Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

Mike Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Francois]

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

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

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

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

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

[Al Carns]

I will triple down on what was said and say thank you very much to an amazing team, first, for putting together great evidence sessions and, secondly, for approaching this in a positive and pragmatic way. I also thank the Opposition parties for also being pragmatic in the way we move this forward in the best keeping of our armed forces.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Armed forces covenant

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor]

It is a pleasure, Mr Efford, to serve under your chairmanship.

Liberal Democrat amendment 5 is well intentioned, but I find it troubling. The hon. Member for North Devon seems to be trying to create a minimum requirement that organisations might reach and then decide that they will take no further action. I am hugely concerned that it could be detrimental to delivering the best possible service to veterans and service personnel. A one-size-fits-all national protocol removes the ability for decisions to be made at a local level and tailored for local context and circumstances.

[Mike Martin]

Perhaps it would be helpful to explain that it is a floor, rather than a target.

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that, but instead we should push our local authorities and other public bodies to create tailored solutions. For example, I recently asked organisations in my constituency how they are supporting the armed forces covenant, and I was delighted with the response I received. Organisations reached out to explain the specific actions that they have taken, and how they have gone above and beyond to support armed forces personnel, veterans and their families.

Warwickshire police told me that it has achieved gold status in the defence employer recognition scheme, which is managed by the Ministry of Defence. It has developed an armed forces network that has worked hard to develop referral pathways for veterans and their families. We should encourage organisations to aspire to be the best that they can be and to achieve that gold status, rather than enforcing a basic minimum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Roome]

It is nice to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Amendment 5 would add a new section to the armed forces covenant provisions that were introduced in the Armed Forces Act 2006 to try to make access to services more consistent. This Bill requires specified persons to have due regard to the covenant for specified matters, such as the fair provision of childcare, healthcare and social care, housing and other services listed in clause 2. Some of those specified persons are national bodies, but others are local authorities, educational bodies and health bodies, many of which are much more localised.

Without a national benchmark for supporting armed forces families, we risk that due regard to the covenant will still be interpreted in very different ways by, say, neighbouring local councils. I fear that some might see it just as a paper exercise. That could be unfair on armed forces personnel in some parts of the country, but would make life especially hard for those being reposted every two years. For example, Devon has one, two or three overlapping levels of local government, depending on where someone lives. Our NHS hospital trusts, police, fire authorities and other services have different boundaries too.

The problem of a postcode lottery was identified as a weakness in the original covenant. If someone is in uniform, they could easily be reposted from a big city to RAF Lossiemouth or RNAS Culdrose—a completely different kind of community. The Defence Committee’s report on the armed forces covenant found that some councils have priority housing rules for veterans, while others still require a local connection. That can be unfair on service families who move around a lot.

[Mike Martin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, since the heart of the covenant is about establishing parity and equity of service provision for all serving personnel and veterans, we must establish exactly what that means as a minimum? Without establishing what services must be provided—as a floor, not a ceiling—how can we have equity across the country?

[Ian Roome]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Published guidance can be interpreted differently from authority to authority. It is about how they put that into action.

Local NHS services have a mad patchwork of transfer rules depending on where someone moves from across the country, which can make access to medical care difficult, as I am sure some of us have experienced—I have, because I have a large garrison in my constituency, and I receive casework from serving personnel about the difference that they have experienced around the country. That is part of what we are trying to fix.

We should expect the Secretary of State to put specific protocols in writing for local bodies across the country. That would be fairer to our service personnel, but it would also make the Government’s responsibilities clearer—it would end our discussion now, where we are asking what due regard means—if local bodies fail to uphold what is being asked for in the Bill. The amendment would require a standardised set of protocols to be produced by the Secretary of State within six months of the Bill passing, require local bodies to act accordingly, and require the protocols to be brought back to Parliament when the procedures need to be revised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. Of course there will need to be a degree of clinical judgment, but the premise that somebody has to start at the bottom of the system by virtue of the fact that they are a dependant of service personnel is inherently unfair, and one that needs to be addressed in the Bill.

[Mike Martin]

Nobody wants a serviceperson or veteran to return to the back of the list. That would be completely contrary to what we are trying to do. Equally, if they were sixth on the list in the old area, we do not want them to be sixth in the new area. Is the hon. Member saying that their degree of clinical severity or urgency, or their triage category, would transfer such that they would slot into the new list at the same level?

[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.