot about the complexities and challenges of the whole area, which of course also applies to service personnel who have a child, or in some cases children, with special educational needs. I know that this can sometimes be an emotive subject, not least for parents, but I hope I can convince the Committee that what I am attempting to do is not any kind of partisan initiative, but will hopefully be to the benefit of all service personnel and their families in this category.

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth raised the new White Paper. In February 2026, the Government published a long-awaited White Paper on this subject, “Every child achieving and thriving”. There are a number of positive suggestions in that document, and I should like to touch on them, as they potentially affect armed forces personnel.

According to the latest estimates, by which I mean the gov.uk statistics concerning SEN and EHCP provision in England for the academic year 2024-25, there are 482,640 children with an education, health and care plan in England. Obviously, the number increases when Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are included in the total; they have different names for the document, but they are essentially quite similar.

The definition of special educational needs, which is included in the SEND code of practice for England, is brief and very clear:

“A child or young person has SEN if they have a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision to be made for him or her.”

At present, that provision, whether it is in a mainstream educational setting or a dedicated SEN school, is often supported in the most challenging cases by an EHCP. The White Paper estimates that around 5.3% of children in England, or just over one in 20, currently qualify for an EHCP. Although I have not seen specific statistics relating to the military community, it seems logical that the proportion is unlikely to be lower, so at least one in 20 service children, and perhaps even more, qualify for an EHCP.

One of the challenges of dealing with SEN children—this point relates directly to amendment 11—is that providing the additional support they require is often relatively resource-intensive. Local education authorities are therefore often reluctant to speedily grant EHCPs because of the financial pressure that it adds to their budgets, even though 99% of those cases tend to be settled in favour of the parents and the child concerned anyway, sometimes after a gruelling and time-consuming appeal process.

Because of the funding pressures placed on local authorities by the growing demand for SEN support and for EHCPs in particular, several years ago the then Conservative Government introduced what was known as the statutory override for local authority budgets. In essence, it meant that although local authorities are required by law to set a balanced budget each year—would that central Government had to live by such discipline!—the one exception whereby they are allowed to run a deficit deliberately is the case of costs arising from SEN education.

As we have local elections approaching, it is fair to say—without being partisan or going into the cases of individual councils—that rising SEN costs have placed a number of local authorities that are also local education authorities, such as county councils or metropolitan or London boroughs, under considerable financial strain in recent years. As a result, under the Conservative Government, the statutory override that was introduced in March 2020 and was initially meant to run until March 2023 was extended to the end of March 2026.

Now I am about to give this Labour Government some credit. The question of what would happen when the statutory override ran out is obviously still pertinent. In June 2025, they announced that the statutory override would stay in place until the end of the financial year 2027-28—so they extended it. Moreover, in autumn 2025, the Treasury announced that the Government would absorb the cost of the statutory override through central budgets—in other words, via general taxation—once the override expires in 2028.

As the Library briefing notes on this subject point out:

“Future funding implications will be managed within the overall government DEL envelope, such that the government would not expect local authorities to need to fund future special educational needs costs from general funds, once the Statutory Override ends at the end of 2027-28.”

In February this year—last month—the Government further announced that they would be writing off 90% of councils’ historic SEND-related deficits, at least up to the year 2025-26. All of that is very costly in terms of general taxation, and I have yet to see a comprehensive estimate of exactly how it will be paid for, but the Committee might feel that, in these very particular and emotive cases, the money is none the less well spent.

[Jayne Kirkham]

Looking at amendment 11’s proposed new section 343AZC of the 2006 Act, I am not sure whether there may be a drafting error. EHCPs are normally given to the child, not the parent, and the proposed new section is drafted as if the plan will be awarded to the parent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I accept the hon. Lady’s point, but in effect the EHCP relates to the child, and the parents have to fight the system to get it. I am very happy to take her advice on board if I bring the amendment back on Report.

Nevertheless—this is why I have placed an emphasis on budgets—the cost of SEN still places a significant in-year pressure on local authorities that are trying to set realistic budgets. Of course, there is the related issue that many Committee members will be familiar with—the cost of home-to-school transport for SEN children, some of whom are driven from home to school, in some cases over quite long distances, often effectively in taxis provided by the local authority.

Amendment 11 relates specifically to the portability of EHCPs, but it is important to understand that in the February 2026 White Paper, the Government delineated three tiers of SEN support, which I will briefly summarise. The first or lower tier is targeted support. That is defined as providing targeted support in the child’s education setting, which is set out in an individual support plan—an ISP, as opposed to an EHCP. That could include small group interventions to develop language skills or pre-teaching key vocabulary to help access the curriculum.

The second tier is targeted plus, through which support from the setting will have input from education and health professionals, and may include access to a support base. That will involve time-limited support in an alternative provision or specialist setting.

The third and highest tier is specialist support, where support is provided through an EHCP, whether in a mainstream or specialist setting. It may also be provided through a specialist base at this level. Once reforms are completed, EHCPs will be provided only at this level of support. In other words, they will be more difficult to get. According to the White Paper, these layers will be guided by national inclusion standards to be developed in the coming years, which will set out what the layers should look like in practice. Again, as so often, we await further Government guidance.

I have deliberately gone into this level of detail because, at the moment, the amendment is drafted only to include EHCPs. To be clear, it is my intention today to deal with this effectively as a probing amendment to promote debate. Depending on the Committee’s reaction, I would like to bring back a refined amendment for discussion in Committee of the whole House or on Report. I am signalling in advance that I might withdraw the amendment today and tweak it to bring in those other levels of support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor]

The right hon. Member makes a very valid point. I invite him to submit his speech to the consultation on the Government’s White Paper on special educational needs. If he is going to withdraw the amendment, perhaps he would consider that, and then we could move on.

[Mr Francois]

Having been a Member of Parliament for 25 years in June, I have learned not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I say that in the nicest possible way, so I will take the hint, and having gone to the trouble of writing the speech, I will definitely submit it.

To continue, if a service family were based at Tidworth and, perhaps after some considerable time, had secured an EHCP from Wiltshire as the local education authority, but were then posted to Catterick, they would potentially have to go through the process all over again in Yorkshire. It could be another two years of agony to get back to where they already were before they moved.

As the Minister pointed out in his helpful letter to the Committee of 9 March, the Department for Education has produced—here is that word again—“guidelines” that should help facilitate the passporting, in effect, of EHCPs from one military garrison or equivalent airbase or naval base to another in a different LEA area, so there is already a process in place to do that. The problem, however, is that those guidelines are facilitative rather than mandatory. In other words, if the receiving LEA—in Yorkshire, in our example—was already under serious financial pressure and already had delays in its system for granting EHCPs, it is possible that, despite the armed forces covenant, the receiving LEA might yet be unreasonable and still force the service family to go back to square one and start all over again. Without taking the Committee for granted in any way, I strongly suspect that Members from all parties would find that situation highly undesirable.

[Mr Foster]

Is it not the case that a civilian family who lived in Wiltshire and moved to Yorkshire would face exactly the same challenges as the service family? The covenant is about service personnel and families not being at a disadvantage compared with their civilian counterparts. Actually, they are already not at a disadvantage because both are dealt with in exactly the same way.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Member is making my point for me. In the civilian context they might not be ordered to move, but in a military context their whole unit might move, so they do not have a choice. If they are going to follow the drum—follow the flag—they have to go from Tidworth to Catterick. If, therefore, the LEA covering Catterick were difficult about it, they would have to start the journey all over again. When I was doing the “Stick or Twist?” report, I spoke to a number of service personnel, so we had anecdotal evidence, although I am afraid not a league table. We certainly spoke to people who were contemplating leaving the military because they were in exactly that situation and simply could not face the challenge of having to move and start all over again. They would rather leave the service of the Crown and keep the bird in the hand—for want of a better phrase—staying with the EHCP that they had, than move to a new location, roll the dice and start all over again. That is the fundamental difference.

An absolute principle of the covenant—as, to be fair, the hon. Member for South Ribble rightly elucidated—is that service personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage as a result of their military service. This is a very specific example of where they do, and we called the report “Stick or Twist?” because, in this case, that is the dilemma that they would face. I have done my best, I hope, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, so I will try to move towards a conclusion without trying your patience, Mr Efford.

In essence, amendment 11 seeks to make provision for the Secretary of State to produce guidelines within six months such that the receiving authority must accept that transfer as legitimate and seek to passport across whatever benefits were provided for in the EHCP, or in the national equivalent in the devolved Administrations. On a point of detail, as an EHCP usually includes a named school for that child to go to, whether mainstream or specialist, the service family should also be given a reasonable period of time in order to help negotiate and select a named school in the receiving area, ideally before their posting comes into effect, so that the child could, as it were, know their fate and begin to establish links in the new school. I hope Committee members appreciate that for children with certain SEN conditions, moving educational settings can be a disturbing experience. That is why I put that provision into the amendment.

I hope the Committee will forgive me for having gone into considerable detail about all this, but special educational needs is perforce a rather complicated subject. Nevertheless, I hope that the Committee can understand what I and my hon. Friends seek to achieve here, and I hope that we might somehow be able to co-opt the Committee on a cross-party basis to bring it through. The spirit is simple: one of the key principles of the armed forces covenant is that service personnel should suffer no disadvantage relative to their civilian counterparts by virtue of their service, and I believe that that should apply equally in the field of special needs education as elsewhere.

Having presented my case, and so as not to try the Committee’s patience, I genuinely look forward to hearing other members of the Committee, especially the Minister when he sums up, and their views of amendment 11. I shall not discuss amendment 12 now, but will let someone else have a go. Perhaps, Mr Efford, you will call me to speak briefly to that amendment later. Other than that, I rest my case.

[The Chair]

I do not see anyone else wishing to speak, so carry on.

[Mr Francois]

I did not want to push my luck, but briefly, amendment 12 is similar in spirit and relates to portability and adoption. In this instance, I want to raise a specific case of two serving officers. They asked not to be identified, but perhaps the Minister will take my word that it is a genuine case; if he wants me to provide the details privately afterwards, I am happy to do so.

This married couple, both serving majors based at Shrivenham, have been looking to adopt. They are both due to be posted to PJHQ—permanent joint headquarters —in Northwood at the conclusion of their course, in under six months. They reached out to their future local authority to start the adoption process, but they were told that they could not start the process unless they had been living in that local authority area for at least a year. Also, they would have to commit to staying in the new local authority area for a minimum of two to three years after they had adopted—a potential total of more than five years. That is clearly not feasible for a military family, used to two-year posting cycles.

Our amendment 12 would therefore simply give military families the same rights as civilian families, who do not have to move wherever the nation needs them. It is very similar in essence to the point about EHCPs, but representations have been made to me by that family and others, so I undertook to draft a parallel amendment that specifically covers fostering and adoption. I hope the Committee can understand the spirit of what I am trying to achieve. With that, I rest my case.

[Al Carns]

I begin by addressing amendment 10. I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for his views on the Bill, and for raising the important issue of continuity of NHS secondary care for armed forces families. Although the amendment is well-intentioned, the Government cannot support it, for a relatively simple reason.

Healthcare, education, adoption and fostering arrangements are devolved matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendment risks overstepping devolved powers, and could breach the Sewel convention by imposing UK-wide operational requirements from Westminster, potentially straining relationships within the devolved Governments. It is counterintuitive.

The amendment also raises significant concerns about clinical prioritisation and patient safety. Requiring patients to retain waiting-list positions regardless of clinical urgency risks distorting NHS prioritisation principles, which are based on clinical need, ensuring fairness and safety. Similarly, transferring care without appropriate referral processes could undermine clinical governance, particularly given variations in treatment pathways and IT systems across NHS regions. For a long time, we have known that that creates a set of complexities that is difficult to navigate.

The armed forces covenant already provides a strong, flexible framework for addressing those challenges. The NHS has embedded the covenant principles into its constitution. It delivers bespoke pathways for the armed forces community, such as Op Restore and Op Courage, and it has a central armed forces commissioning team, which works to retain NHS waiting-list positions where clinically appropriate. I have met them, and they are exceptionally proficient at what they do.

In addition, existing programmes and ongoing electronic record integration already address many of the challenges associated with frequent moves and continuity of care, without the need for additional statutory requirements. A clear example of that collaborative approach is the work that is under way with the devolved Administrations. Wales and Scotland have today confirmed that following the cross-border work that has been led by the Government, they are actively considering updating their policies to better reflect cross-border arrangements and the maintenance of waiting times.

The current approach is based on close co-operation between the MOD, NHS, devolved Governments and local health bodies, supported by the armed forces covenant duty, rather than by rigid primary legislation. That allows for locally tailored solutions that respect clinical priorities and patient safety and avoid unintended consequences, such as disruption and delay. Extensive consultation and co-operation with devolved Administrations and stakeholders is essential to maintaining effective healthcare provision, and that could be undermined by prescriptive regulation and unrealistic deadlines. The objectives of the amendment are therefore largely met through existing statutory guidance and NHS policies, which provide a more flexible and effective framework for supporting armed forces families.

Generally, the difficulties and complexity of triaging patients across devolved Governments, different NHS trusts and secondary care are not lost on me. Separately from discussing the amendment, I would welcome a discussion with the Minister for Veterans and People about how we can continue to improve the existing process. I understand the positive and forward-looking intent behind the amendment.

Amendment 11 seeks to mandate the transfer of special educational needs plans between the devolved Governments. While well-meaning, that approach is unlikely to work in practice. Each nation operates a distinct statutory system for identifying need, assessing children and delivering support. Imposing a legal requirement for portability across those frameworks risks creating delay, duplication and additional bureaucracy for some families.

The more effective route is continued joint working with bodies in scope, building on the existing protections that are already provided by the covenant. The duty requires public bodies to consider the specific impacts of service mobility, including for children with SEND, and to ensure that support remains responsive as families move.

The Government are already taking significant steps in this space. The Department for Education is consulting on SEND reforms that explicitly recognise the challenges faced by service children. A central part of this work is developing digital, streamlined plans that can be easily transferred, reducing delays during moves.

In England, local authorities already have a statutory duty to manage and transfer education, health and care plans when a child moves between areas. The Ministry of Defence has been fully engaged with the Department for Education’s consultation on SEND reform, highlighting the importance of minimising disruption to service personnel and families and ensuring quicker access to support in new locations. Reforms under consideration by this Government include digital EHCPs and individual support plans, which go a long way towards sorting out some of the bureaucracy, and are designed to support smoother transitions for highly mobile children. The MOD is also working with the Department for Education on the Best Start in Life programme and family hubs, providing integrated, accessible support from pregnancy onwards. Guidance to help the hubs to support service families effectively is expected this spring.

--- Later in debate ---

Mandating cross-border portability would cut across devolved legislation. In some cases, it would create further confusion, would risk slowing down some of the work that we are already doing, and would reduce the speed at which it is delivering.

[Mr Francois]

I am not quite convinced by the Minister’s argument. I understand what he is saying, but if Corporal Tommy Atkins, his wife and their special needs child in Wiltshire are posted to Edinburgh castle, Fort George, Leuchars or wherever in Scotland, that is not their fault. The amendment would help to reduce bureaucracy by requiring the receiving LEA to take the EHCP. The fact that it was created in England does not mean that it should not be valid in Scotland. The currency we use is valid in both nations, so I am not quite convinced by the Minister’s argument—and either way, it does not help the service personnel or the child much, does it?

[Al Carns]

We continue to discuss with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales how best to enhance the cross-pollination of EHCPs and individual support plans. We will continue to do so and, in particular, will try to speed up the transition and make it smoother for highly mobile children.

To legislate in the way the shadow Minister suggests, when a White Paper is already out and changes in legislation are coming, could result in the incorrect solution for armed forces families. What I would recommend is a discussion with the Minister for Veterans and People to update the right hon. Member in full and ensure that any ideas or insights that he has are pulled into that work, so that we come up with the best collaborative solution. The Government’s preferred approach is collaboration within existing frameworks, underpinned by the covenant duty, which will deliver the practical benefits without the unintended consequences.

Amendment 12, which seeks to continue adoption and fostering arrangements automatically across local authority boundaries, would raise significant practical difficulties. Each local authority operates with its own procedures, safeguarding requirements and legal frameworks. A single, one-size-fits-all statutory requirement risks creating confusion, administrative burden and potential delays, which is precisely the kind of disruption that the amendment seeks to avoid.

The Ministry of Defence already provides comprehensive guidance for service families through the adoption and fostering defence instruction notice, which embeds the MOD’s role firmly within existing civilian-led systems. These long-standing civilian frameworks already ensure continuity for families when they move. In combination with the strengthened covenant duty, they provide a far more practical and effective approach than the amendment process.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford raised a specific case. I am more than happy to take it offline. If we can help directly where the system has not worked, or help with the process, I will pass it on to the Minister for Veterans and People, and we will get after that problem set.

The covenant’s statutory guidance provides a flexible and practical framework that respects local authority responsibilities while directly addressing the challenges faced by service families. It ensures that individual circumstances can be properly considered without imposing rigid requirements that may not fit every complex case.

For those reasons, the Government consider the amendment unnecessary and duplicative. We remain fully committed to supporting healthcare needs for armed forces families, improving SEN provision and ensuring robust support for those involved in adoption and fostering. We will continue to work collaboratively with delivery partners and improve guidance where needed, rather than impose inflexible statutory mandates that risk unintended consequences. I hope that that provides reassurance. I ask hon. Members not to press amendments 10, 11 or 12.

[The Chair]

Does the shadow Minister wish to press amendment 11?

[Mr Francois]

Let me say briefly that I hope that, if nothing else—

[The Chair]

Order. I was not calling the shadow Minister to make a speech; I was just asking whether he would press amendment 11.

[Mr Francois]

No, Mr Efford, and I was just going to say why not. I tipped my hand earlier and said that I probably would not press it. I will accept the Minister’s kind offer of a meeting to discuss the issues in amendments 11 and 12. I hope I have managed to convince the Committee that I have done my homework, if nothing else. I will not press either amendment.

[David Reed]

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Armed Forces Covenant Action Plans

(1) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations requiring a local authority to which the Armed Forces Covenant duty applies to prepare and publish an Armed Forces Action Plan.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify that an Armed Forces Action Plan set out—

(a) the steps the authority intends to take to fulfil its duties under the Armed Forces Covenant,

(b) how the authority will assess local need within the Armed Forces community, and

(c) how resources will be allocated to support delivery of those duties.

(3) A relevant local authority must, at least once in each reporting period, publish a report on progress made against its action plan.

(4) In preparing an action plan and report under this section, a relevant local authority must have regard to any guidance or outcomes issued by the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State may issue guidance, including indicative outcomes or measures, for the purposes of supporting consistent implementation and assessment of the Armed Forces Covenant duty.”

This amendment would require local authorities subject to the Covenant duty to prepare and publish an Action Plan setting out how they will deliver the duty.

The amendment, which stands in my name and in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends, would place a clear and consistent obligation on local authorities to produce an armed forces covenant action plan. At present, there is no standardised mechanism for assessing how local authorities are delivering their covenant duties, nor is there a consistent framework for evaluating the effectiveness of delivery in practice. The absence of such a structure makes it difficult to form a clear picture of how the covenant is being implemented across the country. Without a defined framework, delivery is likely to vary among authorities, a point that has been raised today in relation to other amendments.

Some local authorities, particularly those with an established focus on armed forces issues, may continue to provide strong and proactive support. They may already have effective partnerships in place with local services charities, good engagement with their armed forces communities, and a clear understanding of local need. In some areas, local authorities are already producing plans or strategies, often working closely with the local armed forces network and charities. The amendment would build on that existing good practice, rather than starting from scratch.

Other authorities, facing a wide range of competing pressures, may find it more difficult to give their covenant commitments the same level of attention. That is not necessarily due to a lack of willingness; rather, it reflects the reality of limited capacity and competing priorities.

The result can be a variation in provision across different areas, whereby the consistency of available support may depend in part on where an individual lives. That sits uneasily with the intention behind the armed forces covenant, which is to provide a consistent commitment to those who serve or have served and to their families. The amendment is intended to support the duty by helping to ensure that the covenant is delivered in a more consistent and transparent way at a local level.

In practical terms, the absence of a structured approach presents some challenges. First, it can limit the ability of local authorities to assess the scale and nature of their armed forces community. Without a clear expectation that information will be gathered and analysed, there is a risk that need will not be fully identified. That may relate to housing, access to healthcare, employment support or the specific needs of service families who move frequently. It may also include the needs of veterans who are less visible and are therefore less likely to come into contact with services unless there is a proactive effort to reach them. If need is not clearly understood, it becomes more difficult to design services that respond effectively.

Secondly, without a clear planning framework, resource allocations can become less strategic. Decisions may be taken on a reactive basis, responding to immediate issues as they arise rather than being guided by a longer-term assessment of the need. Given the financial pressures facing local authorities, that is understandable. However, it increases the risk that covenant-related activity will not be prioritised consistently, particularly when it is not clearly set out alongside other statutory responsibilities. A more structured approach would allow better co-ordination of support between services, including housing, healthcare and employment support, where needs often overlap and require a joined-up response.

Thirdly, the absence of a requirement to set priorities or to publish reports on progress makes it harder to assess how covenant duties are being delivered in practice. It becomes more difficult for central Government to understand what is happening at a local level; it is also more difficult for local stakeholders, including service charities and armed forces families, to see what support is available and how it is being developed. Those issues were reflected in earlier evidence sessions, in which concerns were raised about the lack of consistent metrics and the difficulty of comparing delivery between authorities.

Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

During the transition from service to being a veteran, even if everything is marvellous, you will suffer a lack of comradeship. You have extremely tight bonds in the military—the team wins the war, because you will do anything for your comrades—but when you come to civilian life, as the Minister has done more recently than I have, you lose those tight bonds and that sense of belonging. That opens you up to other traumas that perhaps you were managing when you were there with your mates, whether that was moral injury or classic, trauma-induced PTSD. You become a veteran, because you choose to leave the service or your contract comes to an end, and that sense of belonging, which is like a salve, disappears and you are exposed to the traumas you have had.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I am loath to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he is making an extremely powerful speech. I pay tribute to his service. When I was the Veterans Minister a decade ago, I looked at the issue. One thing that we looked at closely was the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, which is that some veterans leave in very good mental shape—they have an exit medical and they are fine—but a few years later there can be a trigger event, such as the sudden death of a parent, and suddenly all the suppressed anxieties and difficulties seen in combat can come out very quickly. That person can deteriorate extremely fast. Is the hon. Gentleman’s proposed appointment partly intended to address that problem?

[Mike Martin]

The shadow Minister is exactly right. We have used a few metaphors today, including that of mental health as a journey. Another metaphor is that mental health is a garden that has to be tended. Each of us has a responsibility to introspect and check in with ourselves to see how we are doing, but the garden also needs to be tended by gardeners. The oversight position in new clause 2 is the chief gardener, if you like.

We have all heard stories in our constituency casework about how mental health services are being pared to the bone. By offering reports to Parliament, the veterans’ mental health oversight officer would be able to illustrate some of the particular problems that veterans who suffer with mental health problems have. They would report to Parliament and illustrate the problems in a way that would enable Parliament to adequately oversee the issue and make sure that our veterans are cared for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions on clause 2 and the new clauses. They are based on the right intent, and Members are trying to do the best by our serving and ex-serving population.

I will leave the script and step back to look at where we have come on this journey. Under the previous Government, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs sat outside the Ministry of Defence. I sort of understand why that happened in some cases. I analysed this to and fro for a long time before making the decision to bring it back in. With hindsight, after a year and a half, the ability to amalgamate all the different parts of the veterans portfolio, including pensions, injury claims, records and the resource that Defence brings, has brought us far further forward. Would that have happened if the OVA had not been outside in the first place? I cannot comment, but its position in Defence, where it is safeguarded as an organisation, means that it harnesses all the bureaucratic power that Defence can bring to move stuff forward.

I will come in a second to the issues of veterans’ mental health and having a veterans commissioner. But if we step back and look at Afghanistan—where some Committee members here served; I did five tours there—there was a palpable feel among the population that the Government were not doing enough, or that the system was not flat and fast enough to deal with the scale of the problem that Afghanistan was kicking out on rotations. We therefore saw an explosion in the number of veterans charities, and the reality is that we now have more than 1,000 veterans charities in the UK. That number is growing every day. Some are the best, most well-meaning people, doing an amazing job and dealing flat and fast with veterans in our communities at the grassroots level. They do an outstanding job, and we have to harness the best charities. Some big charities, too, do a fantastic job of analysing data and providing the Government with clear advice on how to support veterans. There is also everything in between. I will be clear: there are the most amazing charities, very good charities, average charities and a very small minority that do not deliver as efficiently as perhaps they should.

In the veterans portfolio, how do we help the charities cohere their capacity, the £1 billion market that is the veterans charity sector, to deliver it more effectively? And how do we do that in conjunction with local government, while understanding the good, the bad and the other group that sits to the right of that mark? That will stem from Valour. It has taken small steps, but it is moving forward relatively quickly. The first one was about the establishment of an OC—officer commanding—Valour, the head of Valour. Who will run this programme, which is not just about England, but about England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

The reason why we need one central point of contact is that we have devolved Administrations that do things differently. We have a plethora of datasets that sit within big charitable organisations, sometimes feeding the output of the charities and at other times providing us with good, balanced analysis. The trouble is that we do not have a collective dataset to give us a clear understanding of the various issues across our veterans space. In fact, the RBL did a fantastic study on perception versus reality, on the statistics and the view of the population versus the actual realities for veterans at the grassroots level. It pointed to one thing: with so many charities needing to generate and raise funds, in some cases they had to champion the requirement for money to go to the most needy or individuals in most need of support.

When we look at the realities, most veterans leave the military and do not have an issue. A proportion have medium-level needs, and a proportion have some really acute needs. The reality and the perception, however, are different. Some of that is skewed, because we have created a charitable sector network that must generate an income from championing or sometimes pushing the most injured and the individuals who need the most support to the very front of the limelight. That creates a national narrative that turns veterans into victims, and I tell the Committee now that it is 110% not the case. Some individuals need lots of support, some need some support and other people go on to contribute to society with no impact whatever.

[Mr Francois]

To reinforce what the Minister is saying, Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory, who for many years was the controller of SSAFA, always used to make the point that while clearly some people suffer as a result of their military career, as the Minister admits, the vast bulk emerge in good shape, remain in good shape and benefit immensely from their time in service. I put on record what Lieutenant General Gregory, the head of SSAFA until recently, said, if only to back up absolutely everything the Minister is saying.

[Al Carns]

Sir Andrew is an exceptionally good man, and few are more knowledgeable than him on veterans matters. We have a position where, in some cases, veterans are seen as victims, but we have no central body that understands the totality of veterans issues across the United Kingdom. Head Valour is therefore coming into place in the next month or two, with a new headquarters. What does a headquarters mean? It means pulling in all the data sources to provide us with a comprehensive view of the issues that veterans face in this country—a balanced, analytical view, not one that is sometimes skewed by institutional organisations or other bodies. That is not because it is in their interests to do so, but it might be a passion project. It is about providing a balanced, analytical view, which must be data-led and have the horsepower to do that across all the devolved nations.

There is, of course, no point pooling data feeds if they come in all sorts of different forms. That brings in the Valour centres. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells talked about camaraderie. One of the issues at the moment is that when a veteran has a mental health issue, they have to go to eight different charities before they land on the right one. They usually start with family or a friend, and they will then go from one charity to another, having to bounce around, retelling the story, reliving the trauma. Sometimes, by the time they get three or four down the line, they give up. That is where we have some pretty catastrophic consequences.

The Valour centres are about taking some of the existing centres—we have more than 700, and growing, across the country—finding the very best ones, providing them with long-term Government funding, and standardising the services and engagement. We will ensure that they understand their local networks of the good, the bad and the ugly charities, and can then distribute resources down to them, to provide a set of standard-ish services as best we can—that goes back to the postcode issue. Secondly, we will ensure that the data flows back up to the headquarters in a manner that can be digested and analysed in the most effective way. On top of the Valour centres, field officers in local councils will help to control the centres, as well as to hold councils to account should they not fall in line with the covenant and some of the principles we have talked about today. We are in the foothills; in the future, we should have a far better, greater dataset for us collectively to analyse.

I do not believe that putting one individual in charge of veterans’ mental health would provide us with the systemic jump to deal effectively with that issue. Courage is a programme from the previous Government. We have taken it on and kept it going, because it is working well. For everything we have talked about today—mental health, housing, education, and special educational needs and disabilities—we need the data flowing in, proper analysis and then proper, comprehensive solutions flowing back down. That is one of the reasons why I cannot support new clause 2.

When I was Minister for Veterans and People and dealt with the veterans commissioners, I did not really know whether they were in the right place, in the wrong place or doing the right things. They were brought in from a devolved Government perspective to ensure that we could continue to check and balance the devolved Governments in line with central Westminster policy. Interestingly, 85% of all veterans, which equates to about 1.7 million people, live in England—a veterans commissioner for England would be a huge role.

I have been clear, I think on the record, that once Valour is up and running and we establish the framework for how the hubs will work, we then need to deal with whether we need a veterans commissioner for England. I would suggest that it may be positive, depending on the veterans architecture out there. Why do I say that? At the moment, we have armed forces champions, at different levels and with different terms of reference—some part time, some full time, some employed by councils and some not—and we have Valour field officers going into councils. We have veterans commissioners in the devolved Governments, and then we have the head of Valour, who will have a whole set of data, with the Valour centre network sitting below them. Throwing a commissioner on top of that, at the same time, would perhaps dilute the hierarchy and centralised control. I absolutely understand the utility of having a fourth commissioner in place over time and, although I have to oppose new clause 6, I would like to take on this discussion. I have a feeling that, in the next 24 months or so, we will be moving in the right direction with regard to the measure.

[Mr Francois]

The Minister has made a strong argument. I place on the record my admiration for the three veterans commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, all of whom are excellent at what they do. I seem to recall—I do not have the Hansard here—that when we were debating the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, I asked the Minister when we would get an English veterans commissioner, and he was pretty clear that we would get one. The Minister today has intimated that we will probably still get one, so he is being consistent, but can he give us some idea of the timing?

[Al Carns]

Once we analyse the tapestry of veterans support, I would like to come to a solution on the English veterans commissioner to align with and amplify what we do on Valour. I think that Valour will take 36 months to be properly embedded in our local councils, with the structures and data network in place. It has taken us longer than I expected to get the Valour OC in place, but perhaps that is one for the bar downstairs.

Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, I have a few reminders for the Committee. Please switch off or silence electronic devices. No food or drink is permitted during the sitting, other than the water provided. Hansard would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes or pass them to the Hansard colleague in the room.

I remind Members to bob to catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate. The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room and on the Parliament website, shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate.

I also remind Members that amendments may be tabled during the recess. Amendments for consideration on 14 April, our first sitting after the recess, must be tabled no later than 4.30 pm on Thursday 9 April. Amendments for consideration at the sitting on 16 April must be tabled no later than the rise of the House on Monday 13 April.

Clause 3

Defence housing and other property

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 3, page 7, line 16, at end insert—

“(4) The Defence Housing Service will operate within a budget which must be set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would ensure that Defence Housing Service’s budget is set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.

Good morning, Mr Efford. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again as we move on to clause 3, which concerns the proposed new Defence Housing Service and associated matters. I will speak to amendment 17 in my name. There are no Liberal Democrats in the room yet, but I am sure they will be joining us at some point.

We have been assisted in examining this topic by our very helpful evidence sessions with Mr David Brewer, the putative head of the new Defence Housing Service, and Ms Natalie Elphicke Ross, a former parliamentary colleague of ours on both sides of the House, who has materially assisted the Government with their review and the creation of their new plan. We acknowledge her efforts.

We also had a very informative Defence Infrastructure Organisation briefing during our visit to Portsmouth, where we visited a number of dwellings in a military patch outside the wire. That included houses representing both before and after, as it were: those that had been refurbished to an obviously good standard, and those that were still awaiting that work. I place on record our thanks to members of the DIO and to the Clerks for what was, as I hope the whole Committee will agree, an extremely informative visit.

Before we get into the meat of the debate, I will take it as read that all members of the Committee share the same objective: an improved quality of service family accommodation for our valued armed forces personnel and their families. Again, for the record, we thank them for their service. We would also like to see good-quality accommodation for senior service personnel. The debate is therefore not so much about the objective, which I think we all share, as about the best way of achieving it. That is where we may have some genuine differences of opinion this morning, but hopefully for the right reasons.

Amendment 17 focuses on the budget for the proposed new Defence Housing Service. Its essence is that the Defence Housing Service’s budget should be clearly set out in any defence investment plan published by the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Good morning! The Liberals are now with us.

There is an obvious historical context for the amendment. I think it is fair to say that down the years, under Governments of both colours—three colours, if we include the coalition Government of 2010 to 2015—there has been a constant tension in the funding of the defence housing estate. On the one hand, there has been a desire to provide capital to upgrade it; on the other hand, there have been general pressures on the defence budget. It has not been unknown for capital expenditure to be deferred from one year to another to free up resourcing for other operational priorities that were deemed more pressing or urgent by Ministers at the time.

The aims and objectives of the new Defence Housing Service are rightly ambitious, which raises questions about how to secure the money and what safeguards there are, if any, against any future Government raiding that substantial pot of cash for other priorities should the circumstances arise. Both Mr Brewer and Ms Elphicke Ross were very clear in their evidence on the subject on 4 March: they said that after considerable discussion with the Treasury, a sum of some £9 billion had been put aside to create the Defence Housing Service and enable it to achieve its objectives laid out in the Bill.

Nevertheless, during the same evidence session, it was established after some detailed—indeed, forensic—questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East that the money had not been formally signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury. That is because the sum is currently included in the defence investment plan, which itself has not been signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury.

As we all know, the defence investment plan has not been published, although Parliament was initially promised it by last autumn. I do not intend to labour—no pun intended—the point this morning, as we debated it at some length in the main Chamber on Tuesday evening. Suffice it to say that when the Government published the strategic defence review in July last year, they deferred many of the crunchy equipment and capability decisions to a subsequent defence investment plan. We were promised that it would be published in the autumn. We were then faithfully promised that it would be published by Christmas. We were then absolutely promised that it would be published fairly shortly thereafter. Here we are on 26 March, the day on which the House rises for the Easter recess, and still it has not been published.

That leads to an additional problem, including for the Defence Housing Service. Part of the DIP, presumably including service accommodation in Scotland and Wales, could be affected by the outcome of the forthcoming Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd elections, at least indirectly. If the DIP is not published extremely shortly, it is likely to be caught by the purdah rules on those national elections. The putative date for the King’s Speech seems to be settling on or around 13 May. That means that the DIP is unlikely to be published until the second half of May, nearly two months from now, by which time the Defence Housing Service is meant to be under way.

In essence, we are debating a plan based on a long-term budget that has not yet been agreed by the Treasury because, bluntly, the Ministry of Defence is at war with it. That is why the DIP has not been published. It is conceivable—although, for the record, I hope that this will not be the case—that whenever final negotiations are eventually concluded, the Treasury may insist on further reductions in the DIP, which in turn could lead to further reductions to the £9 billion currently allocated for the programme. That is why we tabled amendment 17, which states that the budget for the Defence Housing Service must be very clearly set out in the defence investment plan, whenever it is published, not least so that in subsequent iterations of the plan we can see whether the funding allocation is being reduced or increased.

Will the Minister guarantee to the Committee that, as of 26 March 2026, the £9 billion in the forward programme has been formally signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury? In other words, can he guarantee that it is ringfenced in the DIP? If he cannot, can he at least tell us when the DIP will finally be published? A fortnight ago, I said privately to a Labour peer that waiting for the DIP was like waiting for Godot. He replied, “Yes, Mark, but at least Godot finally turned up.” Will the Minister answer those questions so that the Committee can take a view on the surety of the funding on which this admittedly very ambitious plan undoubtedly rests?

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I wish to add some points to bolster the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford.

We were promised the DIP before Christmas, but right hon. and hon. Members do not need me to tell them that it is now the end of March and we still do not have it. It is all well and good talking about a 25% reduction in delivery costs and about improved military housing, but until those promises are reflected in a clear, costed defence investment plan, they will remain words, not guarantees.

That is precisely why my right hon. Friend’s amendment 17 is so important. It states that if the Government are serious about defence housing, the Defence Housing Service’s budget must be set out in the DIP. It would tie the rhetoric on forces housing, new helicopters and new military hardware to an actual budget line. If Ministers truly intend to deliver what they have promised, they should have no difficulty in writing it into a plan.

Let us be clear with our service personnel and their families. We welcome investment when it is real, but we will not pretend that an uncosted statement is the same as a funded commitment. Until the Government publish the defence investment plan and the DHS budget is there in black and white, this House is being asked to take it on trust. That is not good enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I can say that we are working flat out on the absolute shambles we were left by the Conservative party. I can also say, as the Defence Secretary said in the House, that £9 billion will be allocated to the Defence Housing Service. The study has been completed. It is a very effective strategy. It has taken into account a lot of the other details that were excluded in the past. It has pulled them all together and has put in place a comprehensive strategy that will be funded.

[Mr Francois]

I am not saying that in 14 years we got everything right, but we never ended up in a situation in which we could not put a destroyer to sea, to a NATO exercise, with three months’ warning. It was never that bad.

I was told at a dinner last night that the Secretary of State or other Ministers have not allowed this Minister to see the defence investment plan. Surely that cannot be right: he must have seen it. For the avoidance of doubt, could he just pop up and tell us that of course he has seen it, and he has seen the detail of it?

[Al Carns]

My role, when it comes to defence investment, is primarily linked to uncrewed systems. I have been pushing as hard as I can to ensure that there is significant resource and consideration of not just the delivery of capability, but training, tactics and procedures, and the inculcation of drones and autonomous systems into our armed forces.

[Mr Francois]

So you haven’t seen it.

[Al Carns]

I hope that I have provided the necessary reassurance to the right hon. Member. On those grounds, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Francois]

We all know how this works. That was what, in “All the President’s Men”, they would have called a non-denial denial. I am afraid we have had no satisfaction, so we will press amendment 17 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 3, page 7, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) improving the satisfaction of service families with the accommodation provided.”

This amendment would make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 8, line 16, at end insert—

“(6A) The standards in subsection (6) must at a minimum meet the 2006 decent homes standard.”

This amendment requires that the framework agreement governing the new Defence Housing Service must at a minimum meet the 2006 decent homes standard.

Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 9, line 12, at end insert—

“‘2006 decent homes standard’ means the document called ‘A Decent Home: Definition and guidance for implementation’ that was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 7 June 2006.”

This amendment defines the 2006 decent homes standard and is consequential on Amendment 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

The purpose of amendment 14 is to make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service. I will attempt to give credit where it is due. For context, the quality of service quarters, and in particular the maintenance of those quarters—especially maintenance of boilers and heating, dealing with mould, and suchlike—has been a constant bugbear for many service personnel and their families for decades. It is something that I went into considerable detail about in the “Stick or Twist?” report in 2020, to which I shall refer in more detail later this morning.

The previous Conservative Government entered into a new housing management contract—the future defence infrastructure services programme, or FDIS—prior to the last general election. It is probably fair to say that there were quite a number of teething problems when that contract went live. Indeed, I expressed a number of reservations about FDIS in the “Stick or Twist?” report before it came in.

However, the information I have is that after persistent pressure from Ministers—initially Conservative Ministers, especially my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), and now Labour Ministers, including the Minister on the Committee, to give credit where it is due—the performance of contractors under the FDIS contract has improved. We heard as much from the families federations—from the customer side of the equation, as it were.

It can also be seen in the ratings, which are recorded annually in the armed forces continuous attitude survey, or AFCAS, which allows us to track customer satisfaction with the quality of maintenance of SFA. There is a specific question on that every year. Again I give credit where it is due for the introduction of a charter for the homes of service personnel and their families. Of course, it is the families who have to put up with the frustration of any failures, particularly if their loved ones are deployed away from base for any operational reason for any period of time. The families back home have to deal with the problems on a day-to-day basis, so if it is getting better, that is clearly to be welcomed.

Clause 3 sets out a number of objectives for the Defence Housing Service and its functions, including

“(a) improving the supply and quality of defence housing,

(b) managing land or other property used (or formerly used) for defence purposes,

(c) securing the regeneration or development of such land or other property, and

(d) supporting in other ways—

(i) the creation, regeneration or development of service communities, and

(ii) the continued wellbeing of those communities.”

I am sure that no one on the Committee will object to any of those objectives. But given the history I just outlined, the essence of amendment 14 is to introduce a fifth objective:

“improving the satisfaction of service families with the accommodation provided.”

Although I have no doubt that those who came up with the proposed Defence Housing Service fully intended to do this, the aim of the amendment is to place that objective firmly on the face of the Bill and, in so doing, establish it as an additional, clearly defined objective of the Defence Housing Service. Then, with the customer charter and assuming that we continue to ask similar questions in the armed forces continuous attitude survey every year, it should be possible to use that objective as an accurate metric to establish whether or not the Defence Housing Service is actually meeting one of its declared functions.

If we amend the Bill as I am suggesting, we could use it to hold the management of the Defence Housing Service and, I dare say, Ministers to account for the performance of the new service. It seems to us that this is quite a common-sense way to proceed. Therefore, I rather hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept this amendment without my having to divide the Committee.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I rise to speak to amendments 3 and 4, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon and I have tabled. Amendment 4 is consequential on amendment 3, so I will speak about them together.

What we are talking about here is a sensible proposal. Indeed, the Government and the Lib Dems have already had many discussions on this proposal, and the Government have already accepted it in a related area of law. I therefore hope the Minister will treat it as a tidying-up exercise on which we can all agree.

Amendments 3 and 4 seek to enshrine the decent homes standard as the minimum standard for the Defence Housing Service. The decent homes standard has been in law for about two decades, and the Government recently incorporated it into the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. Of course, that takes us to the whole point of the armed forces covenant, which is to make sure that service personnel are not prejudiced in any way by their service. If the decent homes standard is good enough for civilian renters, it follows, if we are to apply the covenant as intended, that service personnel should also be afforded the same standard.

What is the decent homes standard? Anyone who has served, as I have, has at some point in time been housed in accommodation that is just beyond belief. I spent some time in accommodation that was actually condemned, which meant that no money was being spent on it because it was going to be demolished at some unspecified point in the future, but I lived in it for the entire time I was there.

At that time, I was single, but of course it is not just those who serve who expect to live in decent homes; their families expect to, as well. In a minute, I will refer to the continuous attitude surveys and what service personnel feel about their service accommodation. However, it is often the pressure on their family—their wife or husband, and the children—that make service personnel think, “I can deal with this, but I do not want my family to have to deal with it.”

What is the decent homes standard? As originally defined, it refers to a home being in

“a reasonable state of repair”.

Obviously, if that standard were applied, it would immediately outlaw things like damp. It also says that a property should have modern “facilities and services” and provide a reasonable degree of “thermal comfort”, so we would probably expect double glazing, rather than the single glazing that I had, although it was 20 years ago.

A more recent document published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in January sets out the new decent homes standard. Amendment 3 seeks to enforce the original 2006 standard, because the document published in January is a White Paper and is not yet Government policy. The new decent homes standard seeks to reflect things like modern energy efficiency standards, as we would expect.

This does not seem much to ask, and the Lib Dems pushed for it during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act. The Government originally voted against it on Report, but then they made the amendment to the legislation. I am not presenting that to the Committee in a partisan way; I merely want to say that we have already had this discussion, and the Government have accepted that it is the appropriate standard for civilian renters. Service personnel are also renting—they pay money for their accommodation, so they are renting—so the standard should be reflected in their housing.

What do service personnel say about their accommodation? I accept that it has improved, as the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said, but there are still problems. Let me give the Committee a few statistics. One in five personnel plans to leave the armed forces, and 25% of those cited the standard of accommodation as a reason for leaving. At a time when we have a retention crisis, it seems that we should be focusing on that. I know the Government are focusing on it, and in tabling this amendment we are trying to help them to fix the problem. Of the 78% of service personnel who live in service accommodation, only half—51%—remain satisfied with the state of their housing. So there are problems, although improvements have been made.

Under the Renters’ Rights Act, which was amended to include the decent homes standard, the MOD was mandated to report to Parliament on the state of service housing. The idea was that it would gradually move defence housing stock up to the decent homes standard. Of course, the problem with how it was laid out in the Act is that no targets or timelines were set, so although the MOD reports to Parliament, there is no way for Parliament to hold the Government to account on the attainment of that standard for service personnel.

Amendments 3 and 4 seek to put that accountability in place and ensure that the MOD has to achieve the standard. When it reports to Parliament, the amendments would ensure there is a mechanism by which Parliament can hold the MOD accountable for attaining the standard for service personnel.

[Mr Francois]

I declare an interest: in the 1990s, I was the acting chairman of housing on what was then Basildon district council—so I was a housing specialist, but admittedly back in the last century. Incidentally, Basildon was once described as the only local authority in Britain where, at council meetings, councillors actively heckled the public gallery. From serving on the council, I can say that it is half true.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of features of the decent homes standard. What in his opinion are the critical two or three parts that, if we were to support his amendment, he would have the Government and the Defence Housing Service ensure above any others? What are the key two or three bits that he would like to press the Government on this morning?

[Mike Martin]

The decent homes standard, as set out in legislation, is a set of principles that can be enforced by the courts, and the courts will make the judgment. When we talk about modern facilities and services, for example, we are talking about what the courts would view as being modern and reasonable. I come back to the fact that we would probably expect double glazing, not single glazing. We would expect central heating, not individual electric fires. We would expect no damp. We would expect a carpet that does not have holes in it. Those are things that the courts would accept as reasonably approaching a decent homes standard, and as reflecting a reasonable state of repair and thermal comfort.

I will conclude now, Mr Efford. Thank you for your patience. What we are seeking to do here is a tidying-up exercise to support the Government in their aim to set service personnel and civilians on an equal level and make sure that service personnel and particularly their families are not prejudiced as a result of their service. If a decent homes standard is good enough for civilian renters, it is good enough for service renters.

[Al Carns]

I believe that amendment 14, moved by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, is unnecessary. It is clear that the Defence Housing Service will have a service ethos at its heart, and we are already way ahead on that. The Committee heard from representatives of the families federations during the evidence sessions, in which Cat Calder from the Army Families Federation said that during the course of the defence housing strategy review, it was

“very much engaged with, listened to and questioned”,

and its views “taken into consideration.” That will continue as the defence housing strategy turns to the Defence Housing Service and the implementation of changes across the entire estate.

I welcome the right hon. Member’s comments about the FDIS statistical change. When I first took over this job, I visited multiple defence housing providers and, indeed, the houses themselves. I line-by-lined the cost of everything from a plunger to the taps to make sure we were extracting the best value for money from those contractual services. The trend was already moving, and I believe it has moved in the right direction. There is always work to do, but we have our foot on that pressure point and will ensure we extract best value for money and best time when it comes to the delivery of services for our families in service housing.

Importantly, throughout the development of the defence housing strategy, families have been at the very heart of the discussion to ensure that their views are considered, along with the differences between the way of life and operational priorities of the Army, RAF and Navy. That is why we have set up a new customer service committee with representatives from all three forces’ families as members. The Defence Housing Service will have a service family representative on its independent board.

We are already making rapid improvements after many years of ebbing and flowing standards and service in military accommodation, and we have delivered our consumer charter commitments to improve our families’ experiences. That includes transforming 1,000 of the worst homes by Christmas with new kitchens, bathrooms and floors, which the Committee will know from its visits were previously in a shoddy state. Some are still in that space, but we are moving rapidly to change it.

We are modernising outdated policies, giving families greater freedom to improve their homes, and streamlining processes for those who wish to run businesses from home or simply have a pet. We are also delivering named housing officers, as it is critical to have a central point of contact to make complaints to, or to demand better services, as well as delivering photos, floor plans and a new online repair service.

[Mr Francois]

This might seem like a point of detail, but it is important. I will come on to “Stick or Twist?” later, but one thing that came out very clearly is that many families wanted what used to be known in old money as “patch managers”, often a retired senior NCO who lived nearby, who knew the patch and all the quarters intimately. He knew that No. 23 had always had a slightly wonky boiler or whatever. He was someone that all the families knew, and who the wives could get hold of if their spouse was away on deployment. We have named housing officers, but at what level do they operate? Do we have one per patch, per garrison or per region? How close to ground level are these named housing officers?

[Al Carns]

I will get back to the right hon. Member with the exact numbers of housing officers and how much patch they will oversee and manage, depending on the different service contracts. As he will be aware, the Army, Navy and Air Force approach it in different ways. Some have retired officers in a Reserve billet, looking after everything from welfare to housing. Others have specific housing officers, and some have none at all. There is a requirement to standardise that, hence the reason for housing officers coming in. I believe that housing officers work most effectively when they have either served or have an understanding of service. We are seeking to replace the single point of contact for families to go to should they have a problem with their housing or the facilities provided by the contractual arrangements.

On the promises that were made to families, it is worth noting that work is fully under way to deliver them under the consumer charter. We are also seeing results. Satisfaction in defence homes is rising: rates are now at 51%, their highest level since 2021. I would argue that that has resulted in an increase in both retention and recruitment, pulling more people into the military. We have seen a 13% increase in recruitment and an 8% reduction in outflow.

I have always been really honest that, in the short term, we are getting after this with 1,000 homes and the consumer charter, but that we will really see the benefits over the medium to longer term, with a complete rejuvenation of the estate. Satisfaction with repairs has increased steadily, from a low of 23% in January 2023 to 66% in 2025. In February 2026, we received 400 complaints, compared with a high of 4,200 complaints in November 2023, so we are making progress. We want to get that 400 figure down even further and will continue to endeavour to do so.

Amendments 3 and 4 propose to specify further in legislation the standards that accommodation should meet. I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells for his service and for his attention to ensuring that service family accommodation meets the standards that families rightly expect. The conduct and the candour of this debate have shown that we all want the same thing.

As part of the generational renewal set out in the defence housing strategy, we are already making rapid improvements, including through the new consumer charter for service family accommodation, which the Secretary of State announced last year, with the first set of those commitments delivered way ahead of Christmas. Through the wider plan set out under the defence housing strategy, we will be delivering improvements to nine in 10 defence family homes over a decade of renewal, delivering on the opportunity presented by the buy-back of the estate in January 2025.

In relation to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, the MOD is already committed to meeting and publishing compliance with the standard. The defence housing strategy specifically addresses the issue and sets out that the housing standard should keep pace not only with the decent homes standard, but with wider housing safety requirements such as Awaab’s law.

[Al Carns]

If the hon. Member will let me, I will come back to him with a specific timeline for the process.

In reply to an earlier question, there are 122 housing officers in total, and the figure will increase over time. Each housing officer is responsible for 300 to 400 homes. Although the housing officer will be a specific individual in place, a lot of armed forces also have other welfare officers and facilities. However, this is a step in the right direction to providing a single point of contact.

[Mr Francois]

I am grateful for that detail. I agree that it is a step in the right direction, so it would be churlish not to welcome it. To give credit where it is due, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk was a Minister in the Department, he invested several hundred million pounds in what was known as the mould action plan. Its aim was to get after the problem not just with temporary fixes, but with long-term work on properties with a persistent mould problem. As I have tried to be fair to the Government this morning, I hope the Minister will acknowledge that my hon. Friend put quite a lot of effort into that issue in defence housing. There has subsequently been some success, has there not?

[Al Carns]

I agree. The mould action plan got after a large chunk of the problem. I know there was work that went on previously, including “Stick or Twist?” and other reviews, but now that we have got rid of the Annington deal and got control of our estate, we can take a far more strategic outlook. That is what the defence housing strategy is all about, so that we ensure that we get best value for money over a longer period and do not have to spend huge amounts in a short time, which unfortunately can result in poor contractual agreements and not the best value for money.

The mechanism for embedding the standards, as well as Awaab’s law, including any changes over time, has already been included in the Bill. It has been deliberately drafted in that way to provide a mechanism for capturing future changes to policy without requiring legislative change. As a case in point, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells specified the 2006 decent homes standard in amendment 3, but he will be aware that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is already in the process of introducing a revised decent homes standard. The amendment, although absolutely well intentioned, is too specific. It would set in stone a policy position that would rapidly become redundant. Further mechanisms will ensure that we keep in line with the decent homes standard, such as providing a report into the system on, I think, a yearly basis—I will clarify that point in due course.

I reassure the hon. Member that in practice the Ministry of Defence already uses the 2006 decent homes standard as a benchmark for service family accommodation and will work to meet the new decent homes standard as it is introduced. The same applies to Awaab’s law, which is being taken forward through the consumer charter. As the generational renewal set out in the defence housing strategy progresses, we will aim not just to meet minimum standards, but to provide homes that any of us would be proud to live in.

The scale of the problem should not be underestimated. The defence housing estate was built at any time from the 1960s all the way up to the early 2000s, with single-skin walls and a plethora of issues. It will take a medium to long-term strategy to deliver real, meaningful change over time. The messaging to the armed forces and their families is that we are on this: we have assured the money and we will head in the right direction to improve defence housing over the medium to longer term.

I hope that the points that I have set out provide the necessary reassurance as to why amendments 14, 3 and 4 are not necessary and can be withdrawn.

[Mr Francois]

I appreciate everything that the Minister has said. None the less, we feel strongly about amendment 14, so we will press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 3, page 7, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) provide earmarked accommodation to facilitate “contact visits” for children of service personnel, who do not live with them (in accordance with any relevant court order).”

This amendment would make the Defence Housing Service responsible for providing accommodation to facilitate “contact visits” for children of service personnel who have separated, in accordance with any relevant court order regarding access.

My hon. Friends and I tabled this very specific amendment for two reasons. I remember that during my time as a Minister, which was more than a decade ago, when I visited Army garrisons, Navy facilities or RAF airbases and discussed service family accommodation, the issue often cropped up of providing accommodation for contact visits. In practice, that usually means providing SFA quarters that are ringfenced specifically to allow serving personnel to hire them temporarily, for example so that children who do not ordinarily live with them can stay with them on camp during a contact visit.

This is obviously still an issue. I recall it cropping up in conversation when the Committee visited Portsmouth. When we visited the patch, we were shown some houses that, from memory, still had diggers outside because they were about to be refurbished for exactly that purpose. That tells me that this is still a bit of a challenge even now. Incidentally, that example bears out the value of the Committee visiting to see and learn these things for ourselves. As the Minister reminded me, it was Napoleon who said that time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. Our visit was a very good example of that maxim in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for tabling the amendment. I absolutely recognise the importance of facilitating contact visits between service personnel and their families; there are people here with experience of that.

The reality is that as we have come into government, we have the wrong houses in the wrong place in the wrong amount. That requires a whole restructuring of our defence housing estate to ensure that it matches and moulds itself to varying requirements across the population.

I was a base commander, and we had several welfare houses. There is a joint service publication in MOD policy, JSP 770, that designates service family accommodation as welfare support accommodation. This is a joint process with local military commands and welfare services to provide housing for welfare requirements. It cannot simply be met with the responsibilities that the amendment seeks to set for the Defence Housing Service.

Moreover, there has to be flexibility in the use of welfare support accommodation to ensure that it can respond to local needs and local requirements, including other important welfare uses such as those relating to domestic abuse and safeguarding. It would be far too inflexible for it to be earmarked as accommodation solely for contact visits, as the amendment sets out. That would limit our ability to respond to urgent needs of other kinds.

More generally, the issue that hon. Members have highlighted is only one part of a much bigger issue that the Defence Housing Service is being set up to address, which is that the defence estate is wrongly configured as a result of the legacy of Annington and years of under-investment, with not enough homes in the right places to meet the requirements of service personnel.

The focus of the Defence Housing Service is to improve existing homes and create thousands more, including by delivering widened access to accommodation for modern families. Its progress against that will be set out for Parliament to scrutinise through the annual reporting process. The defence housing strategy team looked at the issue as part of its review. An important conclusion of the review was a recognition of the important role that local welfare-based discretion plays in managing service personnel’s housing needs, which cannot always be planned from the centre.

The reality is that welfare houses provide a capability for a plethora of needs, from supporting individuals who have been subject to abuse all the way through to providing a comforting environment for families who have broken up or separated and need a place to live and thrive with their children. To narrow them down to one use may not meet the local requirement, but I absolutely support the premise and the positivity behind the amendment. Given the clear and comprehensive arrangements that are already in place, I see the amendment as unnecessary.

[Mr Francois]

I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister is replying. I have learned to take his word. Just so he does not think that we have a blanket policy of voting on everything this morning, if he gives me his word that he will take the issue back to the Department and the people setting up the DHS and look very seriously at how we might do a bit better, in return I shall not press the amendment. Can he give me that comfort now?

[Al Carns]

It is absolutely right and proper that we do that. I would like to go a step further: we could probably organise a sit-down with Natalie Elphicke Ross and the team at the Defence Housing Service. It has already been thought through, but they can explain it. If the right hon. Gentleman has any insight into how he would improve it, or indeed any reflections from his own experience of the defence estate, we will take that forward. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Mr Francois]

I will not look a gift horse in the mouth. I thank the Minister for his kind offer, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mike Martin]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 3, page 8, line 13, leave out “service family accommodation” and insert “defence housing”.

This amendment requires that the framework agreement governing the new Defence Housing Service pertains to all defence housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

The requirements are different for SLA and family accommodation, but we both want the same thing: the best accommodation, whether for a family or a single person living on base, either separated from their family or single. What I can offer the hon. Member is to engage and talk him through the single living accommodation strategy as it builds, so he can ensure his points are included and we either fill the knowledge gap or make the strategy reflect the intent of providing the best accommodation for single individuals outside the family setting.

[Mr Francois]

It may assist the Committee to know that when I looked at this in “Stick or Twist?”, we realised that we were talking about two slightly different propositions, and that some of the challenges in single living accommodation are a bit different from those in SFA. For the record, in “Stick or Twist?” we said we would start with SFA—we were talking about a housing association—and learn lessons from that and then go on to SLA. We realised there is a bit of an air gap between the two, so our work was concentrated on one and then maybe moved on to the other. That is, in some ways, similar to the spirit of what the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is saying, if the Minister will accept that.

[Al Carns]

I completely accept that. There are just nuances and differences in the requirements, and that will be reflected in the outcomes of both reviews. Again, I offer that engagement—if the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells would like to get involved and ensure that his points are made as the strategy is built, he can affect the output as required.

The Government believe that a dedicated focus on the Defence Housing Service and family accommodation is the best way to achieve the step change needed for defence, specifically on family homes. We will continue simultaneously to drive up the standard of single living accommodation, and further detail will be set out in the next steps following the ongoing SLA review. If it is any consolation, I lived in single living accommodation for a large chunk of my life and have seen the good, the bad and the ugly, so I will personally be behind that work to ensure we get the best standards.

New clause 1 is designed to include single living accommodation within section 101 of the Renters’ Rights Act. It would require the Ministry of Defence to report annually to Parliament on the extent to which such accommodation meets the decent homes standard. As someone who has lived in single living accommodation for a huge chunk of my life, I appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause, but the Government do not believe it is the right way to drive up standards in single living accommodation.

As Members may recall, this matter was debated during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act, and Ministers at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government set out why the decent homes standard cannot sensibly be applied to single living accommodation. Such accommodation exists to support operational readiness and cannot be treated in the same way as social housing or other forms of civilian housing.

Single living accommodation spans a huge range of types, many with shared facilities, and therefore, by definition, some parts of the decent homes standard would be difficult to meet. For example, the standard requires each unit to have adequate kitchen facilities, but single living accommodation units do not necessarily all have their own kitchens, because full professional subsidised catering is provided on defence bases or sites. For that very reason, civilian housing with shared facilities, such as purpose-built student accommodation, is typically not covered by the 2006 decent homes standard.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 5

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 4

Noes: 6

[Mr Francois]

I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 3, page 9, line 27, at end insert—

“(4) The Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service must report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.”

This amendment requires the Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service to report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.

The amendment relates to the reporting chain of the proposed new Defence Housing Service. In essence, it means that once the Defence Housing Service is established, it should report directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of that service.

The genesis of the amendment is that when we were taking further evidence on the proposals for the DHS a little over a week ago, there appeared to be some ambiguity about how exactly it will report to Ministers. As I recall, we were told that it will have a partial reporting line, or the equivalent, into DIO headquarters—to keep it in the loop, I think—but that it will also report to Ministers via the National Armaments Director. At first hearing, that is somewhat surprising.

As a person who is primarily appointed to sort out the procurement challenges facing the Ministry of Defence, of which we all know there are many and about which I have railed for years, not least on the Defence Committee—it is all on the record—the NAD is not the most obvious choice to oversee an organisation designed to provide high-quality housing for service personnel and their families. It seems odd. In short, the NAD will have enough problems sorting out issues like Ajax— I refer the Minister to the answer I gave some moments ago about Ajax—and the propulsion systems of the Type 45 destroyer and so on, without having to worry about the challenges of defence housing as well.

The new system in the MOD is part of what one might call the quadripartite arrangement in the post-Levene model of defence reform, and by that I mean the process not the party—in passing, of course, Reform Members are not on this Committee, but they hardly ever turn up during defence debates in the Commons anyway, so it is not much of a loss. We now have effectively four main pillars within the Ministry below ministerial level. We have the permanent secretary, with responsibility for MOD centre and administrative matters; the Chief of the Defence Staff, unsurprisingly responsible for specifically military matters; the National Armaments Director for matters relating to procurement and—dare I mention it—the defence equipment plan, which is part of the defence investment plan; and, lastly, the Chief of Defence Nuclear, for all aspects of the nuclear deterrent and the associated shore-based infrastructure, which is now, as the Minister will know, a very challenging area for the Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. Does he think that the metrics by which that bonus is judged should be made public?

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comment—every dog has its day. Yes, I think it should, and that is partly the purpose for tabling the amendment.

For the avoidance of doubt, I accept in principle that, given the very large amounts of money we spend on equipment procurement—potentially more than £0.25 trillion over the next decade—paying someone quite a lot of money to get it to work is inherently not an unreasonable thing to do. Nevertheless, the appointment did raise eyebrows across the civil service.

To be fair, as I understand it, the chief executive of BAE Systems earns about £10 million a year—although if we look at what he has done to its share price, a shareholder might argue that it is a pretty good investment. Charles Woodburn is widely regarded in the industry as knowing what he is about, and is a highly professional leader of that company.

None the less, I have sympathy with the question posed by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. If this is part of the bonus arrangements, what are the metrics? If he were to get a bonus for the performance of Defence Housing Service, how do we know how much he will get? And how would we judge whether it is value for money, not just for the taxpayer but for the rent payers—the customers—of the Defence Housing Service? I hope the Committee will understand there is a genuine point at issue here.

We would be very interested to know what element, if any, of the NAD’s salary, and specifically the bonus payment, is related to the performance of the Defence Housing Service. By the same token—I hope the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is with me here—if the Defence Housing Service were to underperform, what would happen to the NAD’s base salary? Would it be docked? It is a really serious question.

To summarise, could the Minister explain why the Department decided to manage it in this way? There must be a rationale, and the Committee would like to know what it is. Could he also explain how these bonus arrangements will work and how transparent all of it will be?

[David Reed]

My right hon. Friend has just laid out a very strong case for why amendment 16 needs to be incorporated into the Bill, and I hope the Minister has taken those points on board—I look forward to hearing his wind-up. This is a straightforward but important amendment that seeks to bring clarity, accountability and proper ministerial oversight to the way in which the Defence Housing Service reports on its performance.

At present, the reporting structure is, frankly, overly complex. Responsibility is diffused across multiple layers, making it difficult to establish who is ultimately answerable when and if standards fall short. That lack of clarity does not serve service personnel or their families, who depend on the system working effectively. We know from our visits and from Members’ own experience that there is an overly complex and convoluted reporting chain where nothing really gets sorted and things are passed up but never actually worked on. We now have the opportunity to improve that structure.

I do not think the current structure assists the House in carrying out its proper scrutiny of how public money is spent and how vital services are delivered. The amendment would put that right by establishing a clear and direct line of accountability, and it would require the chief executive of the Defence Housing Service to report directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces.

Going back to the point that my right hon. Friend just raised, incorporating the National Armaments Director and having that person accountable in this long chain does not breed the view that Parliament needs to be able to scrutinise what is going on. Given how much the Minister cares about this, and the fact that he is an elected representative, I know he would want to have that view unfiltered from the Defence Housing Service itself.

This is a sensible and proportionate step that ensures that responsibility sits at the appropriate level and that there is a named Minister who can be held to account by this House. More importantly, the public will ultimately hold the Minister to account anyway. If I were in his shoes, I would want that unfiltered view coming straight up to me. If we are talking about performance bonuses—and I have no reason to believe that that is the case with the National Armaments Director, but if it were to be the case—I would not want anything to be tarnished or moved around that was linked to performance bonuses. I would not want there to be any incentives like that.

There is also a practical benefit. A direct reporting relationship will help to ensure that the issues are escalated more quickly, decisions are taken more efficiently and there is greater transparency around performance, which is something we all want to see. It should also lead to better oversight, sharper focus on delivery and, ultimately, improved outcomes for those living in service accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I turn to amendment 16, tabled by the retired hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford—

[Mr Francois]

Retired?

[Al Carns]

Sorry, the right hon. Member. I do apologise; there is no requirement to retire yet.

[Mr Francois]

One day, obviously, but not quite yet.

[Al Carns]

The right hon. Member still has a lot of energy in him.

[Al Carns]

Amendment 16 would require that the chief executive of the Defence Housing Service reports directly to the Minister for the Armed Forces, which is my current role. In the way it is written, it would confuse accountability in the Defence Housing Service, undermine the role of the board in particular, including the role of the family representatives, and risk duplicating lines of ministerial accountability that are already set out in the Bill.

From my perspective, when we have an issue, in defence or in any organisation, it is down to either a lack of understanding, command or control or a lack of accountability. I want to ensure, and reassure, that when the board reports on the Defence Housing Service and its deliverables, it is unfiltered and untainted as it hits ministerial offices. The governance of the Defence Housing Service has been carefully set out to provide the right balance between independence, accountability and ministerial oversight.

For the organisation to deliver its objectives, it must operate alongside strategic oversight by the Department, including accountability to Ministers and Parliament as a whole. Under established arrangements for arm’s length bodies, arrangements that operate across Government, responsibility for overseeing performance sits with the body’s board, with the chair acting as the principal interface with Ministers. It is critical that the chair is the principal interface with Ministers, reducing the ability of anyone to filter or taint any reports as they come up and through.

The Defence Housing Service will remain accountable to Ministers through that board and via departmental sponsorship and arrangements, alongside increased reporting to Parliament on its performance, as set out in the Bill. The DHS will continue to work closely with departmental teams, which will be covered in the MOD framework document in the usual way. It will be operationally independent, within the scope of the framework document and the legal powers in the Bill.

Critically, for its day-to-day activities, the organisation will be accountable to an expert, independent board, which will be appointed by the Secretary of State. The board will include a family representative, alongside the service family involvement in the wider governance, to ensure that the Defence Housing Service is held to account by not only those with appropriate expertise but the families that it has been set up to serve. Given its importance, it is right that ministerial reporting be held at Secretary of State level, rather than with the Minister for the Armed Forces. I was responsible for the delivery of the strategy, but housing is not necessarily within my portfolio.

Given the clear and comprehensive arrangements I have outlined, the amendment is unnecessary and I urge the right hon. Member to withdraw it.

[Mr Francois]

Mr Offord, I was—

[The Chair]

It is Mr Efford.

[Mr Francois]

I am so sorry; I have done it again. Mr Efford, I was not planning to press the amendment to a Division, but now I will—before I “retire”.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

Clause 3, together with schedule 1, creates the Defence Housing Service, a new public body dedicated to improving the supply and quality of defence housing and spearheading the regeneration of defence communities. Our Defence Housing Service sets out a vision for the future transformation of military homes, 90% of which will be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt through a record £9 billion investment over a decade. The Defence Housing Service is the vehicle to drive that transformation.

The clause confers on the Defence Housing Service the functions of

“improving the supply and quality of defence housing,”

the management, regeneration or development of land used for defence purposes and

“supporting in other ways—

(i) the creation, regeneration or development of service communities, and

(ii) the continued wellbeing of those communities.”

To fulfil those functions, the Defence Housing Service will be empowered to generate income from property and to manage land on behalf of the Secretary of State and others. It may enter into contracts, buy and sell property, borrow money with Treasury approval, provide financial assistance and form partnerships or joint ventures. It will also have compulsory purchase powers to acquire land for any purpose connected with its functions. The Defence Housing Service will be accountable to Ministers. It must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State and comply with the terms of the framework agreement entered into with the Secretary of State.

Forces families have previously been let down by homes that are not fit for purpose; we are determined and focused on delivering that. A new set of military housing standards that are fit for service family life will be established, including the decent homes standard, which the Defence Housing Service will be required to meet, under the terms of the framework agreement. The Defence Housing Service will lead the renewal and development of military homes across the United Kingdom, while unlocking the potential to deliver 100,000 homes of all types on developed MOD land.

[Mr Francois]

I note that the Minister never answered my previous inquiry about the bonus arrangements for the NAD. He is speaking to the clause standing part of the Bill, so perhaps he can tell me now—though he may need to seek inspiration. What are the bonus arrangements for the NAD relating to the DHS? What metrics will be applied?

[Al Carns]

The board of the Defence Housing Service will be accountable to the Secretary of State. I will not go into the detail of the NAD’s bonuses and how they are credited in the Bill, because they are not related.

That renewal will not only benefit the country as a whole in delivering against wider Government housing and economic growth targets but follow a “forces first” principle, prioritising current and former military personnel wherever possible. The Defence Housing Service will transform military housing, improve quality of life for service families and ensure that Defence housing is finally properly managed in a professional and efficient manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

The essence of new clause 7 is that the Government should prepare a feasibility study of the relative merits of introducing a forces housing association, as recommended in the “Stick or Twist?” report, versus continuing with the Defence Housing Service. I apologise to you, Mr Efford, and to members of the Committee: as the new clause relates specifically to that document, I should as a courtesy have sent a copy—or at least a link—to all members of the Committee before this sitting. No disrespect was intended, but perhaps I can atone for that by leaving a copy with the Clerk. If anybody wants to refer to it afterwards, they can go to him.

I will explain the background to the report and why I believe its recommendations are powerful. After I left government in 2016, when Theresa May became the new Prime Minister and I somehow did not end up in her Administration, I was commissioned by her as a former Minister—the Minister here today may one day, after he has retired, be commissioned to do something similar—to write a report about military recruitment. It was called “Filling the Ranks” and it took about a year to write; I submitted it in 2017. It covered a range of stuff, including trying to see past very minor medical ailments that were preventing people who desperately wanted to join the forces from doing so. All of the recommendations, bar one, were adopted by the Department and I think they have been worked on over the years, some of them more speedily than others.

For the record, the recommendation the Department did not adopt was that I pleaded with it to sack Capita— I nearly called it something else—as the contractor in charge of recruitment. I said in 2017, “Give them a year to fix it and if they don’t, they should go.” Capita did not fix it, and it stayed on. I understand that it was unsuccessful in bidding for the new trial service contract, so maybe it got its come-uppance after all.

Some people thought that “Filling the Ranks” was not completely useless, so I was subsequently commissioned to do a report on retention. The reason for that was partly that as soon as we started talking about recruitment, we ended up having a discussion about retention within 15 minutes anyway. As I am sure the Minister, with his experience, will know, there is no point widening the aperture of the recruitment tap, as it were, unless you can put a retention plug in the sink. If they are leaving faster than they are joining, we have a real problem.

I had a very good team for the retention report. I place on record my thanks to Brigadier Simon Goldstein, a distinguished reservist who retired from the Army after many years as a brigadier, including in one or two regiments the Minister will be familiar with, and my then researcher, an extremely bright chap called Rory Boden who has now gone to the dark side and works in public affairs. The three of us, I hope, put together a credible document. We called it “Stick or Twist?” because that encapsulates the dilemma that service personnel often face at a particular junction in their career. Do they stick with their military service, or twist and go and do something else?

We submitted that report in February 2020. It was commissioned by Theresa May, but by then Boris Johnson was the Prime Minister. We submitted it a month before the country went into lockdown, so it was written in a pre-covid context. The methodology was to make about a dozen visits to military establishments around the country, including Portsmouth for the Royal Navy, Catterick garrison for the Army and Brize Norton for the Royal Air Force. While we were there, we conducted a series of panels—I suppose one might call them focus groups—with warrant officers, senior non-commissioned officers, junior ranks and partners thereof. We tried to get four different perspectives on the challenges facing retention in the armed forces. It was very interesting to see how different ranks sometimes saw issues differently.

One quote struck us so much that we stuck it on the cover. This was under a Conservative Government—I have been called many things down the years, but never a toady. The quote relates to accommodation and came from an interview at Brize Norton with a Royal Air Force corporal:

“We had an Air Vice Marshal visit us a few months ago to give us all a pep talk about how what we were doing was extremely important to Defence and how the nation greatly valued our contribution to National Security. While I was standing at the back, I couldn’t help thinking, well Sir, if that’s true, why are my kids showering in cold water—yet again?”

We put that on the front page of the report—on its face, as it were—because we thought it encapsulated the problem. I encourage hon. Members at least to have a glance at the report if they have a spare minute, but I realise they all live very busy lives.

One thing that came out of the report was that when people leave the armed forces—when they decide to twist—it is often for a combination of reasons. We gave the example of an Army corporal having a kitchen table conversation with his wife when their kids have gone to bed. He has been offered promotion, and he says, “Should I stick or twist?” They go through factor by factor: his likelihood for promotion, her likelihood of promotion in a civilian career, the education of their children—in this scenario, they have an education, health and care plan, so if they move, they might lose that—care for an elderly relative and availability of medical support. In the end, they come to an amalgamated decision about whether to carry on. We learned from the focus groups that this sort of stuff goes on all the time. We were trying to reflect what the Minister would call ground truth.

Sometimes there was just one thing—the straw that breaks the camel’s back. In some cases, it was that the partner in the services had been away on an unaccompanied tour and there had been failures with housing provision, and that did it. To give a completely contrary example, a captain in an armoured unit down on Salisbury plain said that he left because he had been looking forward for months to being the best man at his old university friend’s wedding, but he was picked up on a trawl and told that he had to be a watchkeeper in the British Army Training Unit Suffield. He pleaded with his CO. He wrote a letter to the brigadier, but the brigadier was unsympathetic. The captain missed his best mate’s wedding. He said, “I was sat there with a laptop at 2 o’clock in the morning in the middle of BATUS”—this was some years ago, remember—“reading a cheap novel, when I could have been at my friend’s wedding.” So he came back from Canada and told the Army to stuff it. To my mind, such brainless decisions can bring very promising military careers to an end.

When my team and I looked at the housing issue, I looked at the history of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, which at that time, it has to be said, was not coming in for a lot of praise. In fairness to the DIO—I want to put this on record—it was created in 2010 in something of a shotgun marriage between up to 24 different entities. The old Defence Estates and lots of attachments and detachments, to use military language, were thrown together to create the DIO.

In 2012, when I came in and asked to visit the DIO’s headquarters, I was asked, “Which one do you want to visit, Minister?” I said, “What do you mean? There can be only one.” “No, sir. There are six.” We eventually decided that the principal headquarters was in Sutton Coldfield, but that gives some idea of how long it took that organisation to settle down. It was not given an abundance of resources with which to complete its task. In fairness to the DIO, which has come in for a lot of stick down the years, not least from me, it was set up in challenging circumstances and has had a difficult job to do for many years. If anyone from the DIO is listening, I hope they can appreciate the spirit of what I am trying to say.

We found very clear themes from the focus groups. The partners definitely wanted the patch managers back—I have gone on about it because that is what they kept telling us everywhere we went. Some of the junior ranks in single living accommodation wanted to have slightly better conditions, but some of them at least accepted that, while their conditions may not have been great, they paid virtually no rent for them. Bluntly, at the age of 19, they were slightly more concerned about having a bit of spare cash for Friday and Saturday night than they were about their rent, but that does not mean they do not deserve to live in good accommodation. So we got a variety of feedback.

Based on the DIO at the time, we came up with an alternative solution that we called a forces housing association. The rationale for it was to create a specific bespoke entity with the sole purpose—as established in its articles of association—to provide high-quality housing for armed forces personnel and their families while providing value for money, both for those families and for the taxpayer. The Minister will know that such an entity could be a retention aid because people often pay well below the market rate for a property that would cost them a lot more to rent in the civilian world. In some cases, service personnel value that, and in some cases it is one of the reasons they stick rather than twist, so it can work two ways.

The idea is to create a bespoke housing association, chaired by a Minister and bringing in external expertise from the social rented sector.

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

I will finish this point, then of course I will give way. Some housing associations have been looking after public sector housing, which is effectively what forces housing is, for decades. In my experience as a constituency MP, such housing associations vary in quality. There are some poor ones and some very good ones. The main one operating in my constituency is Sanctuary. A few years ago it was pretty poor but it is now under new leadership, with a very good chief executive called Craig Moule. Five years ago he told me that he was going to turn around the supertanker; she is still turning, but she is now pretty much going in the opposite direction, so I have seen what good looks like.

The idea was to bring in the expertise of people who had been managing public sector housing for decades, get a chief executive from that background and then create a board chaired by a Minister, so that Ministers would have real accountability, with representatives from forces families associations sitting as non-executive directors on the board, thus ensuring direct involvement from the customers themselves.

There is more I could say on that, but I do not want to try the patience of the Committee. That was the rationale: bringing in external housing sector professionals and getting them to run a ringfenced entity. That is what we were advocating for in “Stick or Twist?” and it was the genesis of the policy we announced several months ago, I am pleased to say. Having given the context, and having hopefully told the Committee where my heart lies on this matter, I will gladly give way to the hon. Member for South Ribble.

[Mr Foster]

The independent defence housing strategy team looked at the issue of a defence housing association, and said that

“transfer outside the public sector to a housing association or other private sector structure is not appropriate. It would be most likely to set back the renewal of the estate, increase costs of delivery and hamper operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces.”

Was the right hon. Member aware of that?

[Mr Francois]

Yes, and in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, they would say that, wouldn’t they? We were proposing a slightly more market-oriented solution. Registered social landlords are somewhere between the public and private sector. They are not entirely private entities or entities of the state, but are, practically, somewhere in the middle. As I have already said from experience, they vary in quality, but to be fair, I have seen what good looks like. I appreciate the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman. He has a proud background of service in the Royal Engineers. He qualified as a clerk of works, which is no mean feat, so I appreciate that he knows his onions. None the less, the point he puts across came from the other side of the fence—no pun intended. Of course they would argue that.

The purpose of tabling new clause 7 was so we could debate the relative merits of the two systems. If we think of this as a spectrum, the old DIO was at the most statist end, the Defence Housing Service as proposed is one notch further along to something more market-oriented, and we are proposing something another notch further along the spectrum. The Minister is listening intently; hopefully he understands the analogy.

As I said at the beginning, I do not believe there is any violent disagreement, or indeed any disagreement at all, about what the Committee is trying to achieve. We all want service family accommodation of the best possible quality for our personnel and their families; the debate is about how we best get to that objective. We were asking the Government to conduct a feasibility study, perhaps slightly more independently than the response that the hon. Member for South Ribble just cited, and to come back a year later, before the Defence Housing Service is fully up and running, to see whether there might be a better way of doing it or whether it could be tweaked. We might return to this on Report, but that is the background, the genesis and the stimuli of our proposal.

When we did the visits—it was a former Minister, a politician in a suit, coming down to a military establishment—we sat 20 people down in a room and gave them the scenario of the corporal’s conversation at the kitchen table as a bit of an icebreaker. To begin with, everyone looked at everyone else, and they were all a bit nervous about saying something. One person then said something, and the dam broke: everybody wanted to pitch in, and everybody had a contribution to make. That taught me how powerful all of this is. We had a number of specific examples when people of varying ranks told us, “We are going to leave the service of the Crown, because of our concerns about housing.”

I know from experience that this really matters to service personnel and their families. I apologise for trying the patience of the Committee this morning, Mr Efford—in all seriousness, you have everything in Greenwich, including your own barracks, so you will be very familiar with these matters yourself. I hope Members understand the spirit of what we are trying to do with new clause 7.

On clause 3, I think we have had a good debate this morning, and we have tested some of the issues fairly well. I hope we have done our duty, and no doubt we will wish to return to some of these issues on Report, not least the prospective bonus for the National Armaments Director. I will conclude there, and I am genuinely interested to hear the Minister’s reply and the opinions of any other members of the Committee.

[Al Carns]

New clause 7 would require there to be a feasibility study when establishing a forces housing association, but before I go into the detail, I will reflect on some of the comments made by the right hon. Member.

Recruitment and retention are intrinsically linked, as both the Government and the Opposition acknowledge. We have introduced lots of changes in recruitment and retention over the last year and a half, but there is much more to do. While it differs across the services, overall we are seeing a 13% uptick in recruitment and an 8% reduction in outflow, which is the first time we have seen a change in direction for 14 years. There is much more to do, but we are heading in the right direction.

One of the reasons we are heading in the right direction is because I genuinely believe that our armed forces personnel can see that we are doing the right thing, particularly with accommodation. The right to a family life is one of the critical components of anyone serving, and that looks like safe, secure, warm and dry accommodation, whether single living or family accommodation. To give a small example, I went through marine training in 1999, and the accommodation in which I was housed was still in place in 2024, when I came back to be the unit’s commanding officer. In 1999 it was terrible, and in 2024 it was unworkable. We need to get after those accommodation issues and put them right. I am absolutely confident in the Defence Housing Service, and the strategy review comprehensively looked at single living accommodation and family accommodation, and we are putting them on the right track to deliver significant change.

It is not lost on me that the drafting system in the military can put an undue amount of pressure on individuals; I have been on a satellite phone to my children on their birthdays in the middle of all sorts of carnage, with helicopters burning and turning in the background, or with incoming rounds in Afghanistan. It puts exceptional pressure on families, so the ability to return to a safe and secure place is the least that we can provide.

The independent strategy produced prior to the establishment of the Defence Housing Service was exactly that: it was independent, and it took a huge amount of advice from a variety of people. Most importantly, the families federations fed into that process and ensured that their voices were heard. The quote highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble was only reinforced by the oral evidence given by Natalie Elphicke Ross OBE, when discussing the strategy review in response to the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley. The view was firmly held throughout the entire review that the housing association model was not the right approach, and it was not included in its recommendations.

It is worth noting that, while there were a plethora of strategic issues during covid, the previous Conservative Government did not adopt the totality of the “Stick or Twist?” report produced by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, although it contained valuable points. A housing association model would jeopardise the close working with the military that is essential to ensuring appropriate operational capability. It would also put at risk the Crown basis on which personnel occupy their homes. Crown immunities allow the Ministry of Defence to move personnel at pace, without some of the regulatory constraint that we would have otherwise, which is vital for operational effectiveness. We must also bear in mind that we have more throughput in the armed forces than probably any other organisation or housing association in the country.

[Mr Francois]

For the record, that was the one recommendation in the “Stick or Twist?” report that was not adopted. All the other recommendations were adopted, including spending a lot of money on wraparound childcare because, again, childcare was a very important point for retention. Ben Wallace told me that he used the report to get quite a bit of cash out of the Treasury, so that recommendation about childcare was one that we did manage to get through. For the record, this was the one recommendation that was too much for the system to bear.

[Al Carns]

Perhaps that is why we are not taking it forward now.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence heavily subsidises rents. There have been suggestions that the Defence Housing Service could borrow private finance off the balance sheet if it was a housing association rather than a public body. However, expert advice from the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and others confirms that is not the case. The exclusivity of the defence housing purpose and the scale of MOD payments mean that such financial arrangements are not feasible.

Equally important, and close to my heart, is the welfare of service personnel and their families. Evidence presented to the defence housing strategy review team revealed that local commands exercised significant discretion to support personnel in a plethora of difficult circumstances, such as bereavement. That welfare-based discretion is a cornerstone of armed forces culture, and moving housing management to a third-party provider could put it at risk, undermining this vital welfare function. Finally, the planned housing renewal programme demands very close working relationships with military commands to ensure that it supports operational effectiveness rather than undermining it. Such close collaboration is not realistically achievable through a private or third sector body.

Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Al Carns]

As someone goes across the single services and joint staff colleges, there will be different sections where they are trained on administering justice and the rights of a commanding officer. Importantly, there will be joint standing procedures produced around the clause, which everyone who becomes a commanding officer will have to read and ensure that they adhere to.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Qualification for membership of the Court Martial

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert “or

(iii) a retired holder of such a rank.”

This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Mr Francois]

I again place on record our thanks to you, Mr Efford, and to our excellent Clerks and the team who organised a very good visit down to Portsmouth, where I think we learned a lot about the operation of the service courts in practice—I certainly did. A number of issues were raised in that discussion, not least about the operation of juries in courts martial, and who serves on those jury panels, how they are selected and why. I will give two or three examples of the issues that came from that and then talk to the amendment.

The current practice, when an officer is being tried for an offence, is that only officers may serve on a jury panel in a court martial. Some people raised questions with the briefers that day about why that should be, and it is an interesting issue. The book answer from the Department was that officers should be tried by a jury of their peers, and therefore it should be other officers who serve on that panel. There is an issue that follows from that about the rank of the officer being tried and the rank of the officers that then serve on the panel. We learned about a practical constraint, which is that if a relatively senior officer is being tried, let us say a colonel or above—to take an Army example—there is only a relatively small pool of people who could be trawled to sit on that panel to pass judgment on that officer.

In the civilian world, we would not have a system where, if a professor were being tried, only graduates could sit on the panel. The civilian system is that people are chosen entirely at random from the electoral roll and are asked to do jury service, which they are mandated to do, with certain exceptions set out in statute. In the civilian world, people are not tried by people of—how can I put it?—an equivalent educational or social status. As the saying used to be, it is a jury of 12 good men and true; now it is, rightly, a jury of good men and women and true who assess someone’s guilt or innocence. In the military, we still carry out the process in this ranked, structured way.

Let us say that we had a lance corporal who was being tried for being drunk and disorderly—perhaps he had got into a bar brawl after the end of an exercise; he had gone out at the weekend, had let off a bit of steam and this had led to him allegedly committing an offence. At present, as I understand it, only senior non-commissioned officers of the rank of the equivalent of colour sergeant or above could pass judgment on that lance corporal. That raises an interesting question: why should another corporal or lance corporal, who likes a night out on a Friday as well, not be allowed to serve on that panel? Why does it have to be a colour sergeant or equivalent?

Forgive me, Mr Efford, I am using Army ranks because that is what I am most familiar with from my service, but the point holds good across all the services. Why should only a colour sergeant or above be allowed to pass verdict on a lance corporal or even a private soldier? A number of such issues cropped up from our visit. Also, as in the old saying that the Minister reminded me of, time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. This was a good example of that practice.

The amendment was drafted specifically to address one of those issues—the potential shortage of officers to serve on court martial panels, especially if a relatively senior officer is being tried, when by definition the pool of available serving officers to serve on a panel is limited. We have tried to come up with a practical suggestion, which is to use retired officers of equivalent rank. I am also interested to hear what other members of the Committee think of the wider issue, which is, does this have to be as hide-bound by rank as it is at the moment? I am interested in the Minister’s view as well, not least because he has been a commanding officer.

If we are to keep the system in essence as we have it at the moment, however, would it not make sense to be able to draw on a pool of retired officers of the required rank, who might have a little more time on their hands? We would not be taking anyone away from ongoing operations, and we could take time from their lives in order for them to continue to serve in a military context in the important task of administering service justice. That, in essence, is the intention of the amendment, but we also tabled it to provoke, I hope, a wider debate—I am looking at one or two Labour Back Benchers in particular, because they were vocal about this when we were in Portsmouth, so now is their chance—about why we do things in the way that we do them, and whether there is some potential for change, but if not, why not?

I hope that I have laid out the issue fairly clearly for the Committee.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the amendment, which was tabled in the name of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and to set out my broader support for clause 20. I will begin with the clause itself, because it addresses the composition of the court martial. In such circumstances, it is right that we support the very sensible change that the clause sets out, with its underlying intent to ensure that the court martial is properly constituted and capable of commanding confidence across the armed forces and the wider public. Enlarging the pool of those who can sit on it is a welcome amendment.

Precisely because we support that principle, however, we also need to examine whether the system is fully equipped for the realities it faces. In that context, the amendment becomes not only relevant, but in my view increasingly necessary. The amendment proposes a simple change, as set out by my right hon. Friend, to include retired holders of the relevant rank among those qualified for membership of the court martial.

At first glance the amendment may appear relatively modest, but I suggest that, like many apparently modest changes in defence legislation, it subtly reflects something much more significant. It reflects a recognition of the demands placed on our armed forces justice system and how those are changing over time, and changing rapidly. We are operating in an era of increasing operational tempo—a phrase that is often used in defence debates, sometimes frequently.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Gentleman makes a helpful challenge. Clearly, there is no impact assessment with the amendment. However, there is a joint service publication, the RARO—regular army reserve of officers—list, and there are those letters I receive annually asking me to update my address and contact details. There are already mechanisms by which individuals can be identified and recalled for this service. Given the operational tempo that I have described, it makes sense that we ameliorate the pressure on those who are currently in active service while not impacting the flow of justice through the service justice system.

[Mr Francois]

In my experience, retired officers, particularly retired senior officers, are keenly aware of their pension entitlements. If we are paying them a pension through the armed forces pension scheme, we presumably know who they are and where they live. Via that database, it would not be particularly onerous to come up with a list of retired senior officers who could at least be invited. We are not suggesting that this should be mandatory, but we are suggesting that they may want the opportunity to serve. Via their pensions, we know where they are.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who from his time as a Defence Minister knows well how to keep tabs on those who have served our country but are now retired. The pension scheme is an obvious way to do so. In addition, he makes an important point about the willingness of individuals to engage in the process. These are people who have given enormous service to their country, and often wish to continue giving service long into their years of retirement from active service.

Our armed forces are more stretched and more globally engaged than before, and they are more frequently deployed than at almost any point in recent decades. The spectrum of threats facing our country is widening, from state-based adversaries to hybrid war, cyber-operations and persistent instability in regions where British forces are called to act with precision and professionalism. As I have set out, when operational tempo increases every part of the system is affected. It is not just about equipment, logistics or personnel numbers, but about the justice system that underpins discipline, accountability and command authority.

The question, therefore, is a relatively simple one: does our current system of service justice have the flexibility, depth and resilience required to meet that demand? Amendment 9 is one attempt to ensure that it does. It recognises that we are asking a great deal of a relatively small pool of serving officers. We are asking them not only to command forces in complex environments but, where necessary, to sit in judgment in court martial proceedings, including in cases involving senior rank, complex evidence, and often significant reputational consequence for all involved. That is not to say that these individuals are incapable of doing those tasks, but that is a heavy burden on any system. It becomes more difficult still when we consider the practical realities of availability.

Senior serving officers are, by definition, in high demand. They are deployed, rotated, assigned to strategic planning roles or engaged in operational command responsibilities that cannot simply be paused or rescheduled. At the same time, the court martial system requires a bench that is credible, experienced and capable of understanding the realities of service life. It is not enough that those sitting in judgment are legally competent to interpret the evidence; they must also understand the context in which decisions are made, the pressures under which orders are given and the operational environments in which conduct is assessed.

That combination of legal competence and operational understanding is not easily found, and it is here that amendment 9 can make a tangible contribution. By extending eligibility to retired officers of appropriate rank, we end up expanding the pool of individuals who can bring that essential combination of experience and judgment to the court martial system.

I want to be clear about what the amendment seeks to do and what it does not seek to do. It is not an attempt to dilute standards. On the contrary, it is an attempt to strengthen them by widening the field of those who meet them. It is not an attempt to undermine the authority of serving officers; it is an attempt to relieve them of some of the competing pressures that now fall on them in an increasingly demanding environment. It is not an attempt to create a separate or parallel justice system where some are tried by those who are still in active service and some are held in judgment by those who have retired. It is merely an attempt to ensure that the existing system has the necessary capacity to function effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

Listening to evidence and acting on it is critical. Understanding the context in which it sits is equally important. Did that individual know that there are 200 one-stars within defence? Did they have the authority and responsibility to allocate individuals in a short, timely and effective manner to a court martial board? Probably not. The problem is not capacity. It is perhaps that the Defence Serious Crime Command needs greater authorities and programming to pool individuals in a timely and effective manner to sit on a court martial board and deliver justice.

[Mr Francois]

This is not a criticism of the Minister, because no doubt he had other important things to do, but he was not on that visit, as I recall. As Her late Majesty once said, recollections may vary, but this was a point raised with us by the people presenting to us on the operation of the system. We did not invent it. They made the point quite strongly that, for instance, if people had been on staff courses together—let us say that they had done the Royal College of Defence Studies course for a year together—that would sometimes rule them out. I must make the point to the Minister that we have not fabricated this; it is a problem that was raised with us by the experts who actually deal with the process day to day.

[Al Carns]

In no way, shape or form am I suggesting that this was fabricated, made up or a lie. What I am trying to say is that context is important. The statistics show that there are 200 one-stars in regular service, not including the reserve. That is a large pool of individuals, which reduces the right hon. Member’s argument about capacity. He talked about people knowing each other, but there are clear protocols in place to ensure that when the board is pulled together, the range of individuals on it is as broad as it is wide, and that there is at least one woman and one man on it. I think that that is adequate. The 2024 secondary legislation that amended the rules was brought in specifically in response to the case that was mentioned during the Committee’s visit—

Armed Forces Bill (Fifth sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Al Carns]

Coming back to amendment 9, I agree that pulling together a court martial board to deal with senior officers poses more challenges than it does for junior personnel. Such cases are rare, and changes were made quite recently to address the issue. Changes were made in secondary legislation in 2024 to provide more flexibility in the formation of court martial boards for trials where the defendant is a senior officer, to address any potential difficulties in finding sufficiently senior personnel who do not know the defendant to sit on the board. Having boards that are tri-service has also helped assist with that. The changes ensure that the president of the board—the most senior person on the board—will be at least a one-star when the defendant is a one-star or above, and that practical attempts are always made to try to find a suitable two-star. When a two-star cannot be found, a one-star works. For defendants below one-star, the president of the board is always one rank higher.

We talked about capacity and the availability of ranks, and we will look into the detail of how we ensure that the Defence Serious Crime Command has the authority to leverage people to deliver the right consistency on boards. In terms of capacity in dealing with senior officer trials, there are around 200 one-stars in the armed forces and around 470 personnel at one star or above. There are sufficient personnel to meet the few occasions when senior personnel are tried. We keep those matters under review through the governance board of the service justice system, the service justice board and the service justice executive group, in which all key stakeholders are represented.

Clause 20 amends section 156 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, to correct an anomaly relating to those who are eligible to sit on a court martial board. The Armed Forces Act 2021 reduced qualification for those non-commissioned officers who were entitled to sit on a court martial board from a warrant officer to those of substantive OR-7 rank, for example a colour sergeant. However, a technical oversight meant that other subsections of section 156 were not also amended to reflect those changes. Consequently, only warrant officers and equivalent who became commissioned officers automatically qualified to sit on a court martial board, while OR-7s still had to undergo a three-year qualification period. Clause 20 simply enables those who receive their commission and were of former substantive OR-7 rank to automatically qualify to sit on the court martial board. I hope that provides the necessary reassurance to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford on those grounds, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I do not think we need to have a debate on clause 20 stand part because we had a pretty thorough debate on the amendment, which covered most of the issues. I will seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, but I would like to put down the marker that we have had an interesting debate and we might wish to return to this subject on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

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

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 22 to 24 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I feel I should say something about this, as I started it. I did so because I consider Falmouth to be the home of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s Bay class ships, as it is where they are maintained and repaired, so the RFA personnel are in great part my constituents.

RFA personnel are fundamental to the Navy and to the military. In many cases, as has been pointed out, they allow them to do their job. Recently, they worked on operations relating to the shadow fleet and protecting cables. One of the Bay class ships became a hospital ship off the west coast of Africa during Ebola. The RFA has played multiple roles, often as the forgotten service; it slips between the civil service and the military. Many in the RFA feel that their work has not been appreciated, so I am pleased that the Government have picked up on that and put this clause in the Armed Forces Bill—it is much appreciated. It is the start of work on building recognition of the RFA and on retention and recruitment within the service, which has struggled of late. I appreciate this measure and am very pleased that it has been included.

[Mr Francois]

As the title of clause 30 is “Commissioner’s functions in relation to Royal Fleet Auxiliary”, I will ask the Minister something about the commissioner and then something about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

It would appear that, after some time, the Government have now announced someone to fill the position of commissioner. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that. There are reports in the media that the appointment has been made, but I hope the Minister will put that firmly on the record and say a bit about the individual and how they came to be selected. What was the process by which they got that important job? Has the Defence Committee been involved in the appointment in any way?

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I can help out a little with the right hon. Gentleman’s question. The post was not filled. The Government were having some difficulty in filling the post, and—

[The Chair]

Order. We are going down a rabbit hole. The Committee is not here to debate who will fill the commissioner’s role; we are here to debate the clause. Can we get back on subject, please?

[Mr Francois]

Thank you, Mr Efford. I just wanted to know who got the job.

Turning to the RFA, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth for what she has done to raise the profile of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The issue is clearly extremely close to her heart. I believe that she was trying to advance a private Member’s Bill, having done well in the ballot, but there has been a slight problem with that, because—almost exceptionally, other than during covid—the Government’s business managers have hardly provided any time at all in this Session for private Members’ Bills. All those Members who had Bills that were important to them never really got a chance to make their case, so it is good that she has had the opportunity to put something on the record today.

The commissioner has important powers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East said, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary has a very important role. From memory, it was created in 1905. The Minister, from his time as the chief of staff of the carrier group, knows how important it is. Technically, its personnel are not members of the armed forces, but members of the merchant navy. However, it is fair to say that the Royal Navy could not operate without them, as was well said by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth, who understands these matters.

The RFA has a slightly unusual constitutional position, but is a vital part of Britain’s defence none the less. Indeed, a few days ago, a number of Russian shadow fleet tankers were shadowed through the English channel by the RFA Tidespring, because no escort was operationally available. That is pretty embarrassing for the Government, when the Prime Minister has talked so tough about boarding shadow fleet tankers but has boarded precisely none of them. We touched on that point in the Chamber yesterday. Perhaps the Minister can update us. Why we did not have a warship available to undertake the task, when the Russians had a warship to escort their own shadow fleet? The middle of the channel is international waters. Where are we on all this?

[The Chair]

Order. Can we get back to the Bill? The right hon. Member is asking a lot of questions that I am sure are very interesting, but they are not germane to the Bill. Can we get back to the subject that we are debating?

[Mr Francois]

Yes, Mr Efford. I will conclude there. I just wanted to know why the RFA is doing a job that the Royal Navy is supposed to do. After our debate yesterday, perhaps the Minister will enlighten the Committee.

[The Chair]

It is up to the Minister whether he wishes to answer any of that.

[Al Carns]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth. She generated this, and now it has come to fruition, so well done. The reality is that there is no Royal Navy without the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The RFA does an exceptional job across everything from high-end technical to refuelling and enabling our carrier strike group.

When we talk about embarrassment and availability of capability, the unfortunate reality is that we have the cards that we have been dealt, after successive Governments under-invested in the significant hard capability that we require to deter hostile states. As a Minister in the previous Government, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford owns an element of responsibility for that.

[Mr Francois]

For the record, whatever we did or did not do in Government, we did not bring in the £2.6 billion of operational spending cuts in the financial year just gone. That is why our availability is so poor, and that was a purely Labour decision, was it not?

[The Chair]

Order. We are getting off the subject again. Can we come back to the clause, please?

Armed Forces Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

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

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)]

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.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

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.

[The Chairman]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman]

Marvellous. I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Francois]

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.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

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.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

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.

[Mr Francois]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

The right hon. Member is making a powerful point, and it is something I hope that I can expand on as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community. We have worked extensively with the Department for Education on this matter, and I hope to be able to address the right hon. Member’s concerns in my speech later. Does he recognise that special educational needs and disability policy should fall under the Department for Education, and that the point of the armed forces covenant is that we can have some leverage over the Department for Education rather than placing this detail in the Bill?

[Mr Francois]

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.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

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.

[Mr Francois]

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.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Rather than the shadow Minister extending his speech, I urge Members concerned with this area to perhaps listen to what I will explain, which is the work that we have been doing with the DFE. We have had members from the armed forces community from across the country liaising directly with the Department for Education and the Minister for Veterans and People. I will try to put that across in my speech.

[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.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Francois]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn briefly to new clause 2, which is about the laying of the defence investment plan.

[Mr Francois]

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?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. One thing that came up very strongly in the APPG’s discussions with the Department—we had military families from all three services, and representatives of all the service organisations—was that this problem is faced by all people; it is just that service families and service children manifest the issue most specifically. The problem has to be fixed for all people in the United Kingdom, which is why the changes were taken on board as part of the SEND work. We received a great amount of care and support from the Department, and I hope that the work will prove beneficial. Where I see a bit of a failing is that, in taking that on, the Department could perhaps have noted that work, so that service families could have seen that it had been part of the considerations. That was a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot made to the Minister, and I hope that it will be addressed in the next iteration of the SEND work.

[Mr Francois]

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?

[Mr Bailey]

The right hon. Member makes a powerful point, and I agree with him entirely. That is why it is so important we make sure that the armed forces covenant works. The covenant will have to do a lot of work and heavy lifting, just as it will in relation to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, but we will have the legal power and we will have recourse to those Departments. We hope to hear from Ministers today that they will press home the legal advantage they now have in that regard.

Finally, this debate reminds us that the Armed Forces Act 2006 was itself forged in the context of its time. It brought together a number of separate pieces of legislation and created a framework suited to an era in which the size and scope of the armed forces were reducing and many of the strategic assumptions underpinning our national security appeared to be settled. The measures in this Bill are all welcome and necessary, but they remind us that much of the heavy lifting now sits elsewhere. Questions about mobilisations, reserve integration, military aid to the civil authorities, the legal protections offered to service personnel acting on behalf of the state, and wider national resilience sit largely beyond the scope of the Bill, yet those issues are becoming increasingly important as the strategic environment changes around us. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that the legal frameworks governing our armed forces continue to evolve alongside those changes. This Bill makes important improvements, but it should also encourage us to think carefully about the work that remains to be done and ensure that future legislation is ambitious enough to meet the realities of the world as it is, rather than the world as it once was.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

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.

[Rachel Taylor]

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.

[Mr Francois]

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.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

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.

[Mr Francois]

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.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

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.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that on Labour’s arrival in government, the National Audit Office stated that the previous Government and the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) had left an equipment plan with a £7 billion to £28 billion gap? Is that correct?

[Mr Francois]

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

[Mr Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[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.

[Al Carns]

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.

[Al Carns]

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.

[Mr Francois]

Will the Minister give way?

[Al Carns]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

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.

[Mr Francois]

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?

[Al Carns]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

Where is he?

[Mr Francois]

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.

Armed Forces Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I may refer to again in a few minutes. It is important to place on record the respect he has engendered across the House by resigning on an important issue of principle relating to the defence of the realm, which is, after all, the most important duty of Government, above all others. He and I have debated for five months on this Bill. We have not always agreed, but we have always dealt with each other respectfully. That respect has only been enhanced by his recent decision.

I rise to speak to new clause 11 and amendments 3, 4, 5 and 11 in my name and that of my hon. Friends. I will get into the detail of those amendments and the new clause in a moment, but before I do, I observe the courtesies of debate and congratulate the new Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), on her recent field promotion. We hope that she enjoys herself in her new post, but I caution her that there appear to have been further command changes back at the chateau as of today. We shall have to see how she fares in the re-brigading exercise that will inevitably follow, but for today, well done.

In the meantime, this Bill, which had its Second Reading back on 26 January, has been extensively debated—when the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill received both oral and written evidence; in the Select Committee’s debate phase; in Committee of the whole House on 2 June; and now on Report and Third Reading. The Opposition’s summing-up speech tonight will come from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed).

Over nearly five months, we have spent more than 40 hours taking evidence, conducting visits and debating this important Bill. As today is the culmination of its consideration in the Commons before it moves on to further scrutiny in the other place, I should say that throughout, we Opposition Members have attempted to act as a critical friend to the Bill. We have been able to do that mostly in a relatively consensual manner, although there have been occasional points of disagreement, as I suspect there may yet be this evening.

New clause 11 relates to a derogation from the European convention on human rights in the event of overseas operations under the auspices of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the proposition of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), despite the fact that I was born in his constituency, in Crouch End—or “Creuche Ende”, as the estate agents call it today. When we debated this matter in Committee, we tabled a similar new clause, based on the wording of the 2021 Act. It said that Ministers should at least consider derogating from the ECHR, if not doing so might constrain the operation of our troops when deployed overseas and leave them potentially fighting a ruthless enemy with no moral scruples, who behaved as the Russians did in Bucha during the invasion of Ukraine. Because of the ECHR, our troops could effectively be fighting with one hand tied behind their back, and could fear lawfare being used against them, perhaps even decades later, potentially at Russia’s behest. Unfortunately, the Government have been completely hopeless on this, and we have therefore firmed up the wording in our revised new clause; it says that Ministers “should” derogate in such circumstances. The principal argument, however, remains the same, and I hope that Ministers might yet be persuaded to accept the new clause.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I remind the Opposition spokesperson that new clause 1, which I tabled, would prevent the Secretary of State authorising the entry of members of visiting forces from states whose commanders are subject to International Criminal Court arrest warrants or proceedings of the International Court of Justice. I do not see how that is a problem for anyone who respects and understands the importance of international law in bringing an end to conflict, or preventing conflict. Surely the Secretary of State should not allow people to come and operate here when they have an ICC arrest warrant against them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I am old school, and I was taught that in a debate, it is polite to refer to the Member who moved the lead amendment. That is what I was seeking to do. As I think the House would realise, I am making a very different point and a different argument from him. I will have to respectfully disagree, particularly given events earlier today.

New clause 4, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), has been signed by 64 MPs from across the House, including me. The law was changed many years ago to permit foreign, Commonwealth and Gurkha personnel who have served in our armed forces for four years or more to apply for UK citizenship in return for their willingness to risk their life in service of the Crown. That is now a well-established procedure. However, there is a long-running issue about their immediate family, who may also wish to apply for citizenship, being charged visa fees. Both the Conservative and Labour parties in their 2024 general election manifestos pledged to change that. Indeed, the Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland have been campaigning on it for some time. The case will no doubt be made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, just as it was in Committee, if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

When we debated this issue in Committee some three weeks ago, the then Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, sought to offer the House some comfort that progress might be made on this issue by the time we got to Report. That being the case, and given that the Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland have been doing their best to press the case—including at an event in the House earlier today—I hope that his replacement as the Armed Forces Minister will be able to give us a positive update tonight.

It is not really the money that is the impediment. We in the Conservative party have pledged that if we were in government, the Ministry of Defence would cover the additional cost of these visas, which would realistically run at most to a few million pounds a year. However, as everyone knows, the real blocker is not the MOD, but the Home Office. I very much hope that the Armed Forces Minister can tell us today that she has put some vim down the pipe, as it were, and that the Government will now accept new clause 4. If not, I feel sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon will be present to press his new clause at the conclusion of our debate.

Our amendments 3, 4 and 5 are on the subjects of special educational needs, the related matters of fostering and adoption, and care in the national health service. In essence, our argument is that if military personnel who have children with special educational needs are ordered to transfer from one military garrison or base to another, any support that they have for that child—including an education, health and care plan or its equivalent in the devolved Governments—should automatically be portable from one local education authority to the one that covers their new posting.

One of the two overriding principles of the armed forces covenant, which is an important aspect of the Bill, is that military personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage as a result of their service relative to the civilian population. Given that they may sometimes be compelled to move by order from one part of the country to another, this is a perfect example of where that principle should now bite.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I thank my hon. Friend him for his intervention. As patron of the Rayleigh branch of the Royal British Legion, I too am very glad to pay tribute to the amazing work that it does in support of serving personnel, veterans and the wider armed forces family. It has also played an important part in lobbying for what is now new clause 4, on which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon will elaborate.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the shadow Minister again for all his endeavours on behalf of the defence forces. He is an example to us all.

I understand that the Government have extended the armed forces covenant to Northern Ireland, but there is a question mark over the responsibility of local borough and district councils in Northern Ireland that may have adverse feelings about the covenant. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is important that the Government bring forward legislation tonight to ensure that every district and borough council in Northern Ireland must adhere to the same rules as those here on the mainland?

[Mr Francois]

Yes, the armed forces covenant should apply equally throughout the four nations of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman and I know that some local authorities in Northern Ireland take a different view on this matter, but even in Sinn Féin-run councils the covenant should still apply. Northern Ireland has a very proud tradition of providing troops for the United Kingdom’s armed forces, and those troops are as entitled to be recognised and supported by the civilian population as those drawn from any other part of the United Kingdom. So, again, my in-principle answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

I suspect that this might be about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, in which case I am very happy to give way.

[Jayne Kirkham]

It is not, actually, although I can always talk about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in the context of clause 31, in which it is brilliantly included and which will give the RFA a commissioner at last, which is fantastic.

May I ask the Minister to confirm—because I have had some correspondence about this—that clause 2 covers unitary authorities, single foundation strategic authorities and borough councils outside outer London? Some members of the Local Government Association have raised that with me. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, just for clarification, that those authorities are covered by the duties in the covenant?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for referring to me as the Minister. I was the Minister once and—who knows?—I may be one day again. I must say, in fairness to the previous Minister, that I believe the Government tabled amendments in Committee to clarify the matter that the hon. Lady has raised, and I think that on their behalf, if it is not precocious, I can give her and the LGA an absolute reassurance in that regard.

We believe that as military personnel are often moving at the behest of the state, the state has a moral duty under the covenant to ensure that any EHCP—and, as we all know from our constituency work, obtaining EHCPs is often a tortuous process—is then fully transferable. When we debated that in Committee, we received considerable support from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who has received a field promotion of his own in recent days, and will therefore hopefully be a friend to these measures within the Department. I would welcome him too, but I am saving him up for Defence questions in July.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

We in the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community—including my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey)—have been working on these issues with the Royal British Legion for the past year. The Minister for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), has come before us, has listened to the views of service personnel and their families, and has committed to ensuring that serving personnel are included in the SEND reforms process. I want to thank her for her work, alongside that of the Royal British Legion and the APPG.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Lady for a very helpful intervention. I will come to the NHS in a moment, but during the Bill’s earlier stages we have suggested that if the Government do not feel that they can accept this amendment—amendment 3—in this primary legislation, which was our preferred route, now that we know there will be a new Bill on special educational needs, they should seek to address the problem in that Bill, and because it is a Department for Education Bill, hopefully local education authorities will then give it considerable weight. So we are in absolute agreement about that route, and, if I may say so, what the hon. Lady has said about education Ministers is heartening.

Amendment 4 makes, in a sense, the same argument as we have made on the EHCPs with regard to fostering or adoption by service personnel. Amendment 5 argues, in a similar vein, that military personnel who transfer from one military location to another should not lose their place on any NHS waiting list as a result. Again, there is forthcoming legislation on NHS reorganisation, and we hope that this issue can be tackled via that legislative route. I believe this is a relatively straightforward moral argument, in all three cases, and I hope that the Government may yet accept the logic of what we are putting forward this evening.

Let me now turn to the subject of funding for the proposed new Defence Housing Service. As I said during the Select Committee stage of the Bill, there is almost universal agreement that we want to improve the quality of accommodation for service personnel and their families. The remaining area of contention is how best to achieve that, given that there is almost complete unanimity on the desired end state.

Nevertheless, following media reports—especially in The Sunday Times—Opposition Members are increasingly concerned about the possibility that money for capital improvements, and even maintenance, may now be taken away from the Defence Housing Service before it is even born, and reallocated to other priorities in Labour’s very long-awaited defence investment plan. We know from evidence sessions on the Bill that there is already a plan for the Defence Housing Service to reduce the spending on housing maintenance by 25%, compared to current practice. That sounds worrying, although officials, and indeed the previous Minister, were keen to stress that they believed the new Defence Housing Service would be able, by renegotiating certain contracts and the actual operation of maintenance, to do this more efficiently.

The proof of the pudding for all that will be very much in the eating. However, what we understand is now being proposed is that the capital allocations for the Defence Housing Service will be raided in order to fund other defence priorities elsewhere. That process will only be exacerbated if, as has been widely reported, the amount of money that will be available for the DIP—if and when it is finally published—will be the lowest of the three options widely canvassed in the press, namely an additional £10 billion of spending on defence over the next four years.

Given the challenges faced by defence—which were laid out starkly by both the former Defence Secretary and the former Armed Forces Minister in their powerful resignation letters—£10 billion over four years will not even touch the sides. Let me humbly remind Labour Members that all three authors of the strategic defence review, which was published over a year ago on 2 June 2025, were adamant that the price tag for delivering Labour’s much-vaunted SDR would be defence spending of at least 3% of GDP. What is on offer is clearly nowhere near that. Indeed, in his scathing resignation letter, the former Defence Secretary said that all that was being offered to him was an increase in defence spending from 2.6% of GDP this year to 2.68% of GDP by 2030—in other words, a 0.08% increase over four years. Those numbers completely and utterly demolish Labour’s constantly repeated mantra that they are now funding

“the biggest…increase in defence spending since the Cold War.”

That is simply not true.

However, the situation is even worse than that. In addition to the headline “increases”, which are now minuscule, as the resignation letter starkly reveals, last year, at the Treasury’s behest, the Labour Government introduced a target of making efficiency savings—“cuts” in plain English—of some £2.6 billion from operational and revenue spending in the Ministry of Defence. What that means in practice is fewer ship days at sea, fewer hours for our pilots to fly, and fewer exercises on Salisbury plain. Incredibly, in this financial year—2026-27—the efficiency savings target has now been increased to £3.5 billion of cuts, which means even more operational and revenue spending reductions than last year.

For Labour to continue the mantra that it has provided the largest increase in defence spending since the cold war, in the face of these self-imposed, Treasury-driven in-year cuts, simply destroys any credibility that the Government had that they really are striving to keep this country safe. This is not the result of enemy action—unless one regards the Treasury as the enemy, which many in the military now do. This is a self-inflicted wound brought about by a Labour Government who are completely paralysed by inaction, and who now have no idea whatsoever of how to credibly fund the defence of this country.

In the light of today’s events, it remains to be seen whether the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will attempt to introduce any order into this chaos. If he does, he and his new Chancellor—whoever that turns out to be—will still have to say how the Labour Government are going to pay for it. Are they going to increase borrowing, which will frighten the bond markets, or are they going to cut welfare, which would probably provoke a Back-Bench revolt?

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Which would you do?

[Mr Francois]

We would reduce welfare spending and spend it on the defence of the realm. That is our policy.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment.

I come back to the Defence Housing Service. Ministers have promised us ad nauseum that their plan will include £9.2 billion of investment in military accommodation over the next 10 years—that point has been repeated again and again over the five months that I have referred to. Given that the DIP has still not been published, I ask the Minister for the Armed Forces whether she can still repeat Labour’s mantra on the Floor of the House this evening. Is that £9.2 billion still there? Has it been definitively signed off by the Chancellor of the Exchequer —yes or no?

Moreover, can the Minister advise us when the DIP will finally be published? I see that the Secretary of State has kindly joined us, so he can bob up and answer if he wants. Will it be published prior to the NATO summit in Ankara on 7 and 8 July, as we have been told multiple times? Will it be published prior to the House rising for the summer recess on 16 July? Will it ever be published, or will we have to go round the loop all over again with a new Government? Are they going to publish it, and if so, when? We have now transitioned from frustration to filibustering from Ministers, and from there to farce. Our adversaries can see this as clearly as our friends can.

We have already rightly spent five months on this very important Bill, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House at least some comfort on some of the points that we have raised. Otherwise, we will have to test the will of the House, almost certainly in the matter of the ECHR and potentially on the Defence Housing Service and the DIP as well. Finally, when—if ever—will Labour publish the defence investment plan?

[Alex Baker]

May I begin by congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) on being appointed the Minister for the Armed Forces? She did an outstanding job as the Minister for Veterans and People, and I pay particular tribute to her work with the Gurkha community. I saw at first hand how she engaged with a community that for too long felt ignored and unheard, and she helped many feel that their voices were finally being listened to. I am delighted to see her promoted, and I look forward to her making many visits to Aldershot and Farnborough in her new role.

This weekend, Aldershot and Farnborough will have the privilege of hosting the national Armed Forces Day celebrations. As the historic home of the British Army, it is a huge honour for our community. I thank everyone involved in making it happen, including Rushmoor borough council and our headline sponsors: QinetiQ, BAE Systems and KBR Aspire Defence. Armed Forces Day matters because it gives us an opportunity to say thank you, but it should also be an opportunity to listen.

On Saturday, I was privileged to attend the launch of the Commonwealth military hub in Aldershot, which has been delivered by Op Belonging under the leadership of Samuel T. Reddy, in partnership with Aldershot Town football club. It was an extraordinary event. Serving personnel, veterans, families and organisations from across the Commonwealth came together to celebrate service and support each other. In some regiments based in Aldershot, more than 15 different nationalities are represented, and what struck me most was the theme of belonging. These are people who have served our country, and their families have sacrificed alongside them. They deserve to feel that they belong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

We are committed to publishing the DIP before the Ankara summit in July.

Amendment 11 concerns the Defence Housing Service’s budget and the defence investment plan. I hope that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will understand that I will not comment on any figures in the DIP—it will be published soon enough. Our defence housing strategy will deliver a decade of renewal for defence family housing. Previously, military housing was subject to insufficient, stop-start funding. That did not deliver value for money for the taxpayer, or the improvements that our service families deserve. The Defence Housing Service’s budget will be clearly set out, and it will account for its spending to Parliament via an annual report. As the Select Committee heard during the evidence sessions, there is nothing in the defence investment plan process that stops the Department getting work under way. The Defence Housing Service will be up and running from April 2027, and the work of renewing the estate can continue.

[Mr Francois]

We were told multiple times—loads of times—over five months that the Government would invest £9.2 billion over 10 years to achieve the objectives of the Defence Housing Service, so I ask the Minister again: will she give a commitment to the House that that figure has not been reduced? If she cannot do that, people will believe that it has been reduced.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I will not comment, piece by piece, on what might be in the defence investment plan. We are getting on with the job of making improvements for service families now, and we are preparing for the launch of the new Defence Housing Service.

Amendment 11 states that the Defence Housing Service must operate within a budget set out in the DIP. That risks constraining the Defence Housing Service in a scenario where investment is set out in the plan, but has to rise thereafter. Any additional spending then risks being in breach of this requirement, unless and until a new defence investment plan is published. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that would constrain the service’s ability to respond swiftly and appropriately to changing requirements.

New clause 11 would require any future Secretary of State to consider whether to make a derogation under article 15 of the ECHR, which provides that

“in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation…a State may take measures derogating from its obligations under the Convention only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”,

provided that such measures are

“not…inconsistent with the State’s other obligations under international law”.

When the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill was being considered, concerns were raised that its clause 12 risked damaging the UK’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. It was also seen as unnecessary, because the Government can already derogate under article 15 of the ECHR, so the provision did not add any additional legal power and was largely symbolic. It was the last Government who agreed to its removal from that Bill, and I have not heard a convincing case for its inclusion in this Bill.

I will address new clauses 3 and 5 together, as they both deal with how we care for our veterans. I thank hon. Members for tabling them. I appreciate their concerns about our armed forces veterans, and I acknowledge the sentiments behind the new clauses. We have published our new 10-year veterans strategy, which sets out a new narrative around the remarkable men and women who have served in our armed forces. It applies UK-wide, is cross-Government and cross-sector in scope, and will provide significant opportunity for both data collection and data sharing, and we do not wish to distract from the progression of this work.