Armed Forces Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Committee

New Clause 1

Visiting forces: ICC arrest warrants and war crimes

“(1) The Secretary of State must not issue an authorisation permitting members of a visiting force to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 where—

(a) the sending country is subject to a binding ICC arrest warrant or a decision of the Pre Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court specifying individual commanders or units of its armed forces, or

(b) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that members of the visiting force have participated in, ordered, or failed to prevent conduct that constitutes a war crime within the meaning of Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

(2) Where a visiting force is already present in the United Kingdom and subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b) is subsequently satisfied, the Secretary of State must—

(a) within 14 days, notify Parliament by way of a written ministerial statement, and

(b) within 28 days, revoke any subsisting authorisation for the continuation of that visiting force in the United Kingdom, unless the Secretary of State lays before Parliament a statement of exceptional circumstances justifying continuation.

(3) Any revocation under subsection (2)(b) does not affect the liability under the law of England and Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland of a member of that visiting force for acts committed prior to their departure.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report on the application of this section, including—

(a) the number of authorisations refused under subsection (1);

(b) the number of authorisations revoked under subsection (2)(b); and

(c) any representations received from sending countries in relation to decisions under this section.”—(Jeremy Corbyn.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Dual nationals serving in foreign armed forces: war crimes risk— “(1) This section applies to a person (‘the individual’) who is— (a) a British national or a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and (b) a member of the armed forces of a foreign state.

(2) Where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual has participated in, ordered, or failed to prevent conduct that constitutes a war crime within the meaning of Article 8 of the Rome Statute, the Secretary of State may— (a) refer the matter to the Attorney General for consideration of proceedings under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, (b) direct that the individual’s British travel document be suspended pending investigation, subject to section 41C, and (c) notify the International Criminal Court of the individual’s British nationality and last known address in the United Kingdom.

(3) A suspension of a travel document under section 41B(2)(b) must not exceed 90 days without renewal.

(4) The individual to whom section 41B applies must be— (a) informed as soon as reasonably practicable of the grounds for any action taken under section 41B(2), and (b) afforded a right of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

(5) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance to the armed forces, relevant intelligence agencies, and border authorities on— (a) identification of British nationals serving in foreign armed forces, (b) information sharing arrangements with the International Criminal Court and relevant foreign jurisdictions, and (c) the circumstances in which action under subsection (2) is appropriate.

(6) For the purposes of this section— “British national” has the meaning given by section 50(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981; “Rome Statute” means the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998 (2187 UNTS 90).

(7) Nothing in section 41B or this section limits the protections afforded to an individual under the Human Rights Act 1998.”

NC1 and NC2 ensure that the United Kingdom does not extend the immunities and privileges afforded to visiting forces under the Visiting Forces Act 1952 to forces from states whose commanders are subject to ICC proceedings, and creates a framework for referring dual nationals suspected of war crimes to prosecutorial authorities. New clause 3—Veterans: housing and employment data duty— “(1) The Secretary of State must, in each calendar year, collect and compile data on the following matters in respect of persons who have served as members of the regular forces (‘veterans’)— (a) the number of veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness within the meaning of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 and Part 2 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014; (b) the number of veterans who are unemployed and claiming Universal Credit or Jobseeker’s Allowance, disaggregated by— (i) length of unemployment; (ii) age and gender; and (iii) service branch and rank on discharge; (c) the number of veterans in contact with local authority housing or homelessness services; (d) the number of veterans placed in temporary accommodation by a local authority; (e) the number of veterans who have presented themselves as having suicidal ideation and those who have committed suicide; (f) trends in the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) over the preceding five years.

(2) For the purposes of collecting data under subsection (1), the Secretary of State— (a) must request and receive data from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, local authorities, and such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, (b) may require local authorities in England to provide data as to veterans within their area who have approached them for housing assistance, and (c) must consult Veterans UK and any other bodies the Secretary of State considers appropriate in designing the data collection methodology.

(3) The Secretary of State must, not later than 31 March in each year, lay before Parliament a report setting out— (a) the data compiled under subsection (1) for the preceding calendar year; (b) a comparison with data from the two preceding calendar years; (c) the steps taken or proposed to be taken by the Secretary of State, or by public authorities subject to the duty in section 343AZA of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (as amended by section 2 of this Act), to reduce rates of homelessness and unemployment among veterans; and (d) an assessment of whether those steps have been effective.

(4) The report under subsection (3) must include, in respect of veterans who have left the regular forces within the preceding three years— (a) the proportion who entered employment within three months of discharge; (b) the proportion who were provided resettlement support under a scheme administered by the Ministry of Defence; and (c) the proportion who were provided with suitable accommodation within one month of discharge.

(5) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for a person independent of the Ministry of Defence to review, and report to Parliament on, the methodology and reliability of data collected under this section at least once every three years.

(6) In this section— “homeless or at risk of homelessness” is to be construed in accordance with sections 175 to 177 of the Housing Act 1996; “regular forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act); “veteran” means a person who has served as a member of the regular forces for a period of not less than one day and who is no longer serving as such a member.”

This new clause imposes a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to collect, compile, and annually report to Parliament data on rates of veteran homelessness, suicide and unemployment, including trends, actions taken and their effectiveness. New clause 4—Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or children of serving or discharged members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years— “(1) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 is amended as follows.

(2) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 after “Forces” in paragraph (b) insert— “(c) in a case where the application is made by a person who is a spouse or child of a member or previously serving member of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.

(3) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 in paragraph (b) leave out “(a) and (b)” and insert “(a), (b), and (c)”.”

This new clause would amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 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 who have served for four or more years. New clause 5—Review of mental health support for veterans— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passage of this Act, conduct a review of the adequacy, accessibility and effectiveness of mental health support available to veterans of the armed forces.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must assess the extent to which mental health support available to veterans meets their needs, including specific information about availability of such support based on— (a) age, (b) sex, (c) service branch, (d) rank, (e) length of service, (f) time elapsed since leaving service, (g) operational deployment history, (h) conflict or operation in which the veteran served, (i) geographical location within the United Kingdom, (j) whether the veteran resides in a rural or urban area, and (k) any other characteristic the Secretary of State considers relevant.

(3) A review under subsection (1) must examine— (a) levels of provision of specialist and non specialist mental health services for veterans; (b) waiting times for assessment and treatment; (c) access to NHS and charity provided mental health services; (d) barriers to accessing support, including those arising from geographical isolation, transport availability, digital exclusion and workforce shortages; (e) rates of referral, treatment completion and clinical outcomes; (f) rates of suicide, self harm, post traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety and other mental health conditions among veterans; (g) differences in outcomes between veterans who served in different conflicts or operations; (h) the effectiveness of arrangements for identifying and supporting veterans most at risk of mental ill health; (i) reliance on charity support.

(4) In conducting a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult— (a) veterans’ organisations, (b) service charities, (c) NHS bodies, (d) devolved administrations, (e) local authorities, and (f) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) Upon completion of a review under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament indicating the findings of the review.

(6) A report under subsection (6) must include recommendations for improving mental health support for veterans, particularly those groups identified as being at elevated risk of poor mental health outcomes based on the review on which it is based.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the adequacy and effectiveness of mental health support available to veterans. New clause 6—Review into reservist facilities— “(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review into reservist facilities in rural areas.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider the quality, accessibility, and refurbishment of reservist facilities.

(3) The review under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into reservist facilities in rural areas. New clause 7—Digital archive of Armed Forces Standing Orders— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must put in place a plan for the digital archiving of all Standing Orders issued to Armed Forces personnel, to be completed within 12 months.

(2) Once the digital archives under subsection (1) are established, the Secretary of State must carry out a review every six months to ensure they are up to date.

(3) Under this section, “Standing Orders” means the body of permanent regulations, issued by units or formations, which govern the conduct, administration, and procedures of personnel.”

This new clause would add a requirement for the Ministry of Defence to ensure the indefinite digital archiving of all standing orders issued to the Armed Forces. New clause 8—National Veterans’ Commissioner (England)— “After section 366 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert— “366A National Veterans’ Commissioner (England): establishment (1) Within 6 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 9—Exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights for Deployed Members of the Reserve Forces— “A member of the regular or 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 regular or 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 10—Laying of the Defence Investment Plan— “Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament, if they have not already done so.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament within 3 months of the passage of this Act, if they have not already done so. New clause 11—Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights— “After section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 insert— “(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must authorise 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 derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights during significant overseas operations. New clause 12—Feasibility study on a Forces Housing Association— “(1) Within 6 months of the passing of this Act , the Secretary of State must publish report on the possibility of establishing a Forces Housing Association (FHA).

(2) The report must examine the proposals in Chapter 5 of the 2020 Report “Stick or Twist – A Report for The Prime Minister into Retention in HM Armed Forces – and how to improve it.”

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the merits of establishing a Forces Housing Association (FHA) as opposed to the proposed Defence Housing Service. New clause 13—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 14—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 15—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 to be 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 16—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 17—Personal independence payment reassessment exemption for amputees— “(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for persons who have experienced an amputation as a consequence of their membership in the armed forces to be exempt from personal independence payment reassessments except in instances in which such persons have requested a reassessment.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “personal independence payment” has the meaning given by Part 4 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that persons who have experienced an amputation as a consequence of their membership in the armed forces are exempt from personal independence payment reassessments. New clause 18—Report on disregard of armed forces compensation in means tested benefits— “(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare a report on the potential merits of disapplying consideration of compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in calculating entitlements to other means tested income benefits.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(3) The report under subsection (1) must consider compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in calculating— (a) Pension Credit entitlements, and (b) any other means tested benefit where compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme is not currently disapplied in entitlement calculations.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the potential merits of disapplying consideration of compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in calculating entitlements to other means tested income benefits. New clause 19—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 20—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 NC19, 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. New clause 21—Reporting on the Defence Investment Plan— “(1) Every six months after the passage of this Act for the duration of this Parliament, and every year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would compel the Government to publish and lay before Parliament a regular report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan every six months during this Parliament, and annually thereafter. New clause 22—Report on the impact of Defence Investment Plan delays— “(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment of the delays to the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of such delays on— (a) small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) within the UK defence supply chain, (b) military procurement, equipment capability timelines, and operational readiness, and (c) the financial sustainability of defence sector businesses.

(3) In preparing the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult— (a) representatives of small and medium sized enterprises in the defence sector, and (b) the Defence Suppliers Forum.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a one time report within six months of the Act’s passage assessing the impact of Defence Investment Plan delays on military procurement and defence businesses, with particular focus on SMEs. New clause 23—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 24—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. Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 4, line 15, at end insert— “and to the district and borough councils of Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would add the district and borough councils of Northern Ireland to the meaning of “local authority” in relation to the armed forces covenant. Amendment 3, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of plans for special educational needs (1) Within a year 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 4, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements (1) Within a year 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 5, page 6, line 37, at end insert— “343AZC Continuity of NHS secondary care services (1) Within a year 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.

(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 14, page 6, line 43, 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 15, page 6, line 43, 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, and (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. Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 7, line 15, at end insert— “(4) The Defence Housing Service will operate within a multi year budget, which must be set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.

(5) This must specify both capital (CDEL) and revenue spending (RDEL) on the Defence Housing Service, over the period of the Defence Investment Plan”

This amendment would ensure that Defence Housing Service’s budget is set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State. Amendment 8, page 7, line 26, at end insert— “(e) improving the satisfaction of service personnel and their families with the accommodation provided.”

This amendment would make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service. Amendment 9, page 7, line 26, at end insert— “(e) providing earmarked accommodation, as far as practicable, to facilitate members of the armed forces spending time with their child where they have a child arrangements order.

(f) for the purposes of subsection (e), a “child arrangements order” has the meaning given by section 8 of the Children Act 1989.

(g) “contract visits” for children of service personnel, who do not live with them (in accordance with any relevant court order).”

This amendment would make the Defence Housing Service responsible for providing accommodation to facilitate members of the armed forces spending time with their child where they have a child arrangements order. Amendment 13, page 8, line 24, at end insert “and single living accommodation”.

This amendment would add single living accommodation to the definition of defence housing to ensure that defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation as well as service family accommodation. Amendment 10, page 9, line 27, at end insert— “(4) The Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service, once appointed, must report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.”

This amendment requires the Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service to report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service. Amendment 12, in clause 13, page 34, line 33, 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, and inform the complainant of their right to have the investigation referred back to the relevant service police force and military courts.

(3) If the complainant requests that the case be transferred back to the military courts, the jurisdiction over the investigation and subsequent trial must be transferred back to the relevant service police force and military courts.

(4) 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).

(5) 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, with the option for the complainant to transfer their case back to the military justice system if they prefer. Amendment 6, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert— “(iii) a retired holder of such a rank.

(iv) NCO’s – down to the level of Corporal, or equivalent.”

This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial. It would also allow soldiers down to the rank of Corporal (or equivalent) to sit on Court Martials. Amendment 7, in clause 33, 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 R7 (60 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 60 days. Government amendment 2.

The amendments I have tabled concern the right of British nationals to engage in foreign wars. What brought them about is reports that British nationals have been involved in Israel Defence Forces activities in Gaza and other places. To prevent this from happening in future, my amendments would amend the Visiting Forces Act 1952 to give the Secretary of State power to undertake some form of legal action against those individuals. To me, it seems very obvious and very important that if, as a general principle, we say that British nationals should not be allowed to fight for a foreign force, or to engage in a war in another country under a different command, we should do something about it legally. My amendments are quite widely supported and very carefully drafted, and I hope that the Minister will understand why I tabled them and their importance.

I never thought that in my lifetime, we would be able to watch genocide taking place live on television, as is happening in Gaza. My amendments clearly state that if cases are taken to the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court, that would be enough to trigger action by the Secretary of State in this country. That is why I tabled them, and I hope that the House will take them seriously and support them.

The Bill has four key themes. First, it creates the Defence Housing Service, which is a fantastic move forward; it will change for a generation how our people are looked after in service family accommodation. Secondly, it will make major improvements to our service justice system, which is another fantastic move forward. Thirdly and most importantly, it will look at how we renew our reservists. It looks at how we extend duty for our strategic reserves.

On reservists, I am sure that the hon. Member will be aware that the maximum age of recall is being increased from 60 to 65, and the threshold for mobilisation is being lowered. The problem in Northern Ireland is that our reservists are overwhelmingly employed in civilian jobs in our small and medium sized enterprises, so the changes create real problems. Can he put forward a solution that would enable our small and medium sized businesses to employ reservists and let them do their duty?

As we progress the Bill collectively, we could, in some areas, look at giving better support to employers, but it is worth being clear that the Bill looks to extend service from anything from four to 16 years. It allows for the return to service of ex military personnel until they are 65. That is being standardised across officers, other ranks, the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. By doing that, we will increase our strategic reserve pool. If we get caught in a crisis in any way, shape or form, their skills can be harnessed to help the nation out. There is a further discussion to be had, at a later stage, about how we include civilians in that.

This Bill puts in place a whole range of important provisions—on improving the standard of living and housing for the armed forces, on reserves and on the service justice system—while, importantly, keeping us safe at home and abroad.

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the context of the armed forces covenant and all the great work it does for military families, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Royal British Legion also does important work in this regard? Will he join me in saying thank you to the Royal British Legion in Hayes, in my constituency, which does so much work for military families as they go about their duties?

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

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

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

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is simply not true.

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

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

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

Which would you do?

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

In a moment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the compassion and dedication of community volunteers in supporting our veterans is second to none? I certainly extend my gratitude to Lauren Fox and Luther Blissett, who support people in my constituency of Watford with an invaluable level of help.

Like me, my hon. Friend will have many fantastic volunteers supporting veterans right across his community, and we are so indebted to them. We are able to deliver so much veteran support because people voluntarily give their time to make it happen.

I was really proud to stand on a Labour manifesto that committed to removing visa fees for non UK veterans who have served in our armed forces for four years or more, and for their dependants. This Government are working through such commitments. Having worked closely with the new Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), on these issues before he entered government, I know how passionate he is about delivering meaningful change in this space, but it is for the Government to make these changes. For that reason, although I fully support the principle of removing visa fees, I will not support new clause 4 today. I want to give the Minister the time and space to be able to deliver on the Government’s commitments.

I appreciate the hon. Member’s position and have previously spoken to her about new clause 4, which I tabled. The Government have been in power for two years, and nothing has yet been done on delivering their pledge. Why should Labour Members not vote for new clause 4, given that it will deliver their manifesto pledge?

Ultimately, a manifesto is delivered over the period that a Government serve—they do not deliver everything at once. It takes time to deliver these things over the course of a Parliament. These things look hard because they are hard. The previous Government made many things look hard when it came to defence, and I want to give this Government the chance to deliver, throughout this Parliament, on the things that we are committed to delivering.

I really welcome the extension of the armed forces covenant duty in the Bill. The covenant is obviously one of the most important promises that we make to a nation, and it says that no member of our armed forces community should face disadvantage because of their service. I have worked closely with outstanding organisations, including the Royal British Legion, SSAFA and our service family federations. When it comes to this Bill, their message is clear: accountability matters. Families need to know where to go when support falls short, public bodies need to understand their responsibilities, and the Government need to be able to demonstrate that the covenant is being applied consistently and effectively. Judicial review cannot be the only realistic route available when the covenant is not being properly applied.

The hon. Member is making a very important point. Judicial review is not an answer for the many people who are damaged or suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and so on, because they do not have the capacity to do it, which is why authorities should be held accountable for the actions they take.

That is precisely what I am asking the Government to do. They should look at that, because judicial review cannot be the only option. We must have other options available to make sure that, when the covenant is not being delivered, we can hold those bodies to account.

We need clearer guidance for how services can put the covenant into practice. Earlier this year, I presented my recommendations to the Minister responsible for early years—the Under Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey)—setting out how the new Best Start family hubs can properly support military families. The first recommendation we made was simple: services should ask everyone at the first point of contact, “Are you from a military family? Are you from our armed forces community?” If public services do not know whether someone serves or has served, or is part of a military family, how can we connect them to the support they need? Service life often means deployments, frequent moves and dealing with different local authorities and providers. With a clearer record of our forces community, we can ensure that support follows people as they relocate, rather than forcing them to start again each time.

Ultimately, this is not about processes, but about people. At the Commonwealth hub on Saturday, I met a female Royal Navy veteran, and she spoke honestly about the challenges she has faced after leaving service in struggling to secure housing, to find work and to access the support she needed. Then she said something that has stayed with me: “The Covenant is supposed to mean something. But it means nothing.”

That must change. The covenant must mean something when a veteran needs a home or a military family is looking to settle down. Those who sacrificed so much in service to our country ask one thing of us, which is that we stand by them in return. That is the promise we must keep and the standard we must set ourselves, which is why I support this Bill.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for opening this debate and speaking to his new clauses. I will shortly speak to the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) on behalf of my party and to others tabled by my hon. Friends.

It is particularly appropriate that we should be holding this debate at the start of Armed Forces Week. Like many Members, I look forward to attending Armed Forces Day in my constituency, at Pingle field in Bicester on Saturday. We will raise the flag to salute the service and sacrifice of our incredible armed forces and their families. If previous years are anything to go by, I will again disgrace myself in misdirecting a bomb disposal robot under the patient eye of a member of the defence explosive ordnance disposal, munitions and search training team, which is based at the Bicester garrison.

The hon. Member mentions bomb disposal. He may not know that we have seen two significant bomb disposal events in Plymouth in the last couple of years. Does he agree that Armed Forces Day this Saturday is a great opportunity to thank our military community for keeping safe everyone who lives in residential areas, especially in Plymouth, where there is unexploded ordnance from world war two?

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his intervention. I quite agree with him that the work of our brave service personnel in the bomb disposal units and those who train them—as I say, at the Bicester garrison in my constituency—deserve to be celebrated. I would resist the temptation to say that I hope everybody’s Armed Forces Day go off with a bang.

The skill and commitment of our armed forces reflect the best of us, and it is a privilege to speak today on this Bill. I believe there is much in the Bill that should be welcomed and that deserves our support. Crucially, it renews the statutory basis for our armed forces, extends the armed forces covenant duty across Government, introduces a Defence Housing Service to oversee and implement improvements in the quality of accommodation for our troops, and reforms certain aspects of the service justice system.

The right hon. and gallant Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has energetically taken the Government to task for their spending pledges, yet I regret that the Conservatives did not apply the same energy to supporting and protecting our armed forces during their time in office. The scandalously poor quality of service personnel housing serves as the clearest evidence that they allowed a dogmatic commitment to outsourcing to blind them to how they were failing our armed forces.

I recently visited a 92-year old constituent in Watford who had been terribly concerned about the state of the housing provided for her grandson, which is obviously a consequence of the previous Government’s tenure. As a result of the work of this Labour Government, his housing situation is greatly improved. Does the hon. Member agree with me that the trajectory is at least in the right direction?

It is important that we sustain progress in that direction. The Defence Housing Service, to which I have referred, must do that, and I will come on later in my remarks to comment, in common with others on the Liberal Democrat Benches, on some of the challenges that might be faced if the right capital is not provided.

If we are serious about reversing the calamitous decline in recruitment and retention under the Conservatives, we must renew and reinforce the covenant with service personnel and their families.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not for the moment. I will, if I may, make a bit more progress.

It is equally vital, however, to give our armed forces confidence that the Government are serious about expanding our military capabilities, and we cannot do that without a credible defence investment plan. The outgoing Prime Minister allowed his office to brief that this document would be published before the NATO summit on 7 July. Today, Labour appears more concerned by who gets a seat at the Cabinet table than about actually governing the country. Can I therefore ask the Minister whether that commitment to publish the plan in the next fortnight is made by the Government, or merely by the current occupant of No. 10 Downing Street?

Once the DIP is finally published, it is critical that Ministers can be held to account for its implementation, and for the costs that the delay in its publication has already caused for UK businesses. Small and medium sized enterprises are desperate to contribute to our national defence, but their survival has been jeopardised by delays to the DIP. New clauses 21 and 22 would guarantee this necessary transparency, requiring the Government to produce two reports a year to provide an update on the delivery of the DIP and a report on the impact of its delay on business.

We should not let everything that is happening in Westminster today distract us from the urgent need to safeguard our national defence. New clause 22 would highlight the result of the defence investment plan being long overdue. Does my hon. Friend agree that our understanding is that we still expect the defence investment plan to be delivered before the NATO summit and before the selection of a prospective new Labour Prime Minister?

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his remarks. As I was underscoring, he is quite right to say that so many in the defence industry are holding on for the announcement of the DIP. There are many companies in the supply chains whose very survival depends on it, and I urge the Government to recommit to publishing the DIP before 7 July.

Turning to the wider Bill, there are several important areas for improvement, and I will start with how we recruit and retain service personnel across our military, how we treat those who have left, and how we strengthen our understanding of the reasons why they have left. This priority requires a long term plan. That is why our new clause 13 would mandate the publication of a retention strategy, alongside the Bill, outlining the Government’s plan to ensure we can attract and keep talent in the military for longer. Our new clause 14 would also require an independent review to identify and examine factors such as diversity, inclusion, the medical discharge process and the state of defence housing.

On housing, I am pleased that Ministers have heeded Liberal Democrat calls to bring service family accommodation under the decent homes standard. We were troubled, however, to hear that delaying the implementation of this commitment was one of the Treasury’s ruses to help fund the DIP. I am sure the Minister agrees that that would be short sighted, so I invite her to recommit to achieving the decent homes standard for SFA properties before the standard comes into force. We also want the Government to take the next step by applying the same standard to single living accommodation, too. That is what amendment 13 would do, helping to deliver for about 80,000 single and unaccompanied service personnel.

It is a big misconception that single living accommodation in the forces is primarily for those who are single; it is not. Even at the flag raising ceremony here in Westminster today, most of those in uniform told me that their wives live in a different part of the country, and they are living in single living accommodation. They are not living in family accommodation, but they do have families. Does my hon. Friend agree that, with this investment, we should be upgrading single living accommodation, too?

I strongly agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, and I see nodding their heads those around the Chamber who, having served in our armed forces, know this accommodation better than me. It is critical that our service personnel, whether they are single, living away from their families or living in family accommodation, have a right to decent housing, and I hope the Government will stand by that commitment.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If the hon. Member does not mind, I will make a bit more progress.

Let me now turn to veteran support. Service personnel transitioning out of the forces and into civilian life need vastly more support to ensure a smooth transition. In my own constituency, I have heard just in the last six months from two families deeply affected by the abject failure to link up military and civilian medical records. Two of my constituents were denied, as veterans, the care and support they deserved for physical and mental health damage sustained in fighting for our nation. The Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher Jones) has been assiduous in responding to me and I am in no doubt of her personal commitment. However, I think she would agree that such cases highlight system wide problems that must be tackled.

One of the biggest challenges is to ensure the continuity for service personnel between military and civilian medical care. Too many are waiting too long to gain access to their medical records, which can create gaps in care. New clause 15 would address that by requiring that personnel leaving service must receive a complete copy of their medical records within one month of discharge, with the option for direct transfer to civilian health providers. We must also effectively monitor, support and improve mental health outcomes for our veterans. New clause 16 would deliver an important step in that direction by establishing a veterans’ mental health oversight officer with a statutory remit to monitor provision, assess compliance with covenant duties and report annually to Parliament.

I also want to highlight the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), West Dorset (Edward Morello) and Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). They cover issues relating to pension communications, the transfer of medical assessments, the reserve forces estate, the treatment of domestic abuse offences, veterans’ mental health, personal independence payment reassessment exemptions for amputees, and disregarding armed forces compensation in means tested benefits. Taken together, they speak to the critical importance of ensuring that the commitments of the covenant are applied equally and in full, ensuring that no servicewoman or serviceman, current or former, will be denied their benefits because of a postcode lottery.

New clause 19 would help to deliver that consistency of application by placing national standards on the extended covenant duty, requiring statutory guidance, minimum requirements for public bodies, proper training and a framework for monitoring reporting. New clause 20 would require the annual covenant report to assess compliance against those standards, analyse outcomes and make recommendations.

The Bill is right to focus on tackling offences committed in the armed forces. Where offences occur, we must protect the victims, whether within or outside the military. I welcome the Bill’s introduction of new protections for victims of domestic abuse, stalking and sexual harm within the service justice system. Those changes are very necessary, but they do not properly address 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.

Amendment 12 seeks to tackle this issue more substantively by requiring that allegations of sexual offences and domestic abuse in the armed forces be referred to the civilian police, and that those offences would be prosecuted through the civilian justice system. It would allow, however, for the case to be referred back to the military police if the complainant chose that route instead. We know from the armed forces continuous attitude survey 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. By making it the default for these offences to be heard in the civilian system, while retaining freedom of choice for the complainant to have their case referred back to the services, the amendment would encourage more people to come forward if they knew the complaint could be dealt with in the completely independent civilian system.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would also be helpful if there was a specific requirement, written into the Bill, for the classification of domestic abuse offences? I refer to my new clause 24 on this very matter.

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for her excellent point, and I endorse her advocacy for new clause 24. It would indeed have that beneficial effect, bringing the service justice system in line with that in the civilian courts.

The amendments I have spoken to do not seek to unravel the Bill, but rather to encourage the Government to go further. I hope the Minister will take these amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are meant and that the Government will support them.

The Bill is perhaps one of the most constitutionally significant Bills that Parliament regularly debates, as it renews the mandate for a standing Army on a five yearly basis. It has therefore been a privilege to serve on the Select Committee established to scrutinise it.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for pointing out the convention that one should address the opening speech, and the new clauses moved in it, because that gives me the opportunity to say—I am very sorry that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is not in his place, because it would have been a delight to cross swords with him metaphorically—that I am really quite flabbergasted that in new clauses 1 and 2 the right hon. Member has managed to insert issues relating to the middle east into a debate that is primarily about the welfare of the armed forces here in the UK. It was extremely imaginative of him to manage to do that, which perhaps indicates a degree of dedication to one particular policy area that is in some ways commendable and in other ways slightly disturbing. I am sorry he is not here, because I would have been delighted to have taken an intervention from him on that subject. Just in case he scrutinises what I have said, I refer right hon. and hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I once again pay tribute to the armed forces community across the North Durham constituency. As I have noted at every opportunity I have had to speak on the Bill, North Durham is home to a considerable number of veterans, as well as the families of service personnel. It was an honour yesterday to speak at the flag raising ceremony in Stanley Front Street for Armed Forces Week. We are so into Armed Forces Week in North Durham that we have two ceremonies—one at the start of the week and one at the end of the week—and this year it was my honour to be at the one at the start of the week. I pay tribute to Stanley town council and the Durham Light Infantry Association for their role in that ceremony. You could really see the pride that people in North Durham take in their connection to the armed forces. I am always seeking to use my platform here to advocate for those who serve our country, and I have taken every opportunity, such as serving on the Bill’s Select Committee, to play a role in advancing policy that helps our armed forces community.

The Labour Government introduced the Armed Forces Bill to deliver on their pledge to renew the contract between the state and the armed forces community. The Bill will deliver for veterans, serving personnel and the next generation of our armed forces by making key strides forward on the covenant, housing and service justice, as well as bolstering our defensive capabilities by changing reservist criteria—at the request of reservists, I might add—and giving the Government powers to tackle drone activity. I believe the parliamentary scrutiny the Bill has had, by the Select Committee and on the Floor of the House, will make it even stronger than it was at the start.

I pay tribute to the Government for engaging so constructively with the Bill Select Committee and for accepting the vast majority of our recommendations, resulting in 81 Government amendments to further strengthen the legislation in Committee of the Whole House. In particular, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) and the former Armed Forces Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) for their tireless work. They have consistently stood up for what is right, not only for our armed forces community but for our country. From their service as Ministers to making the case for the increased defence spending to adequately protect the British people and, ultimately, to the very honourable decision they took to resign, I hope their decision will have encouraged the Government so that when we finally see the defence investment plan, the quantum and content of it will reflect the political sacrifice they have made in standing down.

I welcome the new Defence Secretary, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), and the new Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher Jones), with full confidence in their ability to step up and continue to do the right thing by serving personnel and veterans. All of us in this House should wish them well. They are doing hugely important work on the final stages of getting agreement on the DIP. Whatever the politics going on in Whitehall around that, we wish them all the very best in that process. They are taking on huge responsibility at a time when this country faces really severe threats. I repeat that I pay tribute to their predecessors, but I also pay tribute to them for stepping up and taking on these hugely important responsibilities at a time when it could not be more important.

I place on record that, as a veteran myself, it was a huge privilege to serve on the Select Committee that considered this important legislation. I will concentrate my remarks on new clauses 4, 9 and 11. At first glance, they may appear to concern different matters, yet, in reality, they are united by the common principle that Parliament should ensure that those who serve this country are treated fairly, and that the law recognises the unique obligations we place on them.

We quite rightly celebrate the professionalism of our armed forces. We ask them to defend our interests overseas, deter our adversaries, and, when necessary, place themselves between danger and the rest of us. It is right that the first duty of any Government is the defence of our realm. It therefore follows that the first duty of Parliament towards those who discharge that responsibility is to ensure that they are treated with fairness, dignity and respect. That means understanding that military service is not simply another profession, but a vocation that places demands on individuals and their families that most of our fellow citizens will never be asked to bear.

I begin with new clause 4. I have long believed that when an individual commits to service in the armed forces, the nation enters a contract with them that carries practical consequences. We ask our service personnel to accept postings away from home, to move their families at short notice, to spend long periods separated from loved ones, and, in some cases, to place themselves in danger on our behalf. When we speak of supporting the armed forces, we cannot confine our attention solely to those in uniform; we must also consider the spouses and children who support them.

New clause 4, tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese Jecty), addresses a concern that many Members across this House have heard repeatedly from serving personnel and veterans alike: that the financial burden imposed on families seeking indefinite leave to remain after years of loyal service to this country is too much. There is a straightforward question before us. If an individual has given years of service to our nation, why should their family then face significant financial barriers simply to secure their future here? They have worn our uniform, accepted unlimited liability in defence of our national interests, and contributed directly to our security. In those circumstances it cannot be right, having honoured their commitment to our country, that we appear reluctant to honour our commitment to them.

The armed forces covenant, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned, rests on the principle that those who serve should suffer no disadvantage as a result of that service. It is difficult to reconcile that principle with a situation in which a family that has supported a service member throughout years of deployments and postings, is then confronted with substantial costs in order to remain together in the country for which that service was given. New clause 4 is not a radical proposition; it is a relatively modest measure that simply recognises commitment and rewards service. Crucially, it sends a clear signal that Parliament values not only those who wear the uniform but the families who stand behind them.

Over the past two decades, there has been a considerable concern about the extent to which human rights litigation has affected military operations overseas. Parliament has recognised those concerns in previous legislation relating to overseas operations. That issue is not a novel one, but part of a continuing debate about how best to reconcile operational effectiveness, accountability and fairness.

The argument for new clauses 9 and 11 is, at its heart, a simple one. A soldier deployed on operations is not situated in the same circumstances as a civilian living in peacetime; the realities of combat are fundamentally different. Those of us who have had the privilege to spend time with serving personnel quickly come to appreciate that military operations are conducted in conditions of danger, ambiguity and enormous pressure. Decisions are often made in moments, not months. Commanders and soldiers do not enjoy the luxury of hindsight that is available to lawyers examining events years later from the cold comfort of a courtroom.

That fact does not mean that we should abandon accountability—our British forces are respected around the world precisely because they operate to the highest standards—but neither should we create a system in which those who have risked their life for this nation face the prospect of endless reinvestigation, long after the guns have fallen silent. The law should recognise those realities. Operational personnel should not be exposed to legal obligations that risk second guessing battlefield decisions years after the event. That has simply contributed to uncertainty, excessive litigation, and a culture in which servicemen and women feel that they may face legal jeopardy for carrying out the duties entrusted to them by Parliament and the Government.

Those serving today must know that Parliament understands the realities that they face and will not allow them to become casualties of legal uncertainty after returning home. It is not unreasonable for Parliament to ask whether the legal framework governing military operations properly reflects the realities of military service. That is why I support new clauses 9 and 11, which seek to restore confidence among those who serve that Parliament understands the exceptional circumstances in which they operate and is prepared to legislate accordingly.

The armed forces ask much of those who serve and their families. New clause 4 recognises the sacrifices made by those military families, and new clauses 9 and 11 seek to address a long standing concern about the legal environment in which our armed forces operate. The provisions proceed from the same objective: that those who serve this country deserve neither special favours nor exemptions, but a Parliament prepared to recognise the unique burdens that service imposes.

As the confident nation that I know we are, we should not be taking the armed forces for granted. We should honour the service of those who have served. Above all, we in this place must demonstrate—through actions, not merely words—that those who stand ready to defend Britain will always find Britain standing behind them. That is a principle embodied by these provisions, which is why I will support them.

It is apt that the House meets during Armed Forces Week to discuss this important Bill. I strongly welcome it, and commend Ministers past and present for using its passage to not just renew service law, which Parliament is required to do every five years, as hon. Members have said, but genuinely drive wider improvements for the benefits of service personnel and our national defence. My speech focuses on housing elements of the Bill, around which there remains some debate, and on which there are a number of amendments.

Before I come to the amendments, there are two reasons why the new approach to defence accommodation is incredibly important. The first is a point of principle: there can be no greater calling in the public service of our nation that donning uniform to defend our fellow citizens. I am proud to be a County Durham MP, and the county has one of the highest proportions of serving and veteran armed forces personnel in the country. Those from our communities who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend our way of life deserve the best support. That includes housing. Providing good quality service homes should be non negotiable. It should be a source of shame that, under the last Government, the housing element of the duty we owe our personnel fell far short of what they rightly deserve.

My second point is pragmatic. The historic failures on service housing have caused operational problems for those tasked with defending our nation. The state of some military housing hampers the day to day ability of our armed forces to compete in a competitive labour market. That matters; a Defence Committee report in 2023 highlighted that housing and other issues were making it difficult for our armed forces to recruit and retain talented people. Because of the fantastic investment that our armed forces make in defence personnel—I have seen that for myself on bases—whether in fighting troops, engineers, or others, we thankfully make our personnel highly competitive in the modern labour market, so there is rightly a draw on them. This issue absolutely must be addressed if we are serious about improving our defence, and I commend Ministers for their determination to address it.

New clause 12 calls for a report on the potential for establishing a forces housing association. I respect the intent of this proposal entirely, but I think we might be in danger of putting form before function here. I say that as somebody who, before my election, worked for 14 years in housing—for seven years as a council housing cabinet member, building council housing, overseeing an arm’s length management organisation and working with major developers to secure billions of pounds of investment in Tottenham after the riots, and then for seven years as the director of a large housing association, again delivering complex projects—so I have seen housing from many angles, and many providers.

Working in the housing sector, I have seen that what matters fundamentally is the quality of leadership and culture, not necessarily the detail of the structures. The emphasis should therefore be on strong, clear and transparent leadership. It can be found at the heart of the best social and public housing providers. That might sound like an obvious point, but in the rapidly changing world of housing, it takes a particular type of leader to deliver on projects involving large numbers of residents, stakeholders and contractors, because it is hard.

I was therefore pleased to hear the commitments made, in the oral evidence sessions of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, to the Defence Housing Service having an independent chair, non executive directors and a family representative. That mix of strong, robust leadership is exactly right, and is in accordance with good practice in the wider housing sector. I hope that Ministers will make the most of this structure by recognising that there is a wealth of leadership experience and skill in council housing departments, big housing associations and other social housing providers—people who have dedicated their careers to this. They could lend their expertise to the Defence Housing Service. I hope that Ministers will proactively tap into that pool of talent across the country to ensure that the new organisation works at every level.

Amendment 8 seeks to introduce an objective of improving the satisfaction of service personnel. Having worked in the housing sector for 14 years, I would expect that the satisfaction of residents or customers would be a core part of everything that the Defence Housing Service did, and one of the main issues for discussion by the board and the leadership team. Whether or not Parliament sets these as objectives slightly misses the point; the point is that they should be the absolute bread and butter of that organisation, day to day. I am sure that Ministers will talk to the board and the leadership of that organisation about that.

On the point about organisational culture, having worked in the sector, I have seen complex housing organisations in which there is a culture of delivery, real care for residents and a determination to fix things, which can often be complex, and a culture of getting things done. Equally, I have seen housing providers in which the opposite is true—where things are not done, things take a long time, residents are seen as a nuisance and complaints are seen as a pain, rather than as an object for learning. Again, the key lesson for Ministers is to work with the new organisation to drive the culture; I know that having served in uniform, Ministers will be used to driving strong culture through organisations. That is the key issue here.

In my previous career, I saw that the social housing sector has become more complex. Organisations increasingly deliver maintenance, long term asset management, investment programmes and new home building, and deal with the construction issues with homes for rent and sale—the complex mix of things we will be tasking the Defence Housing Service with doing. Some organisations were just overwhelmed. Strong leadership and strong culture are needed, and there is clear evidence that with those, we can make this work.

There is something else that we need to defend against in the Defence Housing Service—and I know that Ministers are cognisant of this. In council housing departments and charitable housing associations, the pressure to deliver quickly has often led to convoluted chains of accountability, involving layer upon layer of contractors and subcontractors. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) made about accountability is important. We have seen in many of the reports following the terrible Grenfell tragedy that there were layers and layers of organisations involved, without any clear accountability, and that caused some of the appalling problems there. There should be an emphasis on accountability in the Defence Housing Service.

Ministers and the board will find really good advice in many reports from the Housing Ombudsman and the Regulator of Social Housing’s in depth assessments; there is lots of evidence from Government about how to make complex housing organisations work well. We know that this was one of the main issues that came with the privatised model of service housing that was introduced by the previous Conservative Government, and it is why I strongly support the changes being made.

On visits through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, we have met lots of service personnel who shared stories of outsourced housing contractors being difficult to contact, unresponsive and acting slowly; equally, we heard from senior and base commanders who were keen to ensure the best accommodation for their people, but who struggled to hold private providers to account and have lacked direct lines of accountability. I know that Ministers will be tackling those issues, and that might be a better way of addressing them than through the amendments that have been tabled.

Amendment 11 seeks to bring the Defence Housing Service’s budget into the defence investment plan. The key point here is not which budget the money technically sits in, but whether the housing commitment will be properly resourced; I know that Ministers are committed to ensuring that it is. The £9 billion commitment from Government is really powerful; work has already started on repairing military homes. The debate about whether that £9 billion sits in the DIP or elsewhere, again, slightly misses the point; the point is whether this Government are committed to investing and providing resource to get this fixed and sorted, and the answer is yes. I am sure that will change and develop as time goes on, as the organisation is fully set up and the board takes real control of that. That, I think, is our key priority.

In summary, strong leadership, an accountable, can do culture that gets stuff done and proper resourcing are the key ingredients of to delivering for our servicemen and women in uniform, and I am confident that ministerial colleagues will drive that forward. A number of Members from across the House from the ’24 intake who came to the House with significant experience of working for complex housing organisations would be very happy to support Ministers on the road ahead.

Lastly, while I will not go into these elements in detail, I want to say how important the parts of the Bill that deal with the covenant are. Expanding the armed forces covenant duty to central Government Departments is absolutely the right thing to do if we are to stay true to the duty that we owe our service people. It is entirely right that it applies to all layers of Government. On Friday, I met a constituent at my surgery—a veteran—who was raising concerns about his access to services from the NHS and other parts of the local public sector. He was struggling to get the support that he needed. Members know from our casework that support for our veterans is not always consistent, and that must improve across the public sector. That is why enshrining the covenant in law, through this Bill, is such an important step. Those serving our nation in uniform, those who have served and their families deserve the very best support. That is why I am proud to support this Bill.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland).

I start by stating, on behalf of my party, our support for this Bill and its important provisions, not simply because it extends the legal basis of our armed forces, but because of the very important new provisions that it introduces. We very much support the extension, which the hon. Gentleman just mentioned, of the armed forces covenant to more policy areas. We also support the expansion of recall for reservists; it would be good if we could actually recruit more reservists, full stop, but it is very welcome that we will be able to recall more of them. Most of all, I support the principle of better housing for veterans and forces families. I think I represent more forces families and veterans than any other MP; the area that I represent covers part of Salisbury plain, Tidworth, Bulford and Larkhill, and despite what it says outside Aldershot, we are the true home of the British Army—I hope that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) will allow me to make that claim—and I am very keen to ensure that our forces and their families are properly accommodated.

I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor that what really matters is the leadership of housing organisations. However, I want to express my concern about a measure that will create a new quango responsible for forces families. I instead support the official Opposition proposal that we create a dedicated housing association for that purpose.

I will turn now to the amendments tabled by other Members and parties that we support. It is important that the budget for the new housing organisation is properly reflected in the defence investment plan, when it comes out. I would also very much like a commitment from the Government that we will see in due course the effect of this long, unacceptable and unaccountable delay to the defence investment plan. What effect will the delay have on our procurement and military readiness?

Most of all, we support the amendment, tabled by the official Opposition, that seeks to derogate from the ECHR. It is absolutely right that our armed forces are not constrained. They are facing an enemy in front of them; they should not be worrying about the lawyers behind them. The commanders and, ultimately, Ministers who send our forces into harm’s way must take responsibility for the mission they undertake. It is absolutely wrong that our armed forces personnel should be worried about potential prosecution and persecution over many years in the light of legal claims brought under very vague human rights laws that have no place in military orders.

We have the law of armed conflict, and that is the right framework for conduct in operations, not the European convention on human rights. I would like us to leave the convention altogether. That is not going to happen with this Bill, but it would be very good if the Minister could comment on the appropriateness of the derogation, as proposed by the official Opposition.

We also support amendment 1, proposed by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), which would extend the armed forces covenant to Northern Ireland. That feels like exactly the right thing to do, and I am very grateful that he has tabled the amendment.

We do not support new clause 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). We do not support that proposal. We believe in parliamentary sovereignty, not in contracting out the conscience of our country to the International Criminal Court.

This is a very important Bill—it is constitutionally central. Nevertheless, the passage of it is a formality, and one that I am very glad to support. The discussions we are having on these amendments point to a much more profound debate that we need to have but cannot have—not just because the Government are in turmoil but because the Ministry of Defence itself sets the terms of debate. This Bill should be downstream of these much more profound questions: “What exactly do we need our armed forces for? What role does Britain want to play in the world?” The question I am asking is this: where is the strategy for the United Kingdom?

Is the strategy not in the strategic defence review that was published last year? I remember reading it, and copies were available from the Vote Office. I would recommend that the hon. Gentleman has a look at the SDR, because it sets out what our role is in terms of geopolitics and military strategy.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the SDR, because I was about to do so myself. It is not a strategy. For starters, it is a defence review. The point I was just making is that the strategy we need is upstream of defence. We need a proper national security strategy that considers, in the round, all the different levers of national power and places defence in its proper place in the hierarchy, which is downstream of the crucial strategic questions about the role that the United Kingdom will play in the world. The SDR was published over a year ago; we have seen none of its recommendations implemented, and the money that is required for it still has not been delivered.

My understanding is that the recommendations in the SDR that do not require financial investment—changes of doctrine or stance or the deployment of existing forces—have been implemented. It is the defence investment plan that we are waiting for, which is primarily about additional spending above and beyond what we already spend on equipment.

My point is that arguing loudly for a bigger armed forces, praising our troops, as we all do, or speaking up for our allies, as we should, are not a strategy. Publishing a strategic defence review or even a defence investment plan do not count either.

The hon. Member says that the SDR is not about strategy, but the clue is in the name. It is a strategic defence review. Does he not agree?

The word “strategy” can be put on all sorts of things. I am talking about what a strategy actually is. It is a plan of action that proceeds from an objective and a doctrine about how to achieve that objective. That is what we lack as a country. We have not done grand strategy in this country for decades.

A strategy is not a plan. A strategy is about ways, ends and means. The ways are the plan. The means are the resources. The ends are where one is going to.

I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman is an academic in this space. The point that I am making is that we need an overall vision for our country, a doctrine of how to achieve it and then a set of actions—working together, which I understand to be a strategy, how we deploy different assets, the different policies we have, and the different means to the ends that we have identified in pursuit of our overall objective. I do not think that any of us in this House can accurately define what that is for our country, and that is a source of great regret.

I applaud everything that the Government are trying to do to improve conditions for our armed forces. It would be great if the money were to be forthcoming as well, but there is something bigger and more profound than the questions about specific posture, kit or even deployments. It is: what are we trying to do as a country?

I want to finish by suggesting a strategy. It might sound bold and simplistic, but it is only bold because we are so weak and diminished as a country. Our strategy should be to rejoin—not the EU—the club of great powers. Currently, the great powers are the United States and China, of course, but also Russia, India and Japan. Those are the countries that recognise each other in those terms. They are great powers not because they are good—very obviously China and Russia are very bad—but because they make the weather in the world, and Britain does not, despite our country’s most incredible assets, opportunities and strengths.

The reason for setting out this objective to be a great power is not just for national pride or self esteem but for a simple reason: a country that is not a great power is subject to those that are. Sovereignty and capability are vital in the age of tech, a high demand for energy, rare earths and high tech skills. That is what a country needs in this age.

What does great power status look like? I do not want to join the EU. I think that would be a disaster economically and pointless from a security perspective.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not.

Instead, I would like the United Kingdom to lead European defence by leading a partnership of other countries that have a capable military—most obviously France, Germany, Poland and the Baltics—to defend the Euro Atlantic from Russia, China and Iran. That is the best role we can play in partnership with our friends in the United States.

That sounds very much like a European defence force. In what way would that differ from the concept of a European army?

I absolutely do not believe that we should form a European army, and we certainly should not join any sort of chain of command organised within the EU, but we can act with European partners, as we currently do—most obviously with the northern states in the joint expeditionary force, but also with our other allies in Europe, such as Italy, France, Poland and Germany. We should do that on the basis of a genuine, bespoke partnership for the purpose of defending Europe, particularly the Euro Atlantic seaboard, where the United Kingdom has a special responsibility.

My position is that we should preserve our national sovereignty, capability and independence, but that we can do that in partnership with other countries, in defence of our common interests. That feels to me to be completely consistent with national sovereignty.

I am struggling to see where the JEF, NATO and another alliance, even with our own sovereign capability, come into play. Those frameworks are already in place to enable us to stand up on the stage. It is about our funding of our capability. To the earlier point about strategy that Members were getting confused about, a grand strategy will be set out by the leader of the country, and the strategic defence review is a strategy of defence within that grand strategy.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am taking the opportunity of a defence debate to make the point that defence is downstream of grand strategy, and that is what is fundamentally lacking. Our defences are not going to be as strong as they could be, because they are not necessarily oriented towards the fundamental objectives that we need, which I am trying to set out in very broad terms. I am not suggesting that we need to create new structures and new alliances with new institutions—we can work within the ones that we have—but the purpose of the United Kingdom’s security strategy, and the fundamental objective we should have as a country, is to lead the defence of Europe with our partners, particularly the Euro Atlantic seaboard.

Let me conclude with this point. To lead the alliance that I suggest, we need real strength at home. More than anything, that means economic reform, liberating the inventors and entrepreneurs, particularly in the exciting new fields of defence tech. It means freeing up private capital that will ultimately fund our defence in addition to anything that the Government can find. It means driving forward on AI, which is the new, great frontline for everything. It also means securing the supply of energy, licensing new oil and gas exploration, and radically reforming our planning system. None of that is being done by the Government. That is why, although I absolutely support the objectives of the Bill—we will vote for it tonight if it goes to a Division—I still fear for our security as a country.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), mostly because it is such a rarity—like hen’s teeth—to see our Reform colleagues in the Chamber for these debates.

I turn to new clause 10, tabled by the Conservative party. I would be supportive of it if it focused less on the timeframes and more on getting the defence investment plan right. There is an urgent need to properly fund the defence investment plan as a credible, long term commitment for our nation’s security. I call on the Government to do that.

We have seen what happens when defence is funded inconsistently—the Conservatives, in their 14 years in government, provided a masterclass in that. For years, too often spending has been drip fed, reactive, fragmented and tied to short term pressures rather than long term strategy. That approach does not save money; it stores up costs and leads to delays, inconsistencies and, ultimately, weaker capability.

Nowhere is that clearer than in my constituency of Barrow and Furness, the heart of our sovereign submarine building capability. When investment falters, as it did under the coalition Government of the Opposition parties, skills are lost, highly trained engineers move on, the training pipeline is cut and the supply chain contracts. When the nation inevitably needs to accelerate production again, we are forced to rebuild that capacity at far greater expense. That is why the DIP—the first line by line, long term plan of its kind in a decade—is so important. It is vital that we get it right, but also that it is properly funded to meet the scale of the threats we face and the demands placed on our armed forces. The consequences of not doing so extend beyond cost; over time, our armed forces risk becoming “hollowed out”, as referenced by former Conservative Defence Secretaries.

The hon. Member is right to mention defence being underfunded—I called it out under the last Government and I call it out under this Government. The previous Defence Secretary talked about 30 years of defence underfunding. We talk about the DIP going line by line and getting this right, but if it does not come out with correct funding and it is anywhere near the numbers quoted by the previous Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), that will probably be felt most in the hon. Member’s constituency with its shipbuilding and, as she mentioned, submarine capability.

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. As he rightly says, nobody felt that more than we did in my constituency. I agree that we have to invest properly in the DIP, but we must also ensure that the priorities in the DIP are right. Warfare has changed so dramatically in recent years that we cannot go to the capabilities that we have always looked at, and we cannot continue to fund it in the way that has been done for the past couple of decades. It is about putting the right amount of money in, and about putting it into the right places.

Over time, our armed forces have become hollowed out. Our adversaries will be emboldened, and we leave ourselves at a greater risk of the conflicts that we all want to avoid. Defence is not just a cost; it is an engine for growth in communities like mine. Investment in defence supports skilled jobs, apprenticeships and innovation across the country.

This Armed Forces Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to strengthening our services through improving support for personnel and their families, updating service justice arrangements and ensuring that our armed forces are better equipped to meet the challenges of the modern world. Those are important steps forward, and I am confident that the Bill significantly delivers the improvements that are needed. I therefore oppose new clause 10.

I wish to speak to new clause 4, tabled in my name. I thank all those across the House who signed my amendment. Some 10% of MPs in the House supported the amendment. Although that is not exceptional, it is certainly unusual, and I wish to put on record my thanks to all those who put their name to it—particularly those on the Labour Benches.

The issue of waiving fees for indefinite leave to remain for the spouses and children of our service personnel has become something of a crusade: a worthy cause that is a rarity in this place. It is one that we fundamentally agree on, but, with the best will in the world, it will never be a flagship policy. Hence, three weeks ago during proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Government, in their infinite wisdom, decided to vote down my amendment and put the issue back into a holding pattern.

I have spoken to a lot of MPs in the past week to ask them to support the new clause. Regardless of whether they said that they would or would not do so, I have yet to find an MP who fundamentally disagrees with its aim—I include within that group Ministers. It is only Reform that believes that the immediate families of our non UK personnel should not be granted a waiver when it comes to regularising their immigration status. It says little for Reform’s so called patriotic support for our armed forces that it is unwilling to support service personnel or the Royal British Legion.

Here we are again, but what has changed since last time? Two weeks ago, at Home Office questions, I asked the Minister responsible for migration and citizenship, the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) what progress he had made in progressing the waiving of visa fees for indefinite leave to remain for the dependants of current or former service personnel. He said:

“I am working with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence at the moment to deliver that important manifesto commitment.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 7.]

How long does it take? He has been in post for nearly a year—it took half a day to tweak this new clause, working with the Public Bill Office—so what is the hold up? If he has time to make AI slop videos recounting the history of constituencies, “Tapp into History,” he has time to improve the lives of the people he served alongside when he was in the Army. He should save the videos for after the reshuffle—he will have more free time then.

In 2022, we amended the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018, waiving fees for non UK service personnel. Having listened to the feedback from the Government during the Committee of the whole House, I have changed new clause 4 to reflect a further change to that legislation, adding this single paragraph:

“(c) in a case where the application is made by a person who is a spouse or child of a member or previously serving member of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.”

That is it—that is all I am asking the Government to do. Page 119 of the 2024 Labour party manifesto says:

“We will also scrap visa fees for non UK veterans who have served for four or more years, and their dependants.”

What part of new clause 4 do the Government now disagree with?

By the way, let us not pretend that the Government do not know how they would pay for it, because that is on page 127 of their manifesto, listed under “additional public services spending”, using the last year of the 2028-29 Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. The manifesto clearly states:

“we will begin to put these policies in place from day one of a Labour government”.

We are now fast closing in on two years—maybe they meant day one of a new Government.

I have asked the Government on no fewer than eight occasions when the manifesto pledge would be delivered and what progress towards delivering it has been achieved, and answer came there none. Last week, I asked the Minister responsible for migration and citizenship whether he could estimate the number of spouses and children who have been impacted by the failure to deliver this policy since Labour came to power. He could not. He said:

“the relevant data could only be collated and verified for the purpose of answering this question at disproportionate cost.”

Sure. We should bear in mind that both the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence claim to be working on delivering this, but as they have no idea about the current impact, it is safe to assume that no impact assessment has been conducted.

I asked the Minister responsible for migration and citizenship what the planned timetable is for delivering the manifesto pledge that the Government are so committed to delivering. He told me:

“This work is ongoing, and the Department will update Parliament in the usual way once cross Government decisions have been finalised.”

What cross Government decisions? I would be grateful if the Minister outlined in her summing up what decisions are awaiting finalisation.

I do not believe that there is a timetable for delivering on this commitment, for no more complex a reason than the Minister telling me when she was the Veterans Minister that there was not. On 19 January, she told me:

“it is not possible at this stage to provide an implementation date.”

I put it to her that there is a timeline—a very rigid timeline. There are only two points each year when immigration rules can be amended—in the statement of changes to the immigration rules—and the next point is due this autumn. Will the Minister assure the House that the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office will implement the pledged changes in the next statement?

Despite this change being the lowest of low hanging apolitical fruit, this Government have eschewed opportunity after opportunity to deliver it. Defence Ministers wax lyrical about armed forces pay rises and improving military housing, but on this they are nowhere. We are now on our third Minister for Veterans and People in two years, and I have raised the issue with each of them. We have made no progress. While I do not think for one second that any of them opposes it, it will never be a priority.

Better yet, despite the fact that the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence have allegedly been working on resolving the issue and remain committed to delivering it, the Government’s new earned settlement model will pull the rug out from under their feet. If the Government do not introduce a carve out for service personnel and families, the qualifying period will increase to 10 years, on top of the current fees of £3,229 per person. If the Government were truly committed to the armed forces covenant, they would not even have needed to ask the question during the consultation.

I welcome the Minister for Veterans and People, my friend the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) to his post—he is not here today—and I know that he is just the man to get this over the line. I also know how much it hurt him to vote against it on 2 June. The problem is that he did not anticipate that it would come back around so quickly or that, when it did, he would find himself on the hook as the new Minister responsible for delivering it. So what should he do? He has been pushing on this issue himself since 2017, when he was a serving RAF officer. His pedigree in this area is, frankly, unmatched, and I appreciate that he is now in an invidious position. When we last debated this, he made it clear as a Back Bencher that the Home Office was the bottleneck in delivering it. The Home Office says that it is working with Defence Ministers to deliver this, so what is the hold up?

The new clause is watertight. All the issues raised by the Armed Forces Minister on 2 June have been addressed. There is nothing left to oppose. It now has more support from more parties—including those on the Government’s own Benches—not to mention the slew of tactical abstentions last time round. There is a reshuffle coming, by September at the latest, and the Veterans Minister cannot guarantee that he will be in the same role, with the same level of influence, after the change in Administration. There are just three weeks left until the summer recess and what is likely to be a completely new Administration. No progress has been made on this issue to date.

Now, with the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence on a go slow in anticipation of a regime change, the Veterans Minister has a choice: vote the new clause down, despite its widespread backing and his own affinity to the cause, or tell the Whips to let it go through on the nod. There is a grotesque irony that Parliament’s biggest advocate for making this legislative change, having campaigned for it for a decade, will today be a contributing factor to why service families continue to suffer.

The Minister whom the hon. and gallant Member is talking about is not actually in the Chamber. In the APPG, we worked on these issues together. The Minister has had seven days in that job to make progress. Is it fair to put him under this sort of scrutiny after only seven days?

I appreciate what the hon. Member is saying. I am not putting the Minister under scrutiny here; I am merely highlighting the invidious position that he finds himself in and the situation as we find it. I spoke to the hon. and gallant Member, the Minister, earlier today, so he knows full well that I am going to say this. I very much want to put this front and centre as an issue that needs to be resolved, and to put some heat and light on it to encourage the progress that we are yet to see.

The only reason to oppose this new clause is purely political, as the Government choose to play games with people’s lives rather than support our armed forces community and uphold the armed forces covenant. Earlier this year, that same armed forces community was surveyed by the Army Families Federation on the armed forces pathway to settlement in the UK, in response to the 2025 “Restoring Control over the Immigration System” White Paper. It had 1,424 qualifying responses and more comments on reducing the cost of indefinite leave to remain than any other topic.

One of those responses stated: “the current level of fees for ILR—and the subsequent cost of citizenship—places a significant financial burden on Armed Forces families. Given the service and sacrifices made by Armed Forces personnel, and the vital role their families play in supporting them, these costs are prohibitively high for many. As a result, families who are committed to remaining in the UK long term face unnecessary financial hardship simply to secure their lawful status and future.”

Another said: “Speaking from experience it’s a struggle to get us and our kids to join our husbands here in the UK. We have to work 2 jobs in order to pay for the visa and travelling expenses. We have to bring our 3 kids over to the UK. Due to the expensive costs we have to apply for loans to cater for the expenses. With the high living standards and tight financial constraints, we have to save up for our ILR fee once our 5 years contract is done. It’s so hard to save, especially for us. Me and my 3 kids have to apply for ILR together as our visa expired the same date, so that’s a total of £12K we have to fork out to pay the fee. Can the home office look into this urgently? Thank you.”

Another said: “I have supported my partner’s service to the UK while facing many of the same sacrifices required of military families. This includes frequent relocations, prolonged periods of separation, disrupted employment opportunities, and the emotional and practical challenges that come with military life. For Commonwealth families in particular, these sacrifices are made alongside the added uncertainty of immigration status. Charging ILR and citizenship fees places an unfair financial burden on spouses who have already contributed significantly to the stability and wellbeing of service personnel. Military spouses play a vital role in enabling service members to serve effectively, yet are required to pay substantial fees simply to remain in the country their families serve with loyalty and dedication”.

This last one said: “the financial burden of applying for ILR and subsequently citizenship is not proportionate to Armed Forces pay, particularly in the context of the current cost of living crisis. Many serving personnel simply do not earn enough to comfortably meet these fees, even though they have complied fully with all rules and requirements. It is difficult to understand why those who have shown long term commitment, loyalty and service to the United Kingdom must go through one of the longest and most expensive settlement routes, while others are supported through different schemes that include accommodation, financial assistance and fee exemptions. This creates a strong perception of unfairness among service members, who feel they are being penalised for following the rules.”

That last one really sticks in the craw. We price our service personnel out of being able to afford to live here as veterans while dishing out ILR to others like confetti, who have done nothing to earn it. There is perhaps no better example of a genuine two tier system.

Before Labour Members go into the voting Lobby and swipe their pass on autopilot, I ask them to think about why they became MPs—specifically Labour MPs—because if the answer was to clamp down on immigration so hard, with the bar so high that we do not even let the children of people who have risked their lives in the service of this nation live here without fleecing them for thousands of pounds, they will get a slow handclap for achieving their political dreams. If, on the other hand, they have the moral courage to do the right thing, they should not go into the No Lobby. What is the worst that is going to happen? How whip able do we think the parliamentary Labour party actually is right now, just a few hours after the Prime Minister has resigned?

I ask Labour Members to have the moral courage to do the right thing, to vote in favour of new clause 4 and to deliver on the promise they made to service families when they stood for election. In a matter of days, they will find themselves jockeying for position in the leadership contest. People who are Whips today might not be Whips tomorrow. Nobody is going to lose the Whip as the Government collapse because they did not vote against this new clause. There may never be a more perfect set of circumstances in which to rebel: a Government with no authority trying to whip Labour MPs to vote against their own manifesto pledge and against the wishes of the Royal British Legion. I dare say there has never been safer, more fertile ground upon which to rebel.

If Labour Members cannot vote in favour of the new clause, I beg them not to vote against it. When this issue was voted on three weeks ago, there were 102 abstentions. The Prime Minister has laid out the timetable for his departure. This Administration is in its death throes. How much do those on the Labour Benches feel they really owe the outgoing Administration? They should be asking what the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) would do, because I am not really asking the current Government any more. What is the point?

Today, at the start of Armed Forces Week, I ask Labour Members to consider how they will vote tonight. Do they want to vote against service families, against the Royal British Legion campaign and against doing the right thing in order to prop up a Government who have a lifespan we can now measure in hours? This is now about whether the next Government back this change. I ask them to support new clause 4, not to vote against it. Ministers should think very carefully about what they want their legacy to be. They should have the moral courage to do the right thing tonight.

Most speakers tonight have talked about the duty of care that we owe to those who put themselves in harm’s way for the people of the United Kingdom. Those of us who come from Northern Ireland or represent Northern Ireland know that that is not just some vague form of words. Over the period of the troubles we saw at first hand—this is not abstract—the sacrifices that those who serve in the armed forces made. More than 300,000 people served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner, and 722 of them gave their lives in Northern Ireland.

In the 1970s, I was involved in the reserve police force, going in and out of Army barracks and going out with Army patrols, so I know the conditions we expected people to live in: empty schools and old factories, some of which were surrounded by houses and so easily open to sniper fire, mortar bombing, and narrow streets where people were easily ambushed. We owe a duty to those who made those sacrifices to stop terror in our own streets of the United Kingdom, let alone those who go overseas.

It angers me when those servicemen are dragged through the courts as part of a rewriting of the history of the troubles that makes the terrorists look like the victims and the soldiers look like terrorists. I see that the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) is in his place. He deserves credit for whatever role he played in holding back the worst provisions of the legacy legislation, and I hope that his departure from his role in the Ministry of Defence does not give the Government the opportunity to roll over to the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Dublin, and enact legislation that will punish the servicemen who served in Northern Ireland.

That is one of the reasons why I support new clause 9. The performance of soldiers in the past and what they did in Northern Ireland will be used in future by those who wish to denigrate the work that our soldiers do overseas or in other theatres of warfare where they are serving their country. We should not leave in place legislation that makes it easy to do that. That is why we will support new clause 9.

I will speak to amendment 1, which my party supports, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister)—he would have been here to speak to it, but he is unwell. He makes an important point: if the provision is to extend to local authorities across England, Scotland and Wales, there is no reason why local authorities in Northern Ireland should be excluded from it, especially when many of the soldiers who would benefit from it live in Northern Ireland. Many of them served part time or full time in the Royal Irish Regiment and Ulster Defence Regiment, and they are living with the consequences of their service, yet local authorities in Northern Ireland will be excluded from the provision.

I hope that that was a mistake and an oversight by the Government. I trust that it is not a deliberate attempt to try not to put themselves in conflict with local authorities in Northern Ireland that are controlled by Sinn Féin. If that was the reason, it is an absolute disgrace. If it was an oversight, I hope that the Government will rectify it and ensure that local authorities in Northern Ireland are included in the armed forces covenant requirements as they apply to local authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom. Many Unionist local authorities will want to legally give support to those who have served in Northern Ireland. If any Sinn Féin local authorities do not wish to do so, the Government should not simply say, “We will back away from this, then.” The same obligation should be on them, because they have soldiers living in their areas.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. The armed forces covenant was a national promise to the veterans of this nation. A veteran from Birmingham, Glasgow or anywhere else in GB will have better access to the covenant provisions, because their local authorities will benefit from them, yet someone living in Upper Bann, South Antrim or Fermanagh will not have that access. Does he agree that that smells very much like kowtowing to Sinn Féin, its demands and the anti covenant approach it has taken over many years?

I do not know who advised that, or whether it was the Northern Ireland Office, because of course it is prone to trying to avoid any conflict with Sinn Féin when it comes to policies. If it was, I hope that this will be seriously thought about and that the Minister will look at ways of including local authorities in North Ireland in the legislation, so that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the armed forces covenant, which is meant to be a national commitment, applies nationally right across the United Kingdom.

I want to support some of the other new clauses, though I want to dissociate myself from new clauses 1 and 2 tabled by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). They represent more of his obsession with finding ways of trying to batter Israel than really being concerned about the welfare of soldiers. The fact that he is not here to answer challenges to those new clauses says a lot as well, because he knows exactly what the motivation is.

New clause 3 would put a duty on the Secretary of State to collect data on the number of veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. It is very sad when I walk down the streets of London—towards Victoria station, for example—and see people sitting in shop doorways. I remember speaking to one of them. He was an ex soldier, and he blamed his situation on himself, but the fact of the matter was that it seemed that the Army had no idea what condition he was in. I met an ex soldier in my constituency advice centre on Friday who suffers from post traumatic stress disorder and who cannot find any support or help. He left the Army in 2004, and the impact had come on some years later. He did not have his medical records and had been referred to one body and then another, but was finding no help. We have a duty to monitor what happens to those who leave the armed forces. They sometimes leave with injuries, either mental or physical, and we must ensure that we look after them when they have suffered as a result of their service.

It is so easy for people to get in a boat, come across the channel and get into the United Kingdom and then be treated to accommodation and support and quickly be given asylum to stay in this country and leave to remain in this country, but there are those who have served in the armed forces and want to bring their families here and who face a financial penalty for doing so. Waiving those fees is one of the reasons why we support new clause 4. We should not be treating the families of those who served our country in a far lesser way than we treat those who break into our country illegally, and are then treated and have money lavished upon them. On the amendment referring to a veterans’ commissioner dealing with mental health, given the number of soldiers who have suffered from mental health problems, it is important that they should have an advocate for the problems they face.

The last proposal I want to support is new clause 19 on national standards, funding and monitoring of the armed forces covenant duty. It is one thing to have a duty and to put it down as a covenant duty and a promise to soldiers, but if we are not monitoring how it works and funding it, it will of course not have the impact that it is meant to have. The Government were right to bring forward this legislation, and many of its provisions are welcome, but there are amendments before the House tonight that I believe would improve it. We owe it to those who have served us, and I hope that the Government will take on board the reasonable amendments that I have spoken about.

First, I want to take this opportunity to put on record my huge thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) for his service as Secretary of State for Defence. He has been a stalwart champion of our armed forces, and I am especially grateful for his support for our service personnel and their families, driving forward improvements to pay, housing and childcare. His guiding light is, and has always been, to serve those who serve us. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). He is a formidable operator, a passionate advocate for military modernisation and transformation, and not half bad at pull ups either. I hope to match his work on the former, although perhaps am unlikely to do so on the latter, and I look forward to working with both of these fine colleagues as we go forward.

I thank hon. and right hon. Members from across the House for their contributions to this debate. Given the number of amendments before us, many of which raise issues fully debated in Committee and on which the Government position remains unchanged, I do not intend to repeat those arguments, but I will focus on the new amendments and a number of the principal issues raised while relying on the record of earlier debates for the remainder.

I seek a quick clarification on something that has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and was raised in Committee. Will the Minister confirm at the Dispatch Box, because this has been raised with me by the Surrey Military Support Group, that the term “local authority” refers to borough councils, unitary single foundation authorities and foundation strategic authorities?

To confirm, where the covenant duty is provided by local government, then it will apply. For example, if it provides housing, it applies. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s question.

I will begin by speaking to the amendment in the Secretary of State’s name making minor and technical changes to the Military Lands Act 1892 that are consequential to the establishment of the reserve forces and cadets associations by clause 38 of the Bill.

New clause 4 would waive settlement visa fees for members of the armed forces and the dependants of serving or discharged members of the armed forces. I acknowledge the concerns raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese Jecty) and recognise that the new clause has been significantly redrafted to reflect the points raised in previous debates, and I also recognise the important role that stakeholders such as the Royal British Legion have played in highlighting this important issue. The Government are committed to delivering the manifesto commitment in full. Work is actively under way across Government and we are determined to bring forward a solution that is clear and works for service personnel and their families.

It is important that we get this right, rather than legislate in a way that is partial or risk creating inconsistencies and, as in Committee, new clause 4 does not clearly achieve the stated aim. It is also important that immigration fee waivers continue to be provided for through the established framework in secondary legislation, rather than be fixed in primary legislation. I know how passionate the hon. and gallant Gentleman is about this issue, and he is right to demand speed and progress. I hope he will recognise that while primary legislation is not needed, our commitment—my commitment—is no less than his and I look forward to when we do deliver this important manifesto commitment.

The Minister accepts that the new clause has been significantly redrafted to try to make it as watertight as possible. I appreciate what she says about primary and secondary legislation; it seems like a little bit of a convenient get out of jail free card for the Government. Can she confirm whether there is anything wrong with the new clause as it is drafted other than the change to primary legislation, and if there is not, what changes do the Government plan to push through a piece of secondary legislation in the very near future in order to implement the measures as drafted?

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his valiant attempt. I can assure him it is our manifesto commitment, and we will deliver it.

I will now turn to new clauses 21 and 22. These amendments seek to introduce additional statutory reporting requirements on the defence investment plan through both regular updates to Parliament and specific assessments of the impact of any delays. As was set out in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s urgent question last week, the Government are already committed to keeping Parliament appropriately informed, and we do not consider it necessary to add to those commitments. Work to finalise the defence investment plan is continuing under our new Defence Secretary, and we are clear that we will publish it ahead of the NATO summit in July. In the meantime, we are getting on with delivery, having signed over 1,400 major contracts since the election, with 94% of spend going to UK based companies.

The Minister has just said that the Government intend to keep the House regularly updated on these matters, but she declined the Liberal Democrat amendment that would set out that commitment in the Bill. Will she commit from the Dispatch Box that the Government will report, within six months of the enactment of the Bill, on the delays caused by the delay to the DIP, and the impact that they have had on the economy?

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 11 would require any future Secretary of State to consider whether to make a derogation under article 15 of the ECHR, which provides that “in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation…a State may take measures derogating from its obligations under the Convention only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”, provided that such measures are “not…inconsistent with the State’s other obligations under international law”.

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

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

We have seen movement on the covenant, and the introduction of the Defence Housing Service and Op Valour. Would it be possible for the Minister to set out their impact on recruitment, retention and morale across the armed forces over the past year or two?

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Recruitment and retention have both improved, and, crucially, morale has improved, as measured through the armed forces continuous attitude survey, so our work so far has shown clear results.

I am very conscious of the words that we are saying to veterans. In the Minister’s response to a written parliamentary question on 28 May, she said that UK veterans faced a six month wait when applying for war pensions in 2024-25. It is now 18 months at a minimum. I know that because I am going through the process, after a minor amputation of my foot. That period has more than tripled on her watch. Was she aware of that? Is that acceptable? It is a bare minimum of 18 months before there is even a response.

I am very sorry to hear of the challenges that the hon. Gentleman faces. I am very well aware of the issues faced, and we have taken a number of measures to counter them. I will ensure that we write to him with very full details of the measures that we have taken to address the issue.

Will the Minister give way?

I am afraid that I am going to make some progress, because I only have so long.

We are delivering Op Valour, a new national programme designed to make it easier for veterans to access the care and support that they deserve. Part of the programme is about using data to ensure that the right services are delivered at the right time, to the right place.

On the issue of homelessness, we are delivering Op Fortitude. I say to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and to everybody in this House that if they come across an ex service person on the street, they should make use of Op Fortitude. The telephone number is 0800 952 0774. It is a single referral pathway that connects veterans who are experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness with help and support, and it has already helped more than 1,000 veterans with supported housing and temporary accommodation. On mental health, we have invested more than £25 million this financial year in Op Courage. Again, it is a single pathway in England for supporting veterans’ mental health, and it has already supported more than 35,000 veterans. We have a range of programmes to support those leaving service in finding fulfilling and sustainable careers that make use of their unique skills and experience.

Let me turn to new clause 13. After well documented, historic shortfalls in recruitment and retention, the figures are now far more positive. Under this Government, inflow is up by around 13%, and outflow is down by 9%. We have cut red tape, addressed system blockages and established a ministerial board to oversee both inflow and retention. I am concerned that if the Government were required to set out an armed forces retention strategy, alongside the annual “Votes A” paper on the maximum number of personnel to be maintained, it would create an additional layer of bureaucracy, and would largely duplicate information that is already available. We already publish information on the size and make up of the armed forces, and we will continue to publish that. We will also continue to publish the outcomes of the various continuous attitudes surveys that the MOD runs annually.

New clause 14 would require an independent review of armed forces recruitment and retention. We are improving retention through sustained investment in our people. We have a range of policies designed to help those who are medically discharged, and to ensure that people get the support that they need, and they are kept under constant scrutiny. The results of that can be seen in the decreasing outflow rates in the quarterly personnel statistics.

As I have mentioned, we also publish the attitudes surveys each year, and we will continue to do so. Although these show that service personnel still have some significant issues with service life, we believe that the investments we have made will mean that we start to see an improvement in future surveys. We will also continue to publish a range of other reports. For example, the Service Complaints Ombudsman publishes an annual report, which will be taken forward by the new Armed Forces Commissioner.

Let me turn to amendment 12. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) raised the issue that low trust reduces the likelihood of reports of sexual offences. I take this issue very seriously and have done a lot of work on it, but the feedback from victims and from our victim and witness care unit has been positive; it indicates that they feel supported, listened to and understood. We have seen an increase in reporting of sexual offences, which may indicate greater confidence in reporting them. We continue to strive to improve the service justice system, and to raise confidence in it. That is why the Bill strengthens support and protections for victims of sexual offences.

Amendment 15 would require the Secretary of State to review current practice regarding the transfer of medical records of armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. I reassure the House that no transfer of records is needed when transferring from regular to reserve service, because defence continues to hold and manage healthcare records in the same electronic system.

Let me turn to amendment 1. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for it, and recognise the concerns raised regarding the position of Northern Ireland councils. However, the amendment reflects a misunderstanding of the role that those councils play in the delivery landscape. The covenant legal duty applies to bodies when they are exercising public functions in certain key policy areas. In England, Scotland and Wales, local authorities play a direct role in delivering services in policy areas such as housing, which is why they are included. In Northern Ireland, responsibility for those policy areas rests with the Executive Departments and their arm’s length bodies; councils do not exercise functions in relation to the policy areas covered by the covenant duty. While councils can support the armed forces community through engagement, they do not have the levers to address the disadvantages that the duty seeks to tackle. Clause 2 reflects the distinct devolved arrangements across the UK, ensuring that the duty sits with those bodies best placed to make a meaningful difference.

Will the Minister give way?

I am afraid that I do not have time, but I would emphasise that what I have outlined does not remove the ability for councils in Northern Ireland to pledge their support as a covenant signatory. We will work very closely with colleagues in Northern Ireland to uphold covenant principles in practice.

In my former role as Minister for Veterans and People, I recently met the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri Hurst), to discuss the concerns behind amendments 3, 4 and 5. We will continue to work as a Government on the best way to address those concerns in practice. Last month, I met the Minister for School Standards, who has agreed to look into the concerns raised, particularly about improving support for service families when they move.

The better route is not a rigid statutory fix; rather, it is practical improvements through existing systems. The covenant legal duty statutory guidance already gives public bodies a flexible framework for taking account of the particular challenges that service families face. However, let me be clear that considering the statutory guidance and supporting the duty is not optional; once it is in force, public bodies 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 incredibly 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. Our focus is on improving continuity in delivery, so that service families get better support without unintended consequences.

Turning to new clauses 1 and 2, the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 give effect to the provisions in the statute of the International Criminal Court. As such, they are the applicable regime for the issues raised by those new clauses, rather than the Visiting Forces Act 1952. The International Criminal Court Act exercises jurisdiction over individuals, rather than states, and any request to the UK from the ICC in respect of a warrant or investigation would be dealt with under the International Criminal Court Act as the appropriate applicable legal framework. I would add that the International Criminal Court Act already enables UK courts to prosecute relevant offences committed by UK nationals outside of the UK, irrespective of whether they are a member of a foreign military organisation.

Will the Minister give way?

I am afraid that I have little time, so I must make progress.

New clause 17 would exempt certain service personnel and veterans from routine reassessments or reviews of the personal independence payment. While I recognise the intention behind the amendment, it is important to note that the PIP is a civilian welfare benefit, administered by the Department for Work and Pensions. Once someone has been awarded the armed forces independence payment, it is paid for life. It is not subject to periodic reviews, and there is no requirement for reassessment; it is specifically designed to provide stability and certainty for those with the most severe, life changing injuries sustained in service. It is set at the same level as the highest rate of PIP or disability living allowance, whether or not the recipient has any care needs.

Although I recognise the intention behind new clauses 19 and 20, a national standard is not required. I hope that what I have outlined provides the necessary assurances to the House that these new clauses are not necessary, and I ask that they be withdrawn. I commend amendment 2 to the House.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 4 Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or children of serving or discharged members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years “(1) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 is amended as follows.

(2) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 after “Forces” in paragraph (b) insert— “(c) in a case where the application is made by a person who is a spouse or child of a member or previously serving member of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.

(3) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 in paragraph (b) leave out “(a) and (b)” and insert “(a), (b), and (c)”.”—(Ben Obese Jecty.) This new clause would amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 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 who have served for four or more years. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

33|20:59|164|311|The House divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 2 June).

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

New Clause 11

Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights

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

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

(2) In this section —

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

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

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

Brought up.

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

34|21:14|104|391|The House divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 22

Report on the impact of Defence Investment Plan delays

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment of the delays to the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of such delays on—

(a) small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) within the UK defence supply chain,

(b) military procurement, equipment capability timelines, and operational readiness, and

(c) the financial sustainability of defence sector businesses.

(3) In preparing the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) representatives of small and medium sized enterprises in the defence sector, and

(b) the Defence Suppliers Forum.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”—(Calum Miller.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a one time report within six months of the Act’s passage assessing the impact of Defence Investment Plan delays on military procurement and defence businesses, with particular focus on SMEs.

Brought up.

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

35|21:27|74|323|The House divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Clause 3

Defence housing and other property

Amendment proposed: 11, page 7, line 15, at end insert—

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

(5) This must specify both capital (CDEL) and revenue spending (RDEL) on the Defence Housing Service, over the period of the Defence Investment Plan”.—(Mr Francois.)

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

36|21:39|171|322|The House divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Schedule 6

Reserve Forces and Cadets Association

Amendment made: 2, page 141, line 16, at end insert—

“Military Lands Act 1892

3A (1) The Military Lands Act 1892 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 14 (powers of Secretary of State to make byelaws as to use of land held for military purposes and securing safety of public)—

(a) in subsection (1), for ‘a volunteer corps’ substitute ‘the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association’;

(b) in subsection (3)—

(i) for ‘a volunteer corps’ substitute ‘the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association’;

(ii) for ‘that corps or in any person as trustee for that corps’ substitute ‘the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association’.

(3) In section 15 (application of byelaws where right of firing acquired)—

(a) for ‘a volunteer corps’ substitute ‘the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association’;

(b) for ‘or volunteer corps’ substitute ‘or the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association’.” —(Louise Sandher Jones.)

This amendment makes consequential amendments to the Military Lands Act 1892 as a result of the establishment of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association by clause 38 of the Bill.

Third Reading

King’s consent signified.

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

I thank everybody who has helped bring to the Bill to this stage, in particular the parliamentary staff, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and officials in the Ministry of Defence, especially the Bill team. They have all worked diligently to deliver it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and all Members on both sides of the House for their constructive engagement throughout the passage of the Bill. I place on record my particular thanks to my predecessor, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), for all his hard work and dedication in getting the Bill to this stage.

The first duty of any Government is the defence of the United Kingdom. It is a duty carried out every day by the extraordinary men and women of our armed forces, with the support of their families, who together make immense sacrifices to keep our nation safe. Too often, however, those who serve and the families who stand beside them feel undervalued. This Government were elected on a promise to change that and to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve. Through the Bill, we are delivering on that promise.

The Bill not only fulfils our constitutional responsibility to renew the legal basis for the armed forces, but delivers meaningful reform across four key pillars: extending the armed forces covenant legal duty, establishing the Defence Housing Service, expanding our pool of reserves, and reforming the service justice system to boost protections and support for serving personnel.

First, the Bill strengthens the armed forces covenant—the promise that those who serve and their families should face no disadvantage because of that service.

Secondly, the Bill addresses long standing concerns about defence housing. The quality of accommodation is not a peripheral issue; it is central to recruitment, retention and family life.

Thirdly, the Bill recognises the increasingly vital role that reservists play in modern defence. They are essential to our operational capability. Deployed alongside regulars and reserves, our strategic reserve gives us wider access to the specialist skills we increasingly need in the face of a shifting landscape of threats. The measures in the Bill help to support mobilisation, improve flexibility and ensure that reservists are properly integrated, valued and supported. They will therefore strengthen not only our military capability, but the essential connection between our armed forces and wider society.

Finally, the Bill delivers important reforms to the service justice system. Discipline, fairness and confidence in the system are fundamental to operational effectiveness and morale. The changes set out in the Bill aim to modernise and improve victim support and boost protections for those serving.

Taken together, these four pillars reflect our commitment to improve service life in a practical and lasting way. At a time of growing global uncertainty, we are asking more of our armed forces than ever before, so it is right that we match that ask with action to protect, support and value those who serve.

The Bill not only renews the legal foundation of our armed forces; it renews our national commitment to them. I end by paying tribute to the courage, professionalism and dedication shown by the men and women of our armed forces. We are proud to count them as the finest in the world and, above all, this Bill is for them. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I start in the same way that the Minister did, by thanking all the Clerks and parliamentary staff who made the Bill come together. They have kept things on track, and it has been impressive to watch.

Given the strength of the political headwinds we are navigating at present, and with little sign of them abating in the months ahead, I want to take a step back from the heat of the moment and reflect on what has been achieved through the passage of this Bill. I hope that those on the Government Benches will recognise that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have approached this legislation as a critical friend, scrutinising its provisions carefully, seeking improvements where they are needed and holding the Government to account where challenge was warranted.

It is in that same constructive spirit that I make my brief remarks this evening, but before I do, I must pay tribute to the former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is no longer in his place. He declared from the outset of the Bill that no one would drone on more about drones, and he was true to his word. As a fellow former regular Royal Marine, I can say with some fondness that his bootneck persistence had a material impact on how this House discusses the changing character of warfare. His resignation speech made clear that we have rather more in common than perhaps either side would care to admit. He may no longer sit at the Ministry of Defence table, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he will return in the not too distant future, and I look forward to working with him for the good of our country when he does.

The Bill contains a number of welcome reforms. The extension of the armed forces covenant duty into Whitehall strengthens the principle that supports our service personnel, veterans and their families. That should be felt across the whole of government, building on the previous Conservative Government’s achievements in enshrining the covenant into law. I commend Ministers for carrying on that work.

The reforms to the service justice system give victims greater confidence in the process. There are positive steps on accommodation and welfare, though as many hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned today, we will need to see the defence investment plan before we can properly understand how those pledges will be funded. These are set to be meaningful improvements, if they are in the defence investment plan and funded in the way we discussed in Committee, and they deserve recognition. I hope that Ministers will continue to consider what more can be done for veterans. We ask a great deal of those who have served, and our responsibility to them does not end when they leave uniform.

It is precisely that responsibility which leads me— tangentially, Madam Deputy Speaker—to raise the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Many of those who served on Operation Banner are in my constituency, home of the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines. They remain in limbo as the Government seek to repeal the protections granted by the previous Governments, and the process itself is becoming the punishment. On that, the former Armed Forces Minister and I are in complete agreement, and I know that many other hon. and right hon. Members across this House are in agreement, too. He said plainly that this legislation is “unfit for purpose”, and I hope his colleagues on the Government Benches will reflect carefully on those words and have the courage to challenge and ensure that this legislation is either amended significantly or thrown out.

I wish to reiterate the clear message from the Leader of the Opposition that with the international order deteriorating at pace, we do not have time for cheap politics. The defence of our nation and the security of our countrymen and women are at stake, and we must make the difficult decisions necessary to give our armed forces what they need to keep us safe. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that we would lend our 117 votes to pass welfare reforms, so that the savings could be redirected to the defence budget. That offer stands; anything less would be a catastrophic dereliction of duty. The Prime Minister has rejected that offer—

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 2 June).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.