5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Milburn Review: Interim Report

   Returning to the important points about mental health made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), I draw the Minister’s attention to paragraphs 424 and 425 of the report, which states: “It is mental health conditions that are now the most commonly reported health condition among NEET young people…This explosion has primarily been in mental health issues such as anxiety and depression, rather than in serious mental illnesses”. We can all have our different ideas as to what might be causing this upsurge—I think there has clearly been a loss of mental resilience among young people—but does the Minister agree that, given that this is such a large part of the problem, further detailed research and analysis need to be done on why so many young people are so much more anxious and feel that they cannot cope?

   Hansard source
2. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Murder of Henry Nowak

   Is it normal police practice to handcuff a person who is lying helpless on the ground and clearly offering no resistance? Given the Home Secretary’s admirable and utter rejection of differential treatment of people according to their race, will she undertake to examine and withdraw the policing policy document identified by the shadow Home Secretary as embodying precisely such differential treatment?

   Hansard source
3. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Murder of Henry Nowak

   I agree with everything the Home Secretary says. I agree that we should not weaponise this issue, but neither should we tiptoe around it. The truth is that many white people in this country feel that the police are so terrified of being called racist that they either underreact, as in the case of the appalling grooming scandal, or they overreact, as in this case, so there is a role for the Home Secretary now. She needs to summon in top police officers and say, “Things have got to change. We are all equal. Don’t be terrified of what people think about you—just carry out the law as you’re supposed to do as police officers.”

   Hansard source
4. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

   Voluntary Carbon and Nature Markets

   Does the Minister plan to allow clean community energy companies to sell power directly to households and businesses?

   Hansard source
5. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

   Armed Forces Bill

   It was a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee, and I thank the Clerks and all those who made it run so smoothly. Today I will focus on one area. “I certainly think it is bizarre that there is not an English commissioner. That is 85% of the veteran population, while the other 15% have three commissioners to represent them. I would certainly support that.” Those are not my words, but those of retired Lieutenant Commander Susie Hamilton, the Veterans Commissioner for Scotland, in response to a question from the Minister for the Armed Forces on the Select Committee earlier this year, regarding whether there should be a veterans commissioner for England. The view shared by all three commissioners for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland is that the circa 1.4 million veterans who live in England lack their own veterans commissioner. They believe it is vital that we have parity and consistency across the nations, and an independent statutory advocate for veterans in England, so today I once again call for a national veterans commissioner for England, as proposed in new clause 3.

   Hansard source
6. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

   Armed Forces Bill

   All experience of military life is valuable, but speaking as someone without military experience, I still think that something can be brought to the table by those who do not have such experience. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am sure the Scottish Government will have heard it put on record. The Royal British Legion launched a campaign to create the role of veterans commissioner for England back in 2023. The last Conservative Government accepted that request, and in 2024, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs began recruiting for the position. However, the 2024 general election was called shortly afterwards, and all progress was ceased. In the Select Committee, the response to that request was, “We now have an Armed Forces Commissioner, and Op Valour. That means that the role is not required.” We welcome former Air Commodore Polly Miller-Perkins CBE as the first Armed Forces Commissioner, and I wish her well in her role. However, that role was created to benefit serving personnel and their families. It will investigate general welfare matters in the armed forces. The Service Complaints Ombudsman will be abolished, and its functions and responsibilities will be transferred to the commissioner. Veterans would only be covered by the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner if a complaint related to their time in service, when they were subject to service law. There are, however, time limits for submitting a complaint, so generally that will apply only to veterans who have recently left the armed forces. We recognise the Government’s £50 million funding for Op Valour, which is the national programme designed to increase veterans’ access to relevant charities, services, and support across the UK. However, if Valour was the answer to all veterans issues, why has the position of Veterans Commissioner remained for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales? There is still fundamental value in establishing a veterans commissioner for England too. It should be a question not of either/or but of both. What would the veterans commissioner do? They would serve as an independent advocate and voice for veterans and their families in England, signpost veterans and their families to relevant charities and services based on their individual need, produce regular policy recommendations based on unmet need, work closely with Government agencies to develop and refine policies and services, and promote the community, leverage their skills and highlight what they offer to society.

   Hansard source
7. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

   Children: Development of Essential Skills

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan, and may there be many more. I thank the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for opening the debate, and for his thoughtful contributions that we have heard throughout. I know that he is a long-standing champion of this issue, for which he made his case, and I am sure we will hear more from him. I also thank all Members across the House who made contributions. In particular, I want to single out the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), who I thought made a really valid contribution. Having just welcomed my third child, and having seen the sacrifice that mums make, I can attest to the fact that she made some very valid points, and she will certainly get a lot of sympathy from me. My good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about screen time. With three children under five, I can tell him that the battle of the screen time has already begun; I know the anguish that parents face, so I have a huge amount of sympathy. While I am always careful not to talk about silver bullets in politics, I believe that education is a silver bullet that can transform a child’s life and their chances. School is an essential part of a young person’s development, equipping them with the skills they need to succeed in life. The academic lessons we learn in the classroom prepare us for the world of work, and the social lessons we learn in school teach us so much that will be needed later in life. The official Opposition are very clear that our children deserve a first-class education, and I am proud that the previous Conservative Government delivered a world-class curriculum to facilitate that. Under previous Conservative Governments, England became one of the top performing countries in education; children in England were named the best in the west for reading, and we were ranked the best at maths in the western world in 2023, according to international standards. At the heart of those results was the previous Government’s rigorous curriculum, which raised standards and helped pupils soar up the international league tables. This debate has centred on some of the softer but equally important skills that a good education can instil in a young person. While I believe that we cannot underplay the importance of academic rigour, this debate plays a vital role in getting our young people ready for life—or the school of life, shall we say. There is no doubt that so much more needs to be done to ensure that our young people are equipped with the right essential skills. I would like to go back a few years. I believe that the pandemic played a huge role in some of the outcomes that our young people are facing. Many of them spent time away from home and outside the classroom, which really impacted on skills. With that in mind, I invite the Minister to comment on whether the Government should be working to fill those gaps and ensure that those people are supported into adulthood. The Opposition are clear that a rigorous curriculum that demands high standards is vital to developing critical skills, which is important in areas such as maths and literacy, and the previous Conservative Government are really proud of our legacy of driving up standards. However, I am concerned about some of the changes in the curriculum review. While I agree with many of its principles, I worry that if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. I want to talk about the practical implementation of the curriculum to see whether the Minister can shed some light on it. We all want to see our children equipped with the skills that are needed in life. The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) talked about getting our children ready for the digital age, especially with the onset of AI and the waves of disinformation we are seeing online. As a former tech Minister, I share those concerns. I invite the Minister to discuss what she thinks the new curriculum will do to ensure that our children are ready for the advent of AI, as it is already upon us. Does she worry that we risk diluting the core education that I mentioned, which underpins our academic success and those high standards? What will be sacrificed to deliver some of that extra work? This will also be incredibly important because, as has been mentioned, the Government have decided to push down the voting age to 16. If millions of young people are enfranchised in that way, how will the Minister be confident that they will have the skills to engage in our democracy? How will they be encouraged to critically analyse the information they are given? In addition, I would like clarity from the Government on the time being taken away from core education. How will they ensure that time is given to the new aspects of the curriculum review to ensure that high standards are achieved? When the Government have been challenged previously by Opposition Members, they have not been forthcoming on that issue. Parents and students are anxious about how the reforms will change their education in the long term, so I invite the Minister to give a bit more clarity, specifically on the citizenship curriculum. As for teaching, what training will teachers require to be ready for those changes? On financial literacy and education, we can all recognise the benefits of ensuring that young people enter adulthood knowing how to manage their money. In 2023, the “Building Beyond Barriers” report by the all-party group on financial education for young people found that more than half of teachers did not know that financial education was already part of the curriculum. As the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), made clear in a report last week, the importance of financial education cannot be overstated. That report found that “Four in ten people in the UK have poor financial literacy”, which is holding back our economy. The APPG’s report also found that one of the barriers to delivering financial education was a feeling that there is simply not enough time in the school year to deliver those lessons—a similar argument to the one I just made about citizenship lessons. So I ask the Minister: how will they be implemented? Other Members asked about the standards that will be expected. What assessments will be in place to make sure that the quality of the education is of the highest level? Focusing on core skills does make sense in this regard because good maths is a gateway to lifelong financial stability. That is not just my opinion; the programme for international student assessment found a strong correlation between performance in financial literacy and performance in mathematics. I have no doubt that our hard-working teachers are keen to play their part in delivering the skills education that we have discussed today in an appropriate way in the classroom. But a key part of that is innovation, and the Government’s compulsory curriculum risks inhibiting that innovation from teachers. The Government’s curriculum review praised innovation in teaching and made clear the benefits of flexibility for teachers, but I worry that the opposite will happen in practice. Lastly, in my regular meetings with stakeholders—both in education and industry— and when I have spoken to students, I hear time and again about the importance of better career support in schools. Understanding the world of work and what steps are needed to get to where a person wants to be in later life are essential. Young people are seeing profound and substantial changes in the world of work, none more so than the impact of AI on professional careers, such as accountancy and law. With that in mind, it is more important than ever that young people are equipped with the right skills to navigate a changing world of employment and the economy at large. I invite the Minister to elaborate on the work that she will do with the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that young people get the quality career advice that they need. Children deserve a world-class curriculum that sets them up for the best possible chance in life. I support a knowledge-rich curriculum and will continue to urge the Government to answer some of the constructive questions that the Opposition have put forward. We all want to ensure that our young people have the best chances in life and also have the skills to live their lives and thrive.

   Hansard source
8. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Murder of Henry Nowak

   I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. We in this House need to be careful about our response to what is a sad loss of life of a young man who was going to a vibrant university in a fantastic and welcoming city, with the rest of his life supposedly ahead of him. Notwithstanding what the Home Secretary has said—I am grateful to her for saying that the IOPC will receive full resourcing—has she done any thinking about what other investigations her Department might need to do into the conduct of Hampshire constabulary? Can she confirm whether the officers in question have been suspended, pending the investigation? Could she also outline whether she is currently looking at whether she needs to make changes to the exemptions to carrying knives for religious or cultural purposes?

   Hansard source
9. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Points of Order

   I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order, and I understand that she informed the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) of it in advance. The House’s sub judice resolution is a significant self-imposed restriction on freedom of speech in this House. Its purpose is to prevent prejudice to individual cases, and to preserve comity with the courts. As the hon. Member notes, the Clerks in the Table Office are always happy to advise Members on the sub judice rule and its application to proceedings. It is, however, ultimately the Member’s responsibility to avoid infringing the sub judice rule, and to exercise freedom of speech responsibly.

   Hansard source
10. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    The hon. Member did not give me prior notice of her point of order. First of all, the Chair is not responsible for the content of speeches or contributions made by Back Benchers, let alone Front Benchers. I do not have to hand the information that she requires about those two issues, but no doubt the Clerks can provide it in a moment or two. As the hon. Member will know, the Government are responsible for the statements that they bring forward to the House. Armed Forces Bill (Programme) (No. 2) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)), That the Order of 26 January in the last session of Parliament (Armed Forces Bill: Programme) be varied as follows: (1) Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Order shall be omitted. (2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on recommittal, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order. Committee of the whole House (3) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be taken on the first day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the first day. Consideration and Third Reading (4) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day. (5) Any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day. (6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.—(Deirdre Costigan.) Question agreed to.

    Hansard source
11. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Armed Forces Bill

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

    Hansard source
12. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Armed Forces Bill

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

    Hansard source
13. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Armed Forces Bill

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

    Hansard source
14. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Armed Forces Bill

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

    Hansard source
15. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Milburn Review: Interim Report

    As the report highlights, the number of NEETs is set to rise to 1.25 million over the next five years unless something is done. The Government need to listen to the wealth creators that create the jobs that so many of our young people need. Alan Milburn’s report says that 84% of young people really do want to get a job, education or training, but the policies of this Government are making that even harder. Given that the Government are looking for a reset moment, perhaps over the summer, will the Minister ask his Cabinet colleagues to look again at the increases in national insurance and business rates, and at repealing the most damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act, which are doing so much damage to the life prospects of our young people?

    Hansard source
16. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

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

    Hansard source
17. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    I rise to speak to amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 6, which appear in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I will say a little about each amendment and new clause in turn. I will also refer to new clause 5, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), and say at least a little about the multiplicity of Government amendments that have just been tabled, in particular Government amendment 54 on the proposed Crown immunity for the defence housing service. By your leave, Madam Chairman, I propose to speak to the amendments first and then to refer to the new clauses a little later in the debate so as not to try the patience of the Committee with an inordinately long speech. I hope that we have collectively done the House and, indeed, the armed forces a service in our scrutiny of the Bill so far. The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, most of whose members are here, held seven oral evidence sessions on the Bill’s contents, as well as making a fact-finding visit to the Defence Serious Crime Command in Fareham and to defence housing sites at Emsworth near His Majesty’s Naval Base Portsmouth. As a Committee, we received 47 pieces of written evidence and heard from 42 witnesses. Having held the evidence sessions, we then went through a detailed process of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill and produced our subsequent report to the House, which was published on 29 April. The Bill has already had quite a detailed amount of scrutiny; however, it is right that a measure of such importance is now in Committee on the Floor of the House. I reiterate my disappointment that Reform does not regard these proceedings as important. I am sure that the rest of us do; that is why we are here.

    Hansard source
18. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

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

    Hansard source
19. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

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

    Hansard source
20. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

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

    Hansard source
21. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

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

    Hansard source
22. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

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

    Hansard source
23. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

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

    Hansard source
24. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

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

    Hansard source
25. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    I fully acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s point about education being a devolved matter, which makes the SEN issue more complicated. He is quite correct about that, but does he acknowledge that amendment 2 allows for that and specifically refers to it? Secondly, there is no cross-border issue in England. If I agree with him that this would best be done via an education Bill, will he agree with me that in England there is no impediment whatsoever to making the transfer of EHCPs for service children mandatory?

    Hansard source
26. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    The difference is that, while people in civilian life sometimes have to move jobs at the behest of their employer, service personnel are ordered to go. They really have no choice: once they have been posted, they have to go. Therefore, in ordering them to go, the state should have a moral obligation to deal with the consequences for special needs children. Does the hon. Member accept that that is a difference between service and civilian life, and that under the principle of “no disadvantage” in the covenant, the state should do the right thing?

    Hansard source
27. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    Having addressed our amendments towards the opening of the debate, I will now speak to the new clauses. New clause 3 would create a veterans’ commissioner for England. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) made a good case for doing so during the Select Committee on the Bill, and did so again this afternoon. She received cross-party support—certainly in principle—from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who made an extremely thoughtful contribution. He also gave my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) some support for new clause 5, which I will come to in a moment. When I was debating the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill—now the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025—with the Minister some months ago, he gave a commitment that the veterans’ commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be mirrored by the appointment of a veterans’ commissioner for England. However, that has still not come to pass. Could he explain to the Committee where the Government now sit on this issue? When can we expect them to honour their pledge to create a veterans’ commissioner for England? Have they begun any interview process, to at least begin to identify a suitable candidate for the role? The Government gave their word on this. The Committee would be grateful for an update from the Minister on where the Government are with this matter. I turn to new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, which has the support of over 20 hon. Members. The essence of the new clause is that no fees should be charged to serving or previously serving members of the armed forces, or their family members, who are applying for indefinite leave to remain under the immigration rules appendix for His Majesty’s armed forces. In practical terms, the new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 so that when members of the armed forces apply for ILR, in return for their willingness to serve the Crown, the attendant fees would be waived. This is a particular issue for Gurkha families, and foreign and Commonwealth personnel who are serving, or have served, in the armed forces.

    Hansard source
28. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I think she may have been here just a few months ago when we had a debate about the history of the Gurkhas in British service. I echo everything she said about the bravest of the brave. I therefore look forward to her supporting the new clause in the Division Lobby this evening. The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland have campaigned on this matter for a number of years. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon for taking up the cudgels so effectively on their behalf this afternoon. As he argued powerfully, Governments of both colours have indicated in the past that they were minded to make this change. Indeed, it is worth reiterating that this proposal was in both the Conservatives’ and Labour’s 2024 general election manifestos, but the change has yet to come to pass. Having re-examined the issue within His Majesty’s Opposition and consulted shadow departmental colleagues, I am pleased to tell the Committee that should my hon. Friend seek to press the new clause—and should you grant that request, Madam Chairman—we on the Opposition Front Bench will support it. We encourage all hon. Members to do so, too. There would be a cost to the process, but we believe that, in return for service to this country, the Ministry of Defence should absorb that cost in its wider budget. The annual cost would be a very modest outgoing, given the scale of the defence budget. In other words, the Department would bear the cost, not those who have served or their families. People should not be disadvantaged for having offered to serve this country in uniform. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon put the case very well, and I will not try the House’s patience by repeating it. Suffice it to say that I believe that there is a strong moral case for doing this, and I very much hope that the Government might be prepared to accept the amendment. If they are not, I hope that my hon. Friend will press his amendment to a vote, and in that case, I hope that the whole House will find it in their heart to support it. New clauses 1 and 6 relate to the European convention on human rights and its effect on armed forces personnel, including, potentially, reservists who might be mobilised under the auspices of the Bill. How did we get to a situation in which the convention has spread to the battlefield, not just in Europe, but globally? The history is significant here; it lies behind why we tabled the two new clauses. This all came about because of something called the al-Jedda case, which was heard before the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords a couple of years or so before the United Kingdom Supreme Court was created back in 2009. The al-Jedda case was about the treatment of a prisoner detained in Iraq during Operation Telic, and was brought by a now disgraced lawyer called Phil Shiner. His name will be known to anyone who has ever served in the British Army. For the record, Shiner was subsequently convicted of fraud and struck off as a practising solicitor. Phil Shiner instructed legal counsel to put forward his case to the House of Lords. The lead appellant in that case, before he became a Member of Parliament, was one Keir Starmer QC. The Minister for Veterans and People got into some trouble over that, because when we highlighted the matter in the Commons, she was adamant that he had not been working for Shiner. Unfortunately for the Minister, we had the court records from the House of Lords, which showed very clearly that Keir Starmer, as he then was, was the lead appellant appointed and instructed—that word is used in the records—by Phil Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers. The Minister had the embarrassment of having to come to the Commons in February to correct the record and admit that our version of events, as explained to the Commons, was true. Phil Shiner was a persistent man, particularly when money was at stake, so several years after losing in the House of Lords, he took the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. To be clear, Keir Starmer was not acting in that action. Shiner won, so the Strasbourg Court ruled that the European convention on human rights would then apply to any theatre in which British armed forces personnel were serving. Through that judgment, an industry was effectively created, which Shiner then massively exploited. He brought literally hundreds of cases against current and past British armed forces personnel. Many of the cases were funded by British taxpayers through legal aid, and were completely and utterly fabricated for money. It was the use of the ECHR that allowed him to do that. In other debates in the Chamber, we have heard senior Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, say that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution. Self-evidently, there must be, because otherwise why was Shiner struck off and convicted of fraud by a court of law? There can be—in fact, there were—hundreds of vexatious prosecutions against British military personnel. It was, for the record, Johnny Mercer, a former Member of this House, when he served on the Defence Committee some years ago, who led a sub-Committee investigation into this issue. Its very powerful report helped to bring Shiner to book, no doubt saving the taxpayer a lot of money, and leading to Shiner’s career ending in disgrace. To come to the present day, what if there were a ceasefire in Ukraine? Let us posit a situation in which, under the auspices of the coalition of the willing, British service personnel were deployed to Ukraine. If, by some happenstance, they became involved in a firefight with Russian troops who had made an incursion across the line of ceasefire, who is to say that years—maybe decades—later, those personnel would not end up in a court of law for obeying what they believed to be perfectly legitimate orders, after some second-guessing by a human rights lawyer, perhaps with Russian assistance? In short, we cannot allow this Government’s obsession with human rights to put our armed forces at risk, either now, in the future or historically, and potentially force them to fight ruthless opponents with one arm tied behind their back. This issue will not go away, and at some point, the Government will be forced to address it, be it through the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill or some other mechanism. The purpose of these new clauses is to force them to address it today.

    Hansard source
29. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    It is extremely sad that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to conflate two completely different issues, and I suspect that anyone who actually served on Operation Telic would understand that. Having made that point, let me turn to the Opposition’s new clause 2, which would require the Secretary of State for Defence to lay a defence investment plan before Parliament within a month of the passage of this Act, if it had still not been published by then, which, for reasons I will come to in a minute, is not as fantastical as it might seem. For context, today is the one-year anniversary of the publication of the Government’s much-vaunted strategic defence review. There is a lot of good in the document, but one of the criticisms made at the time was that much of the programmatic detail on which new equipment the Government intended to purchase for our armed forces was omitted. For instance, the Government talked about buying “up to” 12 new nuclear attack submarines. That could mean two. All that detail was going to be provided in the defence investment plan, but one year on, it has still not been published. This has drawn serious criticism from right across the defence industry, and also from the authors of the SDR. Indeed, the lead author, Lord Robertson, a lifelong Labour man to his fingertips, has accused the Prime Minister of “corrosive complacency” because of the ongoing delay in saying how the Government will fund the strategic defence review and its attendant equipment requirements. When we were in government, we used to publish a 10-year plan for the purchase of military equipment, universally known as the equipment plan.

    Hansard source
30. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    In a moment. The plan allowed industry to make rational decisions about where to invest, helped to improve the morale of our armed forces by letting them know about the new equipment they could expect to come into service, and had an important deterrent effect on our potential adversaries by laying out exactly what we intended to buy for the defence of the realm. All those things have now been put at risk by a year of the Government’s endless prevarication and inaction.

    Hansard source
31. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

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

    Hansard source
32. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

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

    Hansard source
33. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We would all like to know when we are going to have it, but the reason we do not have it is simple. It is not that the staff work has not been completed—it has. It is not that the programmes have not been costed—they have. The fundamental problem is that while Ministers say they are working flat out and knocking themselves out on it, and are reduced to euphemisms about how hard they are working, it was actually done months ago. The problem is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer adamantly refuses to sign it, because if she signed it, she would have to say how she is going to pay for it. That is why MOD Ministers are completely hide-bound: the Prime Minister will not force the Chancellor to sign the equipment plan for the armed forces of the United Kingdom. The delay is becoming a farce. Indeed, we are now being widely criticised by our international partners, including, just the other day, the chairman of the NATO Military Committee. At Defence questions, the Secretary of State was adamant that the Prime Minister wanted the DIP published by the NATO summit. That raises two questions: which NATO summit, and which Prime Minister? Assuming he means the summit in Ankara on 7 to 8 July, this vital document will be delayed for yet another month. What is worse, last year there were £2.6 billion of in-year operational cuts to the defence budget, and this year there are £3.5 billion of in-year cuts. We will press new clause 2 to force a vote on a backstop plan to produce the DIP, to remind His Majesty’s Treasury that the first duty of government, above all others, is the defence of the realm. We cannot defend the realm with a lot of bluster and an equipment plan that does not exist.

    Hansard source
34. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    On new clause 5, we do not yet have the date for the second day on this Bill for Report and Third Reading, but it seems likely that it will be before the summer recess on 16 July. Taking the Minister at his word, and knowing where his heart lies on this issue, will he give the House an assurance that when we get that second day—whenever it is—and we table a similar amendment on Report, he will be able to come back to us with some progress, including with the Home Office?

    Hansard source
35. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Armed Forces Bill

    I will move it, Ma’am! New Clause 5 Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or dependants of serving or discharged member of the armed forces “(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows. (2) In section 68, after subsection (11) insert— “11A Fees may not be charged No fees may be charged in respect of a serving or previously serving member of the armed forces or their family members applying for indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules Appendix HM Armed Forces.”” —(Mr Francois.) This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
36. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Community Pharmacies

    I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. When I met the Minister in April, we were going through the consultation on the pharmacy contract, but we are yet to hear any announcement. Does the hon. Member agree that the pharmacies we all rely on need certainty about when their contract negotiations and the associated funding will be completed?

    Hansard source
37. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Household Energy Bills

    11. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce household energy bills.

    Hansard source
38. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Household Energy Bills

    In my constituency, 3,199 households currently experience fuel poverty due to high energy costs, and costs linked to the Government’s clean energy agenda could mean that household bills are set to rise by at least £100 in the next four years. How long will hard-working families in South West Hertfordshire have to pay the price for Labour’s ideological dash away from domestic energy production until it has a credible plan to fill the gaps in its energy policy?

    Hansard source
39. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Topical Questions

    I thank the Secretary of State for not approving the Morgan and Morecambe wind farm cable corridor and for deferring the decision for six months for further consultation. I know how much he wants to achieve his target, so I know how difficult that decision will have been. Together with cross-party local councils, I have written to him to articulate the available alternative routes. Will he use these six months to consider those alternatives?

    Hansard source
40. 2 Jun 2026·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Armed Forces Bill

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

    Hansard source