Armed Forces Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This weekend, just over two years after leaving the military, I received my recall notification. I managed to update the details within it. At the same time, I was presented with nearly 60 pages-worth of forms to complete just to take on a reserve service commitment. Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that there is still some way to go and that the amendments should perhaps speak of movement between reserve forces and regular forces, rather than the other way round?

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

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

indicated dissent.

Marvellous. I call the shadow Minister.

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

indicated assent.

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

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

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

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

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

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

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I welcome the many amendments tabled to this Bill, the first of which is the Government’s amendment to include the Greater London Authority among bodies that must apply the covenant duty. As a London MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community, which has supported the campaign to ensure that military compensation is not treated as income for the purposes of welfare means-testing by local councils, I strongly welcome this step to ensure that the covenant applies to all local and regional authorities. I also recognise the changes that both Redbridge and Waltham Forest councils made to their treatment of military compensation last year as a result of that work. The GLA has responsibility for critical aspects of everyday life in London, including transport through Transport for London and oversight of the Met, and it plays an important role in skills development and housing. We must ensure that all levels of government, including combined and mayoral authorities, have obligations under the covenant duty, so I welcome the GLA’s inclusion. However, I am concerned that some policy areas that—as our casework shows—intersect with local government, such as immigration, citizenship, pensions and armed forces compensation, are excluded from the local government scope. This risks current and future inconsistencies in the application of the covenant duty. Likewise, I remain concerned that the current draft of the statutory guidance makes it clear that non-ministerial Departments such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Ofsted and HM Prison and Probation Service are not covered by the covenant. Those institutions have critical roles in taxes and income support, education and the justice system, so I would welcome it if the Government could explain why those Departments are not included and say whether they will make changes to include them. I turn to some of the Opposition’s proposed amendments. I understand and welcome the intent behind the amendment dealing with special educational needs and disabilities, but this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for such changes. SEND policy falls within the remit of the Department for Education, which is now rightly covered by the covenant extension, including in this legislation. The APPG on the armed forces community has contributed to the Department for Education’s SEND consultation, with particularly notable contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), who has been leading on this area for members of the Army and her local community. Drawing on a number of meetings that the APPG held with the Minister for School Standards, we hosted a roundtable involving civil servants from the Department, researchers from Oxford Brookes University and Edinburgh Napier University, the three armed forces family federations, the Royal British Legion and the SSAFA. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot raised the well-evidenced and distinct challenges faced by our service children arising from frequent relocations across borders—challenges that the SEND White Paper did not adequately recognise. However, the solution is not the automatic transfer of plans. Our devolved education system means that an education, health and care plan in England is not equivalent to a co-ordinated support plan in Scotland. In England, around 5% to 6% of children with additional needs qualify for an EHCP, but only about 0.2% qualify in Scotland. Making one legislative change in this Bill will not automatically make our disconnected SEND systems conform to the needs of our service children. Instead, we need the standardisation and timely transfer of records. Children’s SEND documentation must move with them. Records from devolved Administrations and overseas postings must properly be considered and accepted by receiving authorities, and this must be accompanied by a greater understanding of the different education systems from which service children may arrive, including overseas systems. The amendment does not address that. We have raised that issue with the Minister for School Standards. Training about armed forces life should be embedded in mandatory SEND teacher training. There must be stronger cross-nation co-ordination between the four Education Departments to establish shared principles for the transfer of support, particularly as all four systems are undergoing reform. That work must be led first and foremost by the Department for Education. The repeated and genuine engagement we have had with Education Ministers gives me hope that these changes will come forward. New clause 5 would waive fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses and dependants of serving or discharged members of the armed forces. I strongly welcome the intent of the amendment. As its author, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), knows, this policy was included in the Labour manifesto in 2024, and it must be delivered by the Home Office. While I understand that the Home Office is working on the issue with the Ministry of Defence, we are nearly two years on from the general election, and there is still no clarity on when this change will be introduced. In the meantime, the families of service personnel are struggling to afford to stay in this country, and that is plainly wrong. As many members of the armed forces community APPG know—they support this amendment—we have repeatedly sought clarity from the Home Office on how the new immigration rule changes will affect service personnel and their dependants. I have repeatedly requested meetings with Home Office officials over months, but—this is in contrast to the position with the Department for Education—I have made little or no progress. I am therefore pleased that I have been granted a meeting on this matter next week. Responses to my letters state that the views of the armed forces community will be considered, but that does not mean that they are being heard.

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