Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill: Special Report on the Armed Forces Bill 2026

Armed Forces Bill 2026

Skip to main content

Armed Forces Bill 2026

This is a House of Commons committee special report, including a government response to an earlier committee report.

First Special Report of Session 2024–26

Author:

Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill

Related inquiry:

Armed Forces Bill 2026

Date PublishedWednesday 29 April 2026

Download and Share

Download icon

Download the Report [PDF, 1MB]

Share icon

Copy URL

Contents

Summary

Parliamentary consent for maintaining standing Armed Forces has been a constitutional requirement since the Bill of Rights 1688; in modern times Parliament has granted its consent by passing an Armed Forces Bill every five years. Armed Forces Bills are also used to bring forward changes to legislation relating to the Armed Forces.

The 2026 Bill includes a range of measures on policy areas including the Armed Forces Covenant, defence housing, the service justice system and reserve forces. Our report discusses what we consider to be the most significant changes in the Bill. Overall, we support the measures in the Bill but also highlight areas where effective implementation will be important if legislation is to make a positive impact on our Armed Forces.

The Armed Forces Covenant

The Armed Forces Covenant is a commitment from the nation to the Armed Forces community that serving personnel, their families and veterans should not be disadvantaged in civilian life because of their service. This includes a legal duty on certain public bodies to have due regard to this principle in the areas of education, healthcare and housing. Clause 2 of the Bill would extend this duty to new policy areas such as employment, social care and personal taxation. It would also extend the duty to Whitehall departments and to the Devolved Administrations. We welcome the principle of this change, which we believe can make the Covenant more effective in addressing the disadvantages faced by the Armed Forces community. However, we note that the existing Covenant has not always been consistently delivered, and we agree with our witnesses that clear guidance and support on how to deliver the expanded duty is needed for it to be most effective.

Defence Housing

Clause 3 of the Bill would create a new non-departmental public body, the Defence Housing Service (DHS), which would take over management of defence housing from the MOD’s Defence Infrastructure Organisation. The new Service is part of the Defence Housing Strategy which aims to improve the condition of defence housing. The creation of the DHS was widely welcomed, as was the promise of £9 billion investment to support its work. It is essential that the DHS remains properly resourced so that it can lead the revitalisation of defence housing that service families deserve.

The Service Justice System

The Bill would make a number of changes to the operation of the Service Justice System. Many of these are aimed at better supporting victims of serious crimes, including sexual offences, stalking and domestic abuse. These include the creation of new restrictive orders, a new code of practice for victims of service offences, and an expanded duty on Commanding Officers to report serious offences. We welcome these measures but believe they must be accompanied by proper training to ensure they are effectively understood and implemented within the Armed Forces and the Service Justice System.

The Bill would also introduce new guidance on the advice that should be provided to victims in cases subject to concurrent jurisdiction (i.e. where the case could be tried in either a service or a civilian court). We believe this guidance will help victims make a more informed choice when expressing a preference for one system or another. During our inquiry we heard debate on how the two systems measure conviction rates for serious sexual offences—we believe that victims ought to have the best possible information available to them in order to make an informed decision, and so we recommend the Government commissions independent research into relative conviction rates for these offences. We also heard differing views on whether serious offences should automatically be tried in civilian courts—we conclude that the Government should not rule out this course of action in the future.

Reserves

The Bill makes several changes aimed at allowing the Armed Forces to make better use of the Reserve Forces. Clause 31 would make it easier for people to transfer between the Reserve and Regular Forces and so support more flexible career paths for people who may wish to move between full-time service and career opportunities in related fields such as the defence industry. We wholeheartedly welcome this change.

The Bill would also change the conditions under which Reserves may be called out for permanent service, including raising the maximum age for non-officer Reservists to 65 and standardising liability across the single services. We welcome these measures, but recommend that robust metrics are developed to monitor how effective they are in growing the Reserve. We also note that the measures will be most effective if MOD delivers the Strategic Defence Review’s objective of implementing a modern digital system for managing Reserves by January 2027.

The measures in the Bill will help to grow the Strategic Reserve, but we find that they will have a more limited impact on the Active Reserve, and the Strategic Defence Review’s ambition to grow that Reserve by 20%. We recommend that the MOD updates the House on how this target will be achieved.

Next steps

We look forward to the Government’s response to our conclusions and recommendations. In addition to our findings in this report, we have also carried out line-by-line consideration of the Bill; we hope that this detailed scrutiny, together with this special report, will inform debate on the Bill as it continues through the House.

1
The Armed Forces Bill 2026

1.
The Armed Forces Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on 15 January 2026. Parliamentary consent for maintaining standing Armed Forces has been a constitutional requirement since the Bill of Rights 1688; in modern times Parliament has granted its consent by passing an Armed Forces Bill every five years. In addition to meeting this constitutional requirement, these bills are used as an opportunity to update legislation relating to the Armed Forces. The Bill currently before the House includes measures relating to a range of policy areas, most notably the Armed Forces Covenant, defence housing, the Service Justice System and Reserve Forces.

2.
Since the 1950s it has been the convention that Armed Forces Bills receive additional scrutiny in the form of an ad hoc Select Committee, which the Commons appoints after Second Reading to consider the Bill before reporting it back to Committee of the Whole House. The Committee typically also produces a Special Report like this one. The House chose to continue this practice and agreed to establish a Committee on 26 January, before appointing us on 9 February. We are grateful to have had the opportunity to consider this important legislation in detail.

Our scrutiny

3.
Our approach to scrutinising the Bill reflects that of previous Armed Forces Bill Committees. We invited written evidence on the Bill and held seven oral evidence sessions, as well as carrying out fact-finding visits to Defence Serious Crime Command in Fareham and defence housing sites in Emsworth, near HMNB Portsmouth; this evidence forms the basis for our findings in this special report. Altogether we received 47 written evidence submissions and heard from 42 witnesses. We are immensely grateful to all those who took the time to contribute to our scrutiny of this Bill.

4.
This special report does not address every measure in the Bill and focuses on those measures we consider to be most significant: the Armed Forces Covenant, defence housing, the Service Justice System and Reserve Forces. We also briefly comment on the Bill’s counter-drone measures and changes to parliamentary control of Armed Forces numbers in Chapter 6. We did nevertheless consider the Bill in its entirety: like previous Armed Forces Bill Committees we also carried out line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, during which we debated each clause of the Bill as well as potential amendments and new clauses. Records of these sessions can be found on the Bill’s page on Parliament’s website.
1
Alongside this special report, we are reporting the Bill back to the House for further consideration. We hope that our scrutiny will inform discussion on the Bill as it continues its passage through Parliament.

2
The Armed Forces Covenant

The Armed Forces Covenant and Clause 2 of the Bill

5.
The Armed Forces Covenant is a statement of the moral obligation which exists between the nation, the Government and the Armed Forces. It aims to support all members of the Armed Forces community, including serving personnel, their families, and veterans. The core principles of the Covenant recognise:

the unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by, the Armed Forces;

that it is desirable to remove disadvantages arising for service people from membership, or former membership, of the Armed Forces; and

that special provision for service people may be justified by the effects on such people of membership, or former membership, of the Armed Forces.
2

The Covenant was first published in 2011, and the above principles were put on a statutory footing by the Armed Forces Act 2011.
3
The Armed Forces Act 2021 introduced a new ‘legal duty’: a requirement on public bodies, such as the NHS and local authorities, to have ‘due regard’ to the principles of the Covenant when carrying out certain public functions related to housing, healthcare and education.
4

6.
The Government has previously stated its intention to build on existing legislation relating to the Covenant. The Labour Party’s general election manifesto included a commitment to put the Covenant “fully into law”.
5
In June 2025 the Government announced it would use the Armed Forces Bill to extend the Covenant legal duty to new policy areas, and to make the duty apply to all UK Government departments and to the devolved administrations.
6
These measures were included in this Bill as Clause 2. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that these measures deliver on the manifesto commitment.
7

7.
The expanded Covenant duty in Clause 2 would extend the duty of due regard so that it covers a total of twelve policy areas, an increase from the three which are covered at present—health, housing and education.
8
It also extends the reach of the duty to ‘national authorities’, a category which includes UK Government departments, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. Clause 2(2) gives the Secretary of State the power to issue guidance on how to apply the duty, and bodies subject to the duty must have regard to this guidance.
9

Commentary on the Bill

8.
The majority of evidence submissions we received welcomed the extension of the Covenant to new policy areas. Several contributions argued that the existing Covenant duty had a positive impact on the lives of the Armed Forces community but did not currently cover all the areas in which the Armed Forces community experiences disadvantage.
10

9.
Witnesses also welcomed the extension of the Covenant duty to UK Government departments and to the devolved administrations.
11
Some witnesses said they hoped making Whitehall departments subject to the Covenant legal duty would result in the needs of the Armed Forces community being better taken into account in policymaking.
12
Nick Hamer, Chief Risk Officer and Armed Forces Advocate at the Department for Work and Pensions, told us he thought the main impacts on his department would be on “broader departmental thinking, policymaking and programme work,” and on “education, understanding and communication.”
13
On devolution, the Veterans Commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland welcomed the extension of the duty to the devolved governments.
14
All three commissioners said that differences in policy between the nations of the UK led to inconsistencies in the support available to veterans, and agreed that the extension of the Covenant should help to address this by requiring policymakers across the UK to consider the needs of the Armed Forces community.
15

10.
While the expansion of the duty was widely welcomed, some of the evidence we received nonetheless highlighted risks. Several contributors said that expanding the duty to new policy areas would create new demands on service providers, particularly local authorities which are already under significant resource pressures;
16
the Forces Families Federations noted that some local authorities already struggle to resource the delivery of the existing Covenant duty.
17
Caroline Bell, representing the Local Government Association Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network, noted that the upcoming changes to local authority structures in England meant councils were already going through a period of significant change, which could make implementing the Covenant more challenging.
18
As a result of the above challenges, several submissions requested that dedicated funding be made available to support Covenant delivery.
19

11.
Witnesses also stressed that clear guidance would be needed to support effective and consistent application of the Covenant duty. We heard that the delivery of the existing Covenant duty varied in quality, and some witnesses expressed concern that the same would be true for the expanded duty.
20
The Local Government Association said that inconsistent guidance was a cause of the variability of Covenant delivery:

[C]ouncils consistently face challenges with inconsistent statutory guidance and little to no top-down leadership and support from central government departments affected by the Covenant such as MHCLG, DfE etc. This leads to varied interpretations and inconsistent applications, creating geographical disparities.
21
Witnesses therefore argued for statutory guidance to be as clear as possible, to give delivery bodies a clear steer on what is expected from them and asked that service providers and the Armed Forces community be consulted during the development of that guidance.
22

12.
One reason witnesses emphasised the need for clear guidance was that the Bill requires those subject to the duty to have ‘due regard’ to the principles of the Covenant but does not specify what this entails. Collette Musgrave of the Army Families Federation told us due regard could be a “very nebulous concept” to many of the service families they worked with,
23
adding:

you cannot but say that due regard does need some strengthening, in very simple language, to explain it both to the service provider and to the service person and their family and to boil it down to some quite simple but impactful statements about what it is and what it is not.
24
We asked the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to provide us with their own definition of due regard. MOD told us that,

[T]he intent is not to be prescriptive about the approach a body should take in order to comply with their legal obligations, or which particular conclusions are to be reached, or which outcomes are to be achieved as a result of that consideration. It is deliberately flexible, to ensure that bodies subject to the duty are able to take decisions that are right for their local context and circumstances.
25
Several witnesses noted that due regard was a recognised standard and an appropriate mechanism for the Covenant duty,
26
but at the same time said that effective delivery would depend on statutory guidance being clear about what is expected of those subject to the duty and how delivery is to be measured and reported.
27
The Minister added that the rollout of Op VALOUR—the Government’s new initiative aimed at creating a UK-wide veteran support network—would help to ensure effective and consistent delivery of the Covenant duty.
28

13.

conclusion
We welcome the principle of the expansion of the scope of the Armed Forces Covenant under Clause 2 of the Bill. The expanded Covenant will better reflect the range of areas in which the Armed Forces community faces disadvantage and provide a better statutory basis for addressing those disadvantages. If the expanded duty is properly implemented, we are confident it will make a positive difference to the lives of people in the Armed Forces community.

14.

conclusion
Legislating is only the first step in the process of strengthening the Covenant. The challenge over the coming years will be to ensure that the Covenant duty is properly understood and applied. Delivery of the existing Covenant is not as consistent as it should be, and there is a risk that this issue persists as the Covenant is expanded to new policy areas and delivery bodies. There will need to be clear guidance about what the duty means and how to meet it, and delivery of the Covenant needs to be appropriately prioritised and resourced if the expanded duty is to make a real difference.

15.

recommendation
The Government should publish an evaluation, before the end of this Parliament, of how the Covenant duty is being implemented by local authorities, Whitehall departments and the devolved administrations. This should evaluate whether the Covenant duty is being implemented consistently across the UK, and in a way that is consistent with the policy’s objectives.

16.

conclusion
Service providers do not always understand what the duty of ‘due regard’ means and what the Covenant asks of them, nor is it always clear to people in the Armed Forces community what due regard means for them and what kind of help they are entitled to. Clearer communication about the meaning of due regard would help improve understanding of the Covenant, and in doing so make delivery more consistent and increase confidence in the Covenant within the Armed Forces community.

17.

recommendation
The guidance issued to those responsible for delivering the Covenant duty must include a clear and prominent explanation of what it means to give due regard to the Covenant’s principles, similar to the explanation the department provided to us. Similarly, information about the Covenant aimed at the Armed Forces community needs to prominently explain what the Covenant legal duty entitles them to, to give them clear expectations about the kind of support they will receive.

Other issues

18.
During our inquiry Canon Peter Bruinvels, the Co-Chair of the Local Government Association’s Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network, highlighted that the definition of local authority in the Bill does not encompass all kinds of local government body—for example, unitary authorities, mayoral strategic authorities and combined authorities.
29

19.

conclusion
We heard concerns that the Bill’s definition of a local authority to which the Covenant will apply does not capture all kinds of local authority in the UK. We assume the Government does intend for the Covenant duty to apply to these bodies. It would be helpful for the Bill to be clearer about who the duty will apply to.

20.

recommendation
The Government should consider whether the definition of local authority in the Bill needs updating to ensure that all types of local authority are subject to the Covenant duty and should amend the Bill accordingly if necessary.

21.
Several people told us that having good data on the Armed Forces community helped service providers to meet the Covenant duty more effectively.
30
The Local Government Association and the Forces in Mind Trust, a charity which supports ex-service personnel and their families in transitioning to civilian life, both noted that the inclusion of a question in the 2021 census asking people whether they had served in the Armed Forces had given service providers a better understanding of the Armed Forces community and helped them to plan services accordingly. They both recommended that this question be retained in the 2031 census.
31
The Minister strongly supported its inclusion and told us the Ministry of Defence “have taken this on with the ONS to make sure it is included in the next census.”
32

22.

conclusion
The inclusion of a question in the 2021 census asking whether respondents had previously served in the Armed Forces has helped to support delivery of the Covenant.

23.

recommendation
The 2031 census should include a question asking whether respondents have previously served in the Armed Forces, repeating the question asked in the 2021 census. The Government should continue to convey, in its discussions with the Office for National Statistics about preparations for the census, the important value of this question in delivering the Armed Forces Covenant and supporting the veterans community.

3
Defence Housing

Defence Housing and Clause 3 of the Bill

24.
Clause 3 and Schedule 1 of the Bill relate to defence housing and the establishment of a new non-departmental public body, the Defence Housing Service (DHS), with the aim of improving the quality of accommodation for service families. Under-investment in an aging Defence estate over many years, due to funding constraints and a “fix on fail” maintenance policy
33
led to two-thirds of Service Family Accommodation in 2023/24 being in such poor condition that it was no longer fit for purpose.
34
The Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)—the department in the Ministry of Defence which until now has been responsible for accommodation—has struggled with persistent problems with poor contractor performance, poor quality of maintenance and repair work, and damp and mould across the estate.
35
Satisfaction with Service Family Accommodation fell in 2023 to its lowest reported levels, impacting recruitment, retention and morale.
36

25.
In January 2025, the Secretary of State announced that the MOD would be buying back over 36,000 homes, originally sold to Annington Property Limited in 1996, bringing the Armed Forces housing estate back into public ownership.
37
The Annington deal had left the Government paying for both the maintenance and the rent, but unable to benefit from the increase in the properties’ value or to demolish and rebuild or to pursue potential development opportunities. The reacquisition of the Defence estate has enabled the MoD to plan for the development of new homes for military families.
38

26.
The functions of the new Defence Housing Service are:

Improving the supply and quality of defence housing;

Managing land or other property used (or formerly used) for defence purposes;

Securing the regeneration or development of such land or other property; and

Supporting in other ways -
i.
The creation, regeneration or development of service communities, and

ii.
The continued wellbeing of those communities.

These functions may include acting as a landlord for military housing, facilitating moves and maintaining homes. The DHS will have new powers to exercise its functions, such as entering into contracts and acquiring and disposing of land.
39

27.
The Secretary of State will set the budget for the DHS and appoint the Chief Executive, who will report directly to him.
40
The DHS will be accountable to the Ministry of Defence and to Parliament, through annual reporting and accounts.
41

28.
The creation of the Defence Housing Service fulfils Pillar 2 of the Defence Housing Strategy, published in November 2025 and commissioned by the Secretary of State (see Box 1). The MOD also introduced a new Consumer Charter for service families in April 2025, to improve consumers’ lived experience and create a more customer-focused approach to housing. The Consumer Charter includes commitments like a better move-in standard; clearer information before moving in such as photographs and floor plans; more reliable repairs; better communication and a named housing officer for every service family; a simpler complaints process reduced to two stages and more freedom to allow families to make their own home improvements.
42

Box 1Defence Housing Strategy 2025

Pillar 1:

A Generational RenewalA 10-year funding programme with £9 billion investment to modernise or upgrade nine in ten (around 43,000) Defence homes.

Pillar 2:

Forces FirstA new dedicated Defence Housing Service, focusing on the needs of serving personnel and their families, and offering new home ownership opportunities for personnel and veterans using MOD land.

Pillar 3:

Delivering for the NationEnsuring that Defence land is used more effectively to deliver homes for military and civilian families and supports national housebuilding aims.

Commentary on the Defence Housing Service

29.
Overall, the evidence we received on the DHS supported structural reform and the transference of responsibility for defence housing away from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO). The Forces Families Federations described the DHS as “promising” and “positive” and that, “it appears to be being set up in a way that addresses all the issues that we have raised directly from families in the past—concerns around governance, transparency, engagement and hearing the customer voice.”
43
The Minister for the Armed Forces told us,

DIO has been under extreme pressure across quite an aged estate, ranging from bases to single living accommodation and service family accommodation. By separating this out and professionalising it in an arm’s length body, you relieve the capacity and capability in DIO to focus on our basing and strategic facilities.
44
30.
The Minister set out the consequences of long-term under-investment in Defence housing, “we have left our families in a state of disarray, and our estate is dilapidated because of a lack of consistent funding, proper leadership and correct management.”
45

31.
Some of the evidence we received highlighted the need for adequate investment in housing, and also the challenges the DHS must overcome. These include meeting operational requirements, raising housing standards and achieving better oversight of contractual performance for maintenance and repair work.
46
Natalie Elphicke Ross (Chair of the Defence Housing Strategy review team) noted that there are currently not enough homes in the right places due to poor planning and management. She said the annual planning cycle within the Department, “sits at odds with the long-term asset management investment strategy” and “leads to poor-value outcomes for taxpayers”.
47

32.
Dr Gabriella Misca (Principal Investigator, “Living in Our Shoes Revisited” Project Team, University of Birmingham
48
) concluded, “structural reform alone will not resolve persistent concerns unless accompanied by enforceable standards and performance monitoring.”
49
The Families Federations said that the DHS will enable “long-term reform without fragmented or contractor-driven decision-making” and the 6,000 responses they received from serving personnel and their families to the Future of Defence Housing Questionnaire in 2025, “provide a consistent message that greater investment in housing, a raising of standards, and better communication to families is urgently needed.”
50

33.
The Future Defence Infrastructure Service (FDIS) contracts awarded by DIO in 2021, to Pinnacle for housing management and customer service (now taken over by Hyde housing group) and to Amey and VIVO Defence Services for repairs and maintenance, run until 2029 and will be transferred to the DHS. The MOD admits “the introduction of and performance under the FDIS arrangements has been problematic”
51
with a huge backlog in maintenance work and service families reporting issues with response times, missed appointments and lengthy delays to resolve loss of heating and hot water, as well as ongoing issues with mould and damp in some homes.
52
The Defence Housing Strategy Review team concluded that “not only do these outsourcing arrangements fail to produce the right outcomes for Service personnel and their families, they are also expensive when compared to similar costs borne by other large housing providers. Work undertaken for the Strategy review indicated that running costs may have been two to three times the average for a comparable housing landlord.”
53

34.
David Brewer (Chief Operating Officer at the Defence Infrastructure Organisation) said that contractor performance had significantly improved and that the DHS would employ an experienced team of contracting engineers to oversee the work delivered by the contractors.
54
However, Natalie Elphicke Ross said the contractors were not meeting the higher move-in standards and one house they went to inspect “had a metal spike sticking out of the wall at a child’s eye height.”
55
Mr Brewer maintained, that the contractors are now meeting their service level targets and “by working smartly, there is opportunity for us all to deliver much better service and much better value for money.”
56

35.
Natalie Elphicke Ross pointed to the issue that in the past no-one has taken responsibility for the whole of housing delivery, because contractors had been tasked with individual, specific jobs, and not with improving the condition of entire homes. One of the changes that has been introduced recently is to increase the number of housing officers to oversee move-in standards and assurance processes. There is a commitment in the Consumer Charter to provide a named housing officer for every family. At present housing officers are employed by the contractor; when asked whether the DHS could use trained military staff instead to fulfil this role, David Brewer said they had employed military clerks of works to do some survey work for the strategy and “we are absolutely taking advantage of those skills, and we will do a lot more of that.”
57

36.

conclusion
We recognise that a 10-year costed plan with £9 billion investment to support the Defence Housing Service’s delivery work is a positive outcome for Armed Forces families. The DHS must be adequately resourced to achieve its purpose of fixing Defence housing, and this requires more stable long-term funding than has previously been committed to building and maintaining the Defence estate. The MOD and Treasury must prioritise longer-term stability and multi-year funding settlements for the DHS in the future to provide service personnel and their families with the quality of housing they deserve.

37.

conclusion
The MOD has historically struggled to resolve issues with poor contractor performance, poor quality of maintenance and repair work and poor value for money. The Future Defence Infrastructure Services (FDIS) contracts for customer service, maintenance and repairs for SFA, continue until 2029. The Government must ensure that standards of workmanship and overall contractor performance improve during the time these contracts remain in place.

38.

recommendation
The DHS must embed accountability for contractors through robust processes and reporting mechanisms and ensure professional oversight of contractor performance and resources. These measures should include enforceable penalties for poor performance, independent inspections of refurbishment and maintenance works, better monitoring of customer satisfaction and an effective complaints process.

39.

recommendation
The Defence Housing Consumer Charter has introduced more housing officers on the ground to support families with their housing needs; however, this resource is provided by the contractor, who may not have direct understanding of service life. The DHS should trial using military personnel and veterans to fulfil the local housing officer roles. They understand service life and can ensure independent oversight of maintenance and repair work and consistency of housing standards across the estate.

Development on Defence land

40.
The regeneration or development of Defence land is one of DHS’s functions, set out in the Bill. This aligns with Pillar 3 of the Defence Housing Strategy on how surplus Defence land will be used more effectively to deliver homes for military and civilian families and support national housebuilding aims. The Ministry of Defence suggests that the Defence Housing Service will be able to take advantage of opportunities to attract private finance and institutional investment for development projects, in addition to the income from current land and homes and asset disposal, to help fund DHS and meet renewal costs.
58

41.
The written evidence we received welcomed new housing provision, particularly the opportunity it presents to improve housing for veterans.
59
Cobseo (The Confederation of Service Charities) said they would like more recognition from DHS “of the role played by smaller, specialist providers within the veteran space which includes the provision of supported and sheltered accommodation for older veterans”.
60
The Royal British Veterans Enterprise expressed concern that locating housing for veterans on surplus MOD land could “harm the quality of life for veterans and their families if they are not close to meaningful work and cannot integrate comfortably into the mainstream community.”
61

42.

conclusion
We support the DHS’s remit to build homes on surplus Defence land to benefit serving personnel, veterans and local communities. We welcome the opportunity this presents to improve the provision of veterans’ housing, ensuring it meets veterans’ needs and results in better integration of veterans within local communities, with access to amenities and employment opportunities.

43.

recommendation
We encourage the MOD to have more meaningful engagement with veterans’ charities and local authorities to ensure that homes for veterans are given proper consideration as part of the regeneration of surplus MOD land.

Other Housing Matters

44.
The following issues are not covered in the Bill, but were raised in both oral and written evidence, and have an impact on serving personnel, and therefore we think they should be included in this report.

Entitlement to Service Family Accommodation

45.
For several years, the MOD has been promising service personnel a Modernised Accommodation Offer (MAO), which would extend entitlement to Service Family Accommodation to those in long-term relationships and those with shared parental responsibilities. However, the scheme to deliver this new offer was paused before it was due to go live in March 2024.
62
At that time, approximately 27% (49,400) of Armed Forces personnel were in long-term relationships, many of them with children, and 5,000 personnel had responsibility for non-resident children.
63

46.
The Defence Housing Strategy review team found that there was “inadequate planning and capital investment to have enabled the MAO to be rolled out within the Defence Housing estate” and proposed a widening of entitlement as part of the renewal and development programme, with the caveat that “widening access to Defence Homes will take time to deliver.”
64
Cat Calder from the Army Families Federation said an interim scheme would be announced by the end of April 2026.
65

47.
The Naval, Army and RAF Families Federations told us that those in long-term relationships have been disadvantaged by a longstanding lack of access to subsidised SFA and families have “been in limbo for two years” following the pause of the Modernised Accommodation Offer.
66

48.
The Housing Strategy review team has also been looking at ways to reduce the number of times military families are required to move house. Natalie Elphicke Ross explained that sometimes families are moved to a new location which is only a few miles away from their current home but within another local authority area; this can require them to move schools or doctors, among other issues. The review team has been exploring a zonal approach to housing allocation, whereby families could be located in zones rather than attached to a particular location.
67

49.

conclusion
The MOD’s housing allocation policy is outdated and does not meet the needs of modern families. Service personnel in long-term relationships and those with shared parental responsibilities have been waiting a long time to become entitled to Service Family Accommodation. They are currently eligible when surplus housing is available. Widening of entitlement was identified in the housing strategy as a long-term objective but, due to a shortage of housing, serving personnel have no clarity about when it will happen. The Families Federations said that an interim policy was due to be announced in April 2026.

50.

recommendation
Within 6 months of its establishment, the DHS should outline a timeline for widening entitlement to Service Family Accommodation to include those in long-term relationships and those with shared parental responsibilities; and provide more detailed information about its new proposed zonal approach to housing allocation, which is intended to reduce the number of times families are required to move.

Single Living Accommodation

51.
The Forces Families Federations told us about concerns about the condition of Single Living Accommodation as well as Service Family Accommodation.
68
The Ministry of Defence has launched an independent review into Single Living Accommodation provision, which is being chaired by Natalie Elphicke Ross, who delivered the Defence Housing Strategy 2025. The Review will report on UK accommodation by Summer 2026, and overseas sites by the end of December 2026.
69

52.

recommendation
We welcome the MOD’s review into Single Living Accommodation (SLA), to be published by the end of 2026. We urge the MOD to commit to a costed plan for improving the condition and maintenance of SLA in the UK and overseas within twelve months of the review’s completion.

4
The Service Justice System

The Service Justice System and Clauses 5 to 29 of the Bill

53.
The Service Justice System provides the legal framework to allow the Armed Forces to operate under a single justice system whether in the UK or overseas. It mirrors the civilian criminal system in most respects, but also includes offences unique to the Armed Forces, such as desertion, absence without leave or misconduct.
70
While in the UK, Service personnel are subject to both Service and civilian criminal jurisdiction. This is known as concurrent jurisdiction.
71

54.
Clauses 5 to 29 of the Bill relate to the Service Justice System.
72
The clauses make a number of substantive changes to the Service Justice System, such as creating additional powers to protect victims from domestic abuse and sexual harm, introducing a victims’ code of practice, extending the duty on Commanding Officers to report serious offences to the Service Police, and measures to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Service Courts. Some of these measures also bring the powers of the Service Justice System in closer alignment with the civilian system. The key measures in the Bill are described in more detail below. Other clauses are minor or technical in nature and are not discussed in this report; these were considered as part of our line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill.
73

55.
The Ministry of Defence intends for these measures to improve victim support, to protect victims of the most serious offences from further harm, and to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Service Justice System.
74
In recent years, the Armed Forces has received significant criticism over its failure to appropriately address incidents of sexual abuse amongst Service personnel, including high profile cases such as the sexual assault and subsequent suicide of Gunner Jaysley-Louise Beck.
75
The Defence Sub-Committee 2021 inquiry, Women in the Armed Forces, examined more closely the experiences of female Service personnel in the Armed Forces.
76

General commentary on the Bill

56.
The majority of evidence submissions welcomed the measures in the Bill and suggested that the measures represented a positive step in improving the support available to victims of Service offences. Witnesses recognised that the ongoing work of the Ministry of Defence and Service Justice System to improve the experiences of victims and survivors had led to some positive changes since the 2021 Armed Forces Bill and Defence Committee Inquiry into Women in the Armed Forces.
77
However, some contributions raised concerns that whilst the Ministry of Defence was clearly taking steps to improve support and address wider cultural challenges, these initiatives had yet to deliver significant improvements to the experiences of Service personnel. These witnesses therefore insisted on the need for these measures to be accompanied by comprehensive training, communication and education to ensure personnel involved in the Service Justice System can enforce and implement the measures effectively.
78
Witnesses also spoke to the need for wider cultural, rather than just legislative, change.
79

Clauses 5 to 9Protection from sexual and violent behaviour, domestic abuse, stalking and harassment

57.
Clauses 5 to 9 of the Bill would give the Service Police and Court Martial additional powers to protect individuals from sexual harm and domestic abuse. Clauses 5 and 6 introduce Service Sexual Harm Prevention Orders, Sexual Risk Orders, Domestic Abuse Protection Orders and Stalking Protection Orders.
80
These orders would be applied to individuals convicted or cautioned for certain offences, and are designed to be restrictive measures that protect victims from further harm. They mirror existing civilian domestic abuse protection orders.
81

58.
Witnesses told us the introduction of these restrictive orders represents an important step forward in improving the Service Justice System’s ability to protect victim-survivors of domestic abuse and sexual harm. Zoë Jackson, representing Aurora New Dawn, a domestic abuse charity which works closely with the Armed Forces, said the orders were a “long-overdue alignment” with the protections already available in civilian contexts.
82
His Honour Judge Alan Large, Judge Advocate General of the UK Armed Forces, highlighted that these powers would allow courts to impose conditions that are tailored to the unique operational and living environments of Service personnel, which would reduce risks both on and off duty.
83
The Director of Service Prosecutions, Mary Cowe, noted that by creating greater parity between the powers of the Service and Civilian justice systems, victims would be able to express jurisdictional preferences without having to consider that protections available in one system might not be available in another.
84

59.
Whilst these measures were welcomed in principle, witnesses raised concerns that their effectiveness would depend on the awareness and enforcement capabilities of the Service and civilian police. Zoë Jackson of Aurora New Dawn highlighted that the enforcement of these civilian protective orders is an ongoing issue for civilian police, who would in practice be responsible for enforcement of the new Service orders, particularly where families live “outside the wire” (outside of military bases).
85
Zoë Jackson also highlighted that deployment cycles mean that Service policing personnel can spend significant periods of time away from general policing duties and that continual and repeated training would be necessary to ensure policing personnel could effectively use the powers under Clauses 5 and 6.
86

60.
Portsmouth City Council suggest that the effectiveness of these protections would also depend on victims’ willingness to come forward. According to local data, 55% of Armed Forces community respondents who experienced unhealthy or abusive behaviour did not seek support, compared with 38% of the civilian sample.
87
Portsmouth City Council therefore suggested that the value of these orders would only be realised if they are embedded within a system that victims trust, with leadership, training and culture that ensure orders are used confidently and consistently.
88

61.
Mary Cowe, Director of Service Prosecutions, highlighted a potential legislative gap affecting Clause 6. The gap relates to circumstances where a convicted defendant was subject to service law or service discipline at the time of the offending, or at the point of charge, but leaves the service before sentencing takes place at Court Martial.
89
Therefore, if a defendant is no longer subject to service law by the time the court is considering a restrictive order, no order can be made even if the defendant was in uniform when committing the offence or at the point of charge, when jurisdiction was being considered. Mary Cowe suggested that this could affect the making of Service Domestic Abuse Protection Orders and Service Stalking Protection Orders.
90

62.

conclusion
We are concerned by evidence that pointed to potential difficulties regarding the enforceability of the restrictive orders to be introduced under Clauses 5 and 6, particularly in the unique context of forces life where Service personnel are deployed and operate globally in a range of environments, including Sovereign Base Areas.

63.

recommendation
The introduction of the restrictive orders under Clauses 5 and 6 should be accompanied by extensive training across the system in order for the measures to be properly understood, implemented, and enforced.

64.

conclusion
The Director of Service Prosecutions Mary Cowe identified a potential legislative gap which could undermine the enforceability of orders under Clause 6 of the Bill. Her interpretation was that someone convicted of an offence while in uniform, but who left the Service before Court Martial could not be subjected to Service Domestic Abuse Protection Orders and Service Stalking Protection Orders. This would run contrary to the policy objectives of the measure.

65.

recommendation
We recommend that the Ministry of Defence examines this potential legislative gap in order to determine whether it could have the effect outlined by the Director of Service Prosecutions. If such a gap does exist, we recommend that the Ministry of Defence brings forward amendments for Committee of the Whole House to address it.

Clauses 10 to 11Support for victims of service offences

66.
Clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to issue a new code of practice for “victims of service offences”, as defined by Clause 10.
91
This would place the existing code of practice on a statutory footing.
92
Under the code of practice, victims of service offences should have:

Access to information to help them understand the service justice process

Access to services which support them

The opportunity to make their views heard in the service justice process

The ability to challenge decisions which directly impact them.
93

67.
Witnesses agreed that the code would give victims of Service offences and professionals supporting victims of Service offences greater confidence in understanding their rights and the support available to them.
94
Zoë Jackson from Aurora New Dawn said the code would act as a framework for those advocating from within the system, which would help to ensure that victims receive appropriate support at an early stage.
95

68.
Witnesses highlighted that the code should be tailored to recognise the unique context of service life.
96
Ahmed Al-Nahhas, Head of Military Claims at legal firm Bolt Burdon Kemp, highlighted the unique legal position of Service personnel and the need for a signposting service to provide clear advice on civil and employment law rights.
97

69.
Sarah Atherton, former Minister for Defence People, Veterans, and Service Families, raised concerns that processes, policies and services are extremely varied across the Armed Forces, given the variety of environments in which Service personnel are deployed, and the code would require uniformity of service provision across defence.
98
For instance, on some deployments, Service personnel do not have access to forensic medical examination kits or forensic medical examiners, which means personnel have to be flown back to the UK in instances of serious sexual assault.
99
Sarah Atherton also raised concerns that there was low awareness in the Armed Forces community about organisations commissioned by the Ministry of Defence to provide support to victims, such as Aurora New Dawn, and that there needs to be adequate communication to build awareness of the code.
100
Emma Norton from the Centre for Military Justice, a charity which provides legal advice and support to Service personnel and their families, also raised concerns about whether the code would apply to victims whose cases are being tried in the Civilian, rather than Service, criminal jurisdiction.
101

70.

conclusion
We welcome the measures in the Bill relating to the victims’ code of practice under Clause 10 and agree with witnesses that it will help to deliver more consistent support for victims of service offences. However, the Government should pay careful attention to make sure the code is implemented effectively, given the unique context of Armed Forces life which means Service personnel have varying access to resources and support.

71.

recommendation
We recommend that the Ministry of Defence delivers comprehensive training and education to accompany the introduction of the victims’ code of practice.

Clauses 12 to 16Investigation, arrest and charging

72.
Clauses 12 to 16 expand the powers of the Service Police and Courts and bring the Service Justice System in closer alignment with the Civilian system.
102
Clause 12 would introduce a new duty on the Secretary of State to issue a Service Policing Protocol.
103
The purpose of the protocol is to ensure the independence of investigations conducted by the Service Police and the Defence Serious Crime Unit and to improve working relations between the various bodies involved in Service justice.
104
The principle of independence between the Service Police and Chain of Command is set out in legislation under section 115A of the Armed Forces Act 2006.
105

73.
The Provost Marshal of the Defence Serious Crime Command, Brigadier Kristian Rotchell, stated that the protocol would ensure victim confidence in the independence of investigations.
106
Mary Cowe, Director of Service Prosecutions, said by underscoring the principle of independence, the protocol would enable the various bodies working with the Service Justice System, such as the Service Prosecuting Agency, to have greater confidence to decline requests to share information with other defence bodies, therefore improving policing outcomes.
107

74.
The Centre for Military Justice raised concerns that whilst the principle of independence of investigations had long been established in legislation, they had experienced cases where the Chain of Command had close contact with Service Police, without justification by the facts of the case, which had caused deep alarm to victims.
108

Clauses 17Duties and powers of Commanding Officers

75.
Currently, Commanding Officers are required to report a serious offence to the Service Police if it has been committed by an individual in their immediate Chain of Command. Clause 17 would extend this duty by requiring a Commanding Officer to report, regardless of whether the individual is in their immediate Chain of Command.
109
A “serious offence” refers to any offence listed in
Schedule 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006
.
110

76.
The evidence we received was broadly positive about the expansion of the duty. Director of Service Prosecutions Mary Cowe suggested that this measure would increase protection for victims of crime, for instance, by increasing the chance of an incident being reported where there is a complex command structure and it is unclear to whom the duty falls.
111
Jonathan Rees KC, Service Police Complaints Commissioner, agreed on this point.
112
The Ministry of Defence said they hoped this expansion would have a significant cultural impact by encouraging Commanding Officers to take ownership in cases of misconduct.
113

77.
However, some contributions criticised the level of involvement Commanding Officers [COs] have in the Service Justice and complaints reporting process.
114
Evidence from domestic abuse charity Aurora New Dawn, which works closely with COs on domestic abuse cases, noted that COs had variable levels of understanding of domestic abuse. Whilst some COs embraced partnership working and were receptive to specialist advice, other COs had been unwilling to accept safeguarding advice and had taken decisions which had placed victims at greater risk and led to further harm. Aurora New Dawn noted that COs receive limited, if any, training in this area, and suggested that standardised training should be produced in light of the Bill in order to improve the level of understanding.
115

78.
The Centre for Military Justice (CMJ), whilst welcoming Clause 17, also raised concerns that presently, Commanding Officers are not necessarily required to refer domestic abuse cases to the Service Police, as domestic abuse offences generally do not fall under Schedule 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. Commanding Officers can instead deal with these cases summarily.
116
The CMJ suggested that Schedule 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 should be amended to prevent Commanding Officers from dealing with allegations of domestic abuse through summary powers.
117

79.
The CMJ also raised concerns that should a Commanding Officer deal with a domestic abuse case summarily, this may not count as a Service offence for the purpose of Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, meaning provisions under Clause 9 of the Bill would not apply.
118

80.
Other witnesses said that statistics demonstrated that Service personnel do not feel comfortable reporting instances of inappropriate sexual behaviour, and that there was a lack of faith in the system.
119
The results from the 2024 Armed Forces Sexualised Behaviours and Sexual Harassment Survey show that 26% of female regular personnel did not report sexualised behaviours as they did not believe that anything would be done about it, and 19% because they believed it would negatively impact their career.
120

81.
Nina Slocombe, Head of the Victim Witness Care Unit, highlighted that there had been cases where a victim disclosed that they had reported cases which were not promptly dealt with, or had not felt supported in their day-to-day work. Largely, however, Chains of Command were supportive of victims. Nina Slocombe also highlighted that when cases are assigned to the VWCU, victims have preference over whether their Chain of Command is informed of the case.
121

82.
Witnesses also noted a lack of awareness about the various reporting routes available to Service personnel. Emma Norton from the Centre for Military Justice mentioned that historically, women had repeatedly raised that they were not aware they could report offences to the civilian police, though this lack of awareness among Service personnel was becoming less common.
122
Brigadier Kristian Rotchell highlighted that a new reporting mechanism for victims of crime in defence would be introduced, independent of the Chain of Command. This would reportedly allow anybody, anywhere in the world, to report a crime online to the Service Police.
123

83.
Some witnesses said that the duty did not have an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure Commanding Officers treated it seriously.
124
However, Brigadier Kristian Rotchell highlighted that there are existing offences such as failure to perform a duty, or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, which could be applied should a Commanding Officer fail to perform their duty under Clause 27.
125
Brigadier Rotchell added that there had been discussions about extending the duty: however, it was felt that if the duty was extended to cover other Service personnel, it could have an adverse effect on Service personnel who may feel unable to have sensitive, private conversations with colleagues if those colleagues could then be criminalised for not reporting an offence.
126

84.

conclusion
We welcome the expansion of the existing duty on Commanding Officers to report serious offences to the Service Police, though there are concerns about whether Commanding Officers have the appropriate training to play this role in the reporting process. Whilst Service personnel are able to report criminal offences to Home Office police, and the Ministry of Defence has begun work to make reporting routes independent, it is unclear how widely understood these processes are.

85.

recommendation
The Ministry of Defence should review the training available to Commanding Officers to ensure there is a consistent understanding of their responsibilities when Service personnel report an offence. The Ministry of Defence should also deliver comprehensive education and communication to ensure that Service personnel are aware of these alternative reporting routes.

Clauses 20 to 26Service courts

86.
Clauses 20 to 26 would make a number of changes to the operation of Service Courts, including introducing additional powers which already exist within the Civilian court system.
127
The evidence we received was largely focused on Clause 25 and the issue of concurrent jurisdiction.

Concurrent jurisdiction

87.
In the UK, both the Service and Civilian justice system have jurisdiction over service offences that are also offences under criminal law.
128
This is known as “concurrent jurisdiction”. Clause 25 would create a duty on the Secretary of State to introduce guidance on the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.
129
The guidance would be issued to “persons who have functions of a public nature relating to victims of alleged conduct that occurred in the UK constituting an offence that could be tried in either a service court or a civilian court” who would be required to have regard to the guidance when advising a victim on the differences between the Service and Civilian justice systems. The purpose of the guidance would be to allow a victim of a service offence to make an informed decision about whether an offence should be tried in a civilian or service court, where concurrent jurisdiction is relevant.
130

88.
Until the introduction of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the Service Justice System did not have jurisdiction over offences such as murder, manslaughter and rape.
131
Now, the Service Police and Service Courts have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute such offences. However, according to the Manual of Service Law, the civilian police and courts normally investigate and prosecute these cases.
132
As provided for in the Armed Forces Act 2021, prosecutors’ protocols have been put in place and are used to make case-by-case decisions in relation to the jurisdiction in which a case should be dealt. If there is any disagreement between prosecutors, it is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to make the final decision. The Committee received a range of evidence on the issue of concurrent jurisdiction. The Lyons Review into the Service Justice System recommended in 2018 and 2019 that the Court Martial jurisdiction should no longer include murder, manslaughter and rape, if those offences were committed in the UK, without the consent of the Attorney General.
133
The review found that whilst the extension of service jurisdiction had only been intended for use in exceptional cases, for instance where the interests of justice would be better served by the flexibility of the Court Martial, crimes such as service person on service person rape were now normally tried by Court Martial.
134
The previous Government did not take forward these changes in the Armed Forces Act 2021. The more recent Henriques Review, published in October 2021, agreed with the decision to retain Service jurisdiction over these offences.
135

89.
The domestic abuse charity Aurora New Dawn welcomed the provisions in Clause 25, suggesting that they would help victims to make an informed choice when expressing a preference as to whether their case should be tried in either the Civilian or Service jurisdiction.
136
The charity also said that they were satisfied that both the Service and Civilian system should retain jurisdiction over serious offences, as civilian courts often do not have the expertise to understand the unique context of Armed Forces life which can impact the outcome of a trial:

On a recent case at Crown Court, the victim had to explain the whole military process and had to translate all the language and terminology, including the rank system, when she took the stand. This meant her giving evidence took over two and a half hours. In Court Martial, she would have probably only taken the stand for an hour. This goes a little of the way to show what a difference having military understanding means. Her OIC [Officer in the Case] (civilian), who visited her before she left Crown Court, said she had no idea how complex the military system was. It is easy for perpetrators to use the general public’s lack of understanding to their advantage.
137
Other witnesses broadly welcomed the principle that victims and survivors should be able to express a preference between Service and Civilian jurisdiction, though some were sceptical over how often victims were actually given the option to express a preference, and whether they are encouraged to pursue their case in the Service system.
138
Jonathan Rees KC, Service Police Complaints Commissioner, stated that in sampling exercises, he had found that in the vast majority of cases, victims had been asked to express a preference, and this preference coincided with the chosen jurisdiction.
139

90.
Some witnesses were critical of the Service Justice System’s ability to deliver justice and support victims, particularly in cases of serious sexual assault.
140
Emma Norton from the Centre of Military Justice raised concerns about the information that victims and survivors would be provided with under the Clause 25 guidance, especially if this were to include comparative information on conviction rates between the Service and Civilian system.
141
Emma Norton highlighted that existing academic evidence and research carried out by the Centre for Military Justice suggests that rape conviction rates at Court Martial are significantly lower than at Crown Court, and conflict with the Ministry of Defence’s position that conviction rates are broadly similar across the Civilian and Service Justice System.
142
Director of Service Prosecutions Mary Cowe highlighted that comparisons between the two systems were inherently volatile, as the Civilian system prosecutes 1,500 to 2,500 cases of rape a year, whilst the Service system prosecutes about 20 to 30 cases each year. The victim attrition rate for rape offences—victims withdrawing from the process—in the last two years in the SJS was zero.
143

91.

conclusion
The Committee heard a range of evidence relating to concurrent jurisdiction and the Lyons Review recommendations that certain offences such as murder, manslaughter, and rape, should be exclusively tried in the Civilian system, except for cases where the Attorney General gives consent for the case to be heard in the Service Justice jurisdiction. There was broad support for the approach in Clause 25 and 26 regarding seeking the victim’s preference; however, it was also recognised that while there had been considerable progress in the SJS, further improvements were still needed.

92.

recommendation
The Government should not rule out opting for automatic civilian criminal jurisdiction in the future if the evidence suggests that this will result in better experiences and outcomes for victims.

93.

conclusion
There was some disagreement in the evidence we heard about whether information on conviction rates for serious sexual offences can be accurately compared between the Service and Civilian justice systems, for instance for the purpose of the guidance on criminal jurisdiction in Clause 25.

94.

recommendation
The Government should commission independent research into serious sexual offence conviction rates in the Service Justice System in order to achieve clarity on how the conviction rates between the Service and Civilian systems can be accurately compared.

Court martial boards

95.
Under current legislation, only Service personnel who previously held the rank of Warrant Officer before becoming a commissioned officer automatically qualify to sit on a Court Martial board. OR-7 rank personnel were made eligible to sit on a Court Martial in the Armed Forces Act 2021.
144
However, to do so they are required to undergo a three-year qualification period as newly commissioned officers. Clause 20 makes a minor amendment to the current provision to enable OR-7s to automatically qualify upon receiving their commission. This would align the legislation with the original policy intent of the changes made in the 2021 Act.
145
Acting OR-7s would still be required to undergo the qualification period.
146

96.
The Committee received evidence about the rationale that only ranks OR-7 and above can sit on Court Martial boards, when civilian juries are made up of people from all backgrounds. Mary Cowe, Director of Service Prosecutions, suggested that it was supposed to be a “guarantee of independence”, as those on a board would not be required to judge someone who in the future may become their boss.
147
Director of Conduct, Equity and Justice at the Ministry of Defence, Sam des Forges, said that the OR-7 rank requirement was not currently causing issues, but would be something the Ministry of Defence would continue to consider and observe.
148
During line-by-line consideration of the Bill we debated whether to expand eligibility for court martial boards to include veterans. The Minister argued that board members should have up-to-date knowledge and experience of single-service policies. He added that changes to the law in 2024 meant that in court martials where the defendant was a one-star officer or above, the minimum level of the president of the board would be one-star level. He said that, in his view, as there were 200 one-star officers in the military this meant there was no capacity issue.

97.

conclusion
We recognise concerns that only officers of rank OR-7 and above can sit on Court Martial Boards, which contrasts with the civilian justice system in which juries consist of randomly selected members of the public.

98.

recommendation
We recommend that the Ministry of Defence examines the merits of expanding the cohort of people who may sit on a Court Martial board, to include Service personnel of ranks lower than OR-7.

5
Reserves

Background

99.
The Reserve Forces are governed by the Reserve Forces Act 1996,
149
which sets out the statutory provisions regarding the composition and size of the Reserve forces, the terms of service of reservist personnel, and the powers to call-out the Reserves in times of national need.

100.
There are many types of Reservists. The box below sets out the main categories of Reserves impacted by the current Armed Forces Bill.

Box 2Main categories of Reserve Forces in the Armed Forces Bill 2026

The Strategic Reserve
. This comprises members of:

Ex-Regular Reserve Forces (the Royal Fleet Reserve, the Regular Reserve and the Air Force Reserve; these forces are often collectively called the Regular Reserve).
150
They consist of former members of the armed forces who, on discharge, are transferred to the reserves for a period of time. Members retain a legal liability to train for up to 16 days a year and to be mobilised if necessary.

Recall Reserve. Former members of the armed forces, who are not members of either the Volunteer Reserve (see below) or the Regular Reserve. They retain a legal liability to be recalled for permanent service into the armed forces in certain circumstances.

Volunteer Reserve
: Comprising the Army Reserve (formerly the Territorial Army), the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Marines Reserve, and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. They consist of civilians who enlist on a part-time basis and have an ongoing training commitment and a mobilisation obligation.
151
The Volunteer Reserve is sometimes also referred to as the Active Reserve. Therefore, these terms are used interchangeably in this report.

SourceHouse of Commons Library paper on the Armed Forces Bill 2024–26
152

Summary of the Reserves provisions in the Bill

101.
Changes to the Reserve Forces are one of the more significant elements of the Bill (Clauses 31 to 37 and Schedules 5 and 6). The intention of these measures is to modernise the way the Armed Forces use reserves, aligning the Reserve Forces Act 1996 with the ‘whole force’ approach set down in the 2025 Strategic Defence Review (SDR) implementing the SDR’s recommendations on readiness and the Strategic Reserve.
153
We consider these measures in the sections below, before considering how the measures in the Bill relate to the wider ambitions of the SDR.

Simplification and standardisation of the Reserves structure

102.
Our witnesses described to us an overcomplicated Reserves landscape. Lieutenant General (retd) Sir Nick Pope, Senior Military Adviser to the Haythornthwaite Review of Armed Forces Incentivisation, added that the “[Review] discovered 28 different types of Reserve service, of terms and conditions of service, so it is an extraordinarily complicated area”.
154
Lord Peach, Chair of the UK Reserve Forces External Scrutiny Team, thought it was time to “tidy up the landscape and not complicate it any further”.
155
In his evidence the Minister agreed, citing two types of Reserve forces, seven Reserve services and 16 different terms and conditions of service. He concluded that “I am going to be really honest: the thing’s a mess” and saw the Bill as a first step to simplifying the process.
156

Clause 31Flexible Service

103.
The Reserves Forces Review 2030,
157
published in 2021, recommended exploring ways to unlock the full potential of the Reserve component of the UK’s Armed Forces, such as simplifying the various types of reserve commitment. The 2023 Haythornthwaite Review into Armed Forces Incentivisation recommended a ‘spectrum of service approach’ (often referred to as the ‘zigzag career’) which would replace the current blanket terms of service with individualised ones.
158
These would allow an individual to determine their engagement type, engagement length, compulsion, mobility and military training factors, making their service much more flexible. This would allow personnel to leave and rejoin the service after working in a different profession (such as in government or industry). The 2023 Defence Command Paper Refresh said that this and other areas of the Haythornthwaite Review would be taken forward as a priority.
159

104.
The Bill’s Explanatory Notes state that MOD wishes to create a more flexible framework that would allow Service Personnel to serve in different types of service, such as regular and reserve, multiple times over their career.
160
Clause 31 is intended to assist in meeting this ambition by removing any friction caused by having to leave and rejoin, and so provide Service Personnel more career flexibility and choice. The Bill’s Impact Assessment states that these measures align with the key themes and recommendations outlined in the Reserve Forces 2030 Review, the Haythornthwaite Review, and the recent SDR.
161

105.
At present, members of the regular Armed Forces wishing to transfer to the Volunteer Reserve are required to be formally discharged from the Regulars and then must rejoin the Reserves. The same is also true of Reservists wishing to join the Regulars. In the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, MOD stated that this could lead to “some undesirable outcomes”, such as individuals being asked to re-take medicals or re-attest.
162

106.
Lieutenant General (retd) Sir Nick Pope viewed these measures as only a start in implementing flexible service. He told us:

Ultimately, from my perspective, if we were to move to the far end of Haythornthwaite, you would say that the issue of categorising an individual as a full-time Regular service individual or a Volunteer Reservist is putting a boundary on a continuum of service. I would rather have a system where you have individuals who, for the first part of their service, would probably be full time, probably 100% committed, because that is where you are when you are a young man or woman, but as you move through and start to come into family situations, you may want to have choice—you may want to dial down your commitment for a bit and then dial it up subsequently.
This issue about moving around the spectrum of service is something the review was very strong on. The current way we differentiate between buckets—Volunteer Reserve or full-time Regular Reserve—does not really allow that. It is about rethinking the people model from the get-go. That would be where we are trying to get to.
163
Lord Lancaster added that anyone who wished to transfer from the Regular Armed Forces to the part time Volunteer Reserve should be allowed to do so.
164

107.

conclusion
We recognise the absurdity that currently, members of the Regular Armed Forces who wish to transfer to the Volunteer Reserve must be formally discharged from the regulars and then re-join the Reserves. The same is also true of any Reservist wishing to join the regulars. We also note that our witnesses saw the Bill’s flexible service measures as only a starting point and more work is needed on personnel being able to move easily around the spectrum of service.

108.

conclusion
We fully support the Bill’s intention to provide greater flexibility to Service personnel and to improve their ability to “zigzag” from the Regulars to the Reserves and vice versa. As national security threats change and increase at ever growing speed, it is essential that the UK Armed Forces are able to call on all available personnel without unacceptable administrative delays.

109.

recommendation
MOD should implement mechanisms to capture data on the level of use and effectiveness of the “zigzag” career pathways provisions. We agree with our witnesses that the measures in this Bill are only a starting point and look forward to the House receiving further detail from MOD on its plans for further reforms of the Armed Forces career pathways to utilise personnel to the best of their potential so as to enhance the UK Armed Forces.

Clauses 32 and 33Call out and Recall measures

110.
The Secretary of State has power to authorise the call-out of the Volunteer Reserve and the Regular Reserve component of the Strategic Reserve.
165
Clause 32 would provide the Secretary of State with the power to authorise the call-out of the Strategic Reserve for “warlike operations”, in addition to the existing call-out power relating to any “national danger, great emergency or attack on the UK”.
166
This change was supported by our witnesses. Professor Vincent Connelly, Professor of Psychology at Oxford Brookes University and academic member of the Reserve Forces External Scrutiny Team, said in his written evidence:

By extending this provision to include warlike operations gives UK Defence greater flexibility to call upon experienced individuals to be in place before an actual attack on the UK. This is especially relevant given the hybrid nature of modern conflict and the requirement to put in place transition to war measures, including military home defence, in support of NATO Article 3 [resilience] precautions, well before an attack on the UK.
167
Portsmouth City Council said that the measure could “strengthen Defence’s ability to attract people who are willing and able to serve flexibly” but added that “clarity on scope, activation protocols, and expectations around ‘keeping in touch’ arrangements will be essential for understanding organisational impact”.
168

111.
Under the existing arrangements, non-officers in the regular armed forces retain a recall liability for 18 years after they leave the service in the Army and Royal Air Force, but only six years for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, or until they reach the age of 55 for all services. Clause 33 would increase the maximum age for non-officer Reservists from 55 to 65 and standardises the recall obligation of Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel by raising it from six to 18 years, bringing them in line with the Army and RAF.

112.
Lord Lancaster and Lieutenant General (retd) Sir Nick Pope supported the measures to standardise the recall obligations between officers and other ranks.
169
Regarding the raising of the Recall Reserve age limit to 65, Professor Vincent Connelly highlighted that no other NATO nation had a Reservist age limit below that of the maximum age for Regulars, and those nations normally have a Reserve age limit higher than or equivalent to the regular age limit. This enabled them to continue to access an experienced workforce in a crisis. He therefore deemed an increase in recall liability from age 55 to age 65 as proportionate. He also supported extending the recall liability to the non-commissioned ranks of the Volunteer Reserves, among whom he said there were many years of “vital operational experience and…specialist skills not otherwise available to defence, such as cyber, engineering or medical specialities.”
170

113.

conclusion
We welcome the Reserves call-out and recall measures in Clauses 32 and 33 of the Bill. Strong Reserve Forces are an essential part of ensuring the defence and security of the nation and fulfilling the objectives and recommendations of the Strategic Defence Review.

114.

conclusion
We agree with our witnesses and MOD that the number of different types of Reserves needs simplification. We welcome the Bill’s measures to rationalise and harmonise the terms and conditions of service across all branches of the Reserves which will play a key part in reinvigorating the Reserves.

Clause 35 and Schedule 5Opt-out and opt-in provisions

115.
Clause 35 and Schedule 5 set out rules for transitioning to the new scheme, including rules by which individuals can opt in or opt out. The new rules will apply to current members of the regular forces and members of the Volunteer Reserve unless they choose to opt out of the change. The new rules will not automatically apply to members of the Regular Reserve or to veterans who have left the Armed Forces but retain a recall liability, but this cohort will be able to opt in.
171

116.
The opt-out and opt-in measures caused quite a lot of debate during our inquiry. Major General (retd) James Gordon, Chief Executive, Council of Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations and Clerk to the Reserve Forces External Scrutiny Team, questioned why the opt-out option was not being applied to everyone:

Why not have everyone on opt-out if you want to increase numbers? There might be some very good reasons that I am not privy to, but I am talking as an ex-soldier. I joined to serve Queen and country—now King and country—so I say to members of the Reserve forces, “Why wouldn’t you wish to serve King and country at a time of need in future?” There might be other things that I am not privy to; that is just my personal view.
172
Professor Vincent Connelly said research had shown that opt-out approaches usually resulted in better uptake, and higher reserve availability.
173
In his written evidence he highlighted that changing a person‘s terms and conditions could also risk a legal challenge.
174

117.
In his evidence, General Sir Richard Barrons, one of the external reviewers for the Strategic Defence Review, argued that it should be very difficult to opt out and that an opt-out “should be for some reason that is judged by others—it might be medical or family reasons”.
175
He added that “we should rekindle a model of former times where, when you sign up for Regular service, you are actually signing up for Regular and Reserve service, and you know that. To put it another way, they might not find it very convenient, but the country really needs them to come back to the colours”.

118.
In his evidence the Minister explained that MOD had chosen the opt-in provision as it would be unfair to change the terms of service of people who had left the military and no longer had liability to serve.
176
The Minister thought very few current personnel would opt out. He told us the department had not done an estimate of how many people would opt in, but that this would not significantly affect the impact of the measures in the Bill on increasing the available reserve:

We are now standardising it so that, from a young marine or private to a general, you will now have to give at least 18 years’ return of service once you leave the doors of the military, unless you are medically discharged or there is another reason. […] The reality is that from the day this Bill comes in, 14,900 people—pending 100 or 200 for medical discharge or other reasons—will have a return of service for 18 years. That will go for 18 years, so you are adding 14,900 every year.
177
The Minister added that MOD had a communications plan set and ready to go to maximise uptake.
178
Major General Marc Overton, Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Reserve Forces and Cadets), outlined that this would consist of national, local and regional campaigns and include a digital platform and social media as only 40% of Reservists engaged with the annual letter that MOD sent to them.
179
The platform is currently being developed.

119.

conclusion
We agree with witnesses that there needs to be a greater effort to instil an ethos of national service in Service personnel and the wider population, and that it should be continuously emphasised to Service personnel that when they signed up for Regular service they also signed up for subsequent Reserve service.

120.

conclusion
We support the Government’s aim to encourage current Service personnel not to opt out of the new measures. Similarly, we support the plans to encourage those who have left to opt in to the new arrangements, as it is vital that we do not lose their skills and operational experience which would be invaluable in a potential crisis.

121.

recommendation
As the Bill progresses through the House, the Government should set out its planned communications strategy, and any planned incentives, for encouraging people to serve under the new terms and conditions. The Government should also assess how it can reinforce a sense of national service in the UK Armed Forces and wider population; part of this effort should be the placement of a greater and continuous emphasis to Regulars that when they enlisted, they were also signing up to a Reservist liability.

Clause 37 and Schedule 6Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations

122.
The Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations (RFCA), support the management and delivery of the reserve and cadet forces, including maintenance of the reserve and cadet estate, and advise the Defence Council and the single services on reserve and cadet matters. There are 13 RFCAs at present, which are funded and tasked by MOD but operate as “unclassified” arms-length bodies of the department with Crown status.
180
The 2019 Sullivan Review recommended the amalgamation of the RFCAs into a single non-departmental public body.
181
Clause 37 creates this new body.
182
The MOD said the measure “centralises governance and authority to enable Defence to better leverage the RFCAs’ extensive connections and footprint in times of national crisis”.
183

123.
Major General (retd) James Gordon said that although the Associations would be “subordinate to the main board” there would continue to be regional representation to maintain a connection to reserve and cadet communities across the country.
184
Air Chief Marshal Lord Peach added:

anything that would further centralise and remove the link to the regions would be almost the opposite of the whole intention of the Strategic Defence Review and the Bill to generate the Reserve.
185

124.

recommendation
We support the Bill’s measures to unify the existing Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations into a single non-departmental public body. This is a long overdue reform from the Sullivan Review in 2019. We recommend that MOD invite the National Audit Office to carry out a review of the new body two years after its establishment to ensure that the concerns highlighted by the Review have been addressed.

The Strategic Defence Review 2025 Reserves recommendations and the Bill

125.
The Reserves measures in the Bill come in the context of the 2025 Strategic Defence Review (SDR), which made a number of recommendations aimed at making better use of the Reserves, including:

an increase in the UK’s Active Reserve forces
186
by at least 20% when funding allows, most likely in the 2030s.
187

A new Defence Readiness Bill that gives the Government powers in reserve to respond effectively in the event of escalation towards a war involving the UK or its allies.
188

Stepping up engagement with the Strategic Reserve, sustained through annual training and volunteer roles.
189

The introduction of a digitised approach to Reserves management by January 2027.
190

In his evidence, General (retd) Sir Richard Barrons, one of the lead external reviewers for the SDR, emphasised that the ambition of the SDR in terms of Reservists was reasonably modest: it recognised the imperative of rekindling the Strategic Reserve and reattaching former Regulars so that they could be called back. In respect of the Volunteer Reserve, he added:

The SDR reviewers’ take was that the Reserve was not in great shape, and so was not really ready. Collectively, we took the view that the first step was to find and get these people.
191
126.
Many of our witnesses emphasised that the measures in the Armed Forces Bill were aimed at the Strategic Reserve rather than the Active Reserve, implying they would not contribute to meeting the SDR ambition of increasing the Active Reserve by 20%. Professor Vincent Connelly wrote that

[The] Bill’s provisions on recall liability will NOT directly help achieve the Strategic Defence Review’s recommendation to increase the number of active reserves by 20% since the AFB26 measures are mostly aimed at increasing those liable for recall.
192
However, he thought that the Bill’s provisions would increase Armed Forces readiness “by increasing and extending the numbers of personnel liable for Recall in a future grave national crisis”. He said this would help the Armed Forces cover skills gaps in the military workforce, adding this would indirectly reduce pressure on the Active Reserve to fill these gaps and so enable them to focus on their core wartime missions.

127.
In its written evidence MOD confirmed that the recall measures in the Bill applied to the Strategic Reserve and would not impact the size of the Active Reserve.
193
However, their view was that the measures were “designed to optimise the availability and readiness of personnel”.
194
They added that the provisions enabled earlier and more flexible use of the Strategic Reserve and in certain circumstances allowed for more frequent use of Reservists, thereby bolstering operational effectiveness.
195
In oral evidence the Minister said the measures in the Bill would allow the Armed Forces to retain “really skilled, talented individuals with huge amounts of experience” and make use of “some of the more experienced people in society who can provide us with huge benefits to defence.”
196

128.

conclusion
We agree with witnesses that the Reserves measures in the Bill will have limited impact on the Active Reserve and the ambition to increase the Active Reserve by 20%. We look forward to the Defence Investment Plan and the promised Defence Readiness Bill both of which will be key to achieving this ambition.

129.

recommendation
While we welcome the Bill’s ambition to revitalise the Strategic Reserve, it is equally important to make progress on the Strategic Defence Review’s ambition to grow the Active Reserve. The Ministry of Defence should set out in further detail how it plans to coordinate its work on growing and utilising all types of Reservists.

Identifying and tracking Reservists

130.
The identification and tracking of Reservists is a long-term area of concern. This was recognised in the Strategic Defence Review, which recommended that a digitised approach to the management of Reserves should be established by January 2027.

131.
Although MOD has a Memorandum of Understanding with HMRC to assist with the tracking of Reservists
197
and single services have their own digital systems, witnesses highlighted that a single digitised system was needed.
198
Lord Lancaster told us that there had been significant progress and that MOD now had details of over 70,000 people liable for recall on their current system.
199
However his priority in managing the Strategic Reserve, which would need funding, was an effective data system to enable the intelligent management of Reservists. Such a system would seamlessly show not only historical military skillsets but also current civilian skillsets. Lord Lancaster added this would mean that if mobilisation was necessary it could happen in an intelligent way.
200
Major General (retd) Stephen Potter, Vice Chair of the UK Reserves External Scrutiny Team, believed that a funding bid had been made for the digitised system envisaged by the SDR but that the delay in the Defence Investment Plan had meant it was unclear whether the funding to deliver it would be available.
201

132.
The Minister acknowledged that tracking veterans who will have a Strategic Reserve liability once the Bill comes into force and keeping reservists engaged in the system were continual challenges.
202
He confirmed that MOD is currently working up the digital plan to ensure that they can keep Reservists engaged and keep the data of who is where and what skills they have. He also stressed the need to respect the wishes of those Reservists who no longer had a recall liability to disengage with MOD. We also explored with the Minister whether industry, especially defence primes, could play a role in identifying the Reservists they employ and their current skills which could help ensure that Reservists with a key civilian role, such as munitions supplies, were not recalled in the event of a national emergency. The Minister acknowledged the “very clear concern that if we were to mobilise our Reserve, it would take the heart out of the defence industry, because we have so many ex-defence personnel working in it”.
203
He added:

We need to map and track our reservist base and ensure that industry acknowledges who it has, and indeed some of the liability it has should we have to mobilise.

133.

conclusion
An essential part of achieving the Bill’s aims will be developing an effective system for identifying and tracking Reservists. We note that the Strategic Defence and Security Review recommended that a digitised approach to Reserves management should be established by January 2027. However, there has been little detail from the Ministry of Defence on how this is progressing. We agree with our witnesses that the digital system for the management of Reserves should incorporate the ability to record the current skills of Reserves as well as the skills they had when serving in the Armed Forces. This will help identify the most appropriate Reservists to mobilise. We also share concerns that, in the event of mobilisation of the Reserve, precautions should be taken to ensure that Reservists who would have a critical role in supporting the Armed Forces, such as munitions production, should not be recalled.

134.

recommendation
Prior to the Committee of the Whole House, Ministers should make a statement to the House on progress on a digital system for managing Reserves, including the options under consideration and estimated costs. It is important that this digital system is in place prior to the Reserves measures of the Bill coming into force, which is expected in Spring next year.

135.

recommendation
The Ministry of Defence should set out how it intends to capture the current skills of Reservists as part of its new digital system for managing Reserves. We strongly recommend that MOD develop with the defence industry, especially primes, a system for identifying Reservists in key roles who should not be mobilised as to do so could have a negative impact on defence capabilities.

Measuring the success of the Bill’s Reserves measures

136.
Our scrutiny of the Bill also included examining how the success of the Bill’s measures on Reserves should be measured and monitored, and who should undertake this task.

Internal scrutiny

137.
The Bill’s Impact Assessment says that MOD will “conduct a series of synthetic exercises from 2027 onwards to evaluate the effectiveness of the mobilisation process.”
204
It says this will be used to develop Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which will measure recall effectiveness, Reservist engagement, opt-in rates, availability of personnel with niche skills, the speed of accessing required personnel, and overall growth in numbers.

138.

conclusion
The planned exercises and development of KPIs to assess Reserve mobilisation readiness will be vital components of measuring the success of the Bill’s measures. It will also be essential to seek the views of Reservists on the effectiveness of the reforms.

139.

recommendation
MOD should ensure that future Tri-Service Reserves Continuous Attitude Surveys are adapted to capture Reservists’ feedback on measures introduced through the Bill. As the Reserves survey only covers the Volunteer Reserve, the MOD should ensure that the views of the Strategic Reserve are also captured by establishing a similar survey for the Strategic Reserve.

External Scrutiny

140.
At present, the UK Reserve Forces External Scrutiny Team (EST) is responsible for scrutiny of the Volunteer Reserve, and has a statutory duty to produce an annual report on the state of the Reserve under the Defence Reform Act 2014.
205
The EST’s duty does not extend to the Strategic Reserve; however, in the past, its annual report has nonetheless included some analysis of the Strategic Reserve.
206
Under the measures in this Bill the reporting requirement remains with EST and its remit remains unchanged.

141.
Although the Bill does not give the EST a formal role in monitoring implementation, in their oral evidence members of the EST told us that they were well placed to report on this, including the Strategic Reserve measures.
207
An example of the EST’s helpful independent scrutiny function was illustrated in its latest annual report where it noted that MOD still reported progress against the Future Reserves 2020 (FR20) Report’s

trained strength targets for the Volunteer Reserve of the three Single Services.
208
Their report added that “in light of the increased threat, and SDR ambition to grow the Reserve forces, it may be time to update the FR20 figures to ones that better match the future need”.

142.

conclusion
A challenge for the Ministry of Defence and wider Government will be the implementation of, and monitoring progress on, the Reserves measures. The Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations UK Reserves External Scrutiny Team provide vital independent scrutiny of the Reserve Forces, particularly through their statutory Annual Report. While their current formal remit under the Defence Reform Act 2014 is to prepare annual reports on the state of the Volunteer Reserve Force, they have also included comments on the Strategic Reserve and in evidence they indicated a willingness for this scrutiny to be placed on a formal basis.

143.

recommendation
The remit of the UK Reserves External Scrutiny Team (EST) should be extended to formally include the Strategic Reserve. This would give a holistic view of the state of UK Reserve Forces. In their annual reports the EST should scrutinise progress on the Bill’s measures and also assess the level to which the Reserves are supporting and improving Armed Forces Readiness. The EST should also include in its Annual Report an assessment of the effectiveness of the synthetic exercises and progress on the development of the KPIs, including whether the KPIs identified are the most appropriate for assessing the effectiveness of the mobilisation process.

144.

recommendation
MOD should develop robust measures to monitor progress on the intended growth in the Strategic Reserve and the Active Reserve. We note the External Scrutiny Team’s annual report suggests the development of new personnel target figures for the Reserves and recommend that MOD should consider developing indicative annual targets for the strength of the Active Reserve and Strategic Reserve, like those which were set out in the Future Reserves 2020 Report.

Costs of Reserve measures

145.
The Bill’s Impact Assessment provides information on the costs of the measures in the Bill. It states that the overall impact on businesses is assessed to be minimal or negligible.
209
It adds that the Government “has not identified any financial impacts on public sector organisations, however there may be additional future costs for MOD in developing processes to track and contact members of the Reserves”.
210

146.
The Impact Assessment does not set out all the potential costs of the measures in the Bill. It states that some initiatives, such as engagement activity with the Strategic Reserve and the digitised approach to Reserves management, are still being costed and developed.
211
The Impact Assessment does not indicate if any assessment has been made of potential additional pension costs due to raising the maximum age for Reservists to 65. Historically, only full-time Reserve Forces members were entitled to a full armed forces pension; from 1 April 2015, all Reserve Forces members were entitled to a full pension, under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2015. A retired Reserve member, Charles Milroy, who served between 1982 and 2015, recently won an Employment Tribunal case regarding their pension entitlement, and in January 2026 MOD lost its appeal against the findings.
212
The Minister told us that MOD did not expect a significant impact from the Milroy case, but that it was still examining the impact of the ruling on all employment of reservists.
213
He said he

[did] not think there will be an exceptionally large cost for our Strategic Reserve plan. The costs will be around a communication plan to ensure that our reservists stay engaged in defence. That will come out in the defence investment plan.
214

147.

conclusion
Some of the initiatives required to deliver the measures in the Bill, including annual training opportunities, exercises, and a digitised approach to Reserves management, are still being costed and developed. The Impact Assessment also gives no information on the pay and pension implications of the Bill, for example raising the age limit for Reservists to 65. It is important that the House has up to date information on the costs of the measures in the Bill.

148.

recommendation
Before the Bill is debated in Committee of the Whole House, the Government should update the House on the pay and pension implications of the measures in the Bill.

6
Other matters

149.
In addition to the issues raised in the previous chapters the Bill includes a number of other measures. We do not comment on every clause in the Bill in this report, but we did consider each clause as part of our line-by-line scrutiny.
215
In this chapter we draw attention to issues we believe are particularly significant.

Counter-drone measures

150.
Clause 4 of the Bill would introduce new powers to allow the Armed Forces to interfere with uncrewed devices, i.e. drones. The powers allow the use of equipment to detect or prevent the use of drones around defence areas and defence property, subject to authorisation.
216
Currently defence personnel are not authorised to act against uncrewed devices; only the civilian police have such powers.
217

151.
A number of incidents involving drones have been reported around MOD bases in recent years: 126 such events were recorded in 2024, and 266 in 2025.
218
MOD has acknowledged that “the number of incidents targeting defence is rising.”
219
The Minister told us there had been “significant incidents across Defence of drones in and around the defence estate,” and said that the measures in the Bill “put in place the correct protections to allow defence personnel and defence police to defeat drones, should they pose a threat to our infrastructure, people or organisations.”
220

152.

conclusion
We welcome the powers in Clause 4 of the Bill, which aim to counter drone activity around MOD sites. These powers should make it easier to protect defence sites from surveillance and interference.

153.

recommendation
MOD should publish an annual update on the number of times the powers in Clause 4 of the Bill have been used, to aid understanding of the frequency of drone activity and of the deterrence effect of these powers. MOD should also explore whether further targeted deregulation is needed to support Defence drone testing, training and operational use, ensuring the regulatory framework keeps pace with technological developments.

Parliamentary approval of Armed Forces numbers

154.
Clauses 38 and 39 of the Bill would change the statutory basis on which Parliament approves the maximum numbers of personnel in the Armed Forces. Currently, the Ministry of Defence seeks parliamentary approval for the maximum number of officers and other personnel that may be employed in each of the Regular and Reserve Forces as part of the Estimates process; the MOD presents these estimates to the House of Commons as Defence Votes A.
221
This is based on the long-standing principle, dating back to the Bill of Rights, that a standing army should not be maintained without the consent of Parliament.
222
Subsequent legislation has built on this principle by specifically legislating for parliamentary control of personnel numbers: for example, the Air Force (Constitution) Act 1917 and the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
223
The Bill would remove the sections of those Acts which require Parliament to approve those personnel numbers.
224

155.
The Ministry of Defence argues that Clauses 38 and 39 are necessary to enable more flexible use of the Armed Forces—and particularly reservists—by removing the requirement for there to be separate limits on the number of Regular and Reserve forces.
225
Major General Marc Overton, the Assistant Chief of Defence Staff (Reserve Forces and Cadets) said the department’s focus on flexible workforce policies meant the lines separating the regular forces and the various kinds of reserve were not as clear as in the past.
226

156.
The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that parliamentary control of the size of the Armed Forces will continue: the Government will produce a simplified version of Votes A which provides a combined figure for each of the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force, and will continue to seek formal approval through the MOD’s Ambit as part of the Supply and Appropriation Act.
227
The Defence Committee has argued that the proposed measures “nonetheless amount to a loss of parliamentary control”, noting that the Ambit to the Supply and Appropriation Act cannot be amended by the House.
228

157.

conclusion
Clauses 38 and 39 remove the current statutory requirements for parliamentary control of Armed Forces numbers. We recognise the need for greater flexibility in the management of the Regular and Reserve forces. We believe this ought to be achievable without diminishing the important and long-standing principle of parliamentary control.

158.

recommendation
Before the Bill is considered in Committee of the Whole House, the Government should provide a written update to the House setting out its proposed arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny and control of armed forces numbers in the future. This should make clear what information will be made available to the House and what opportunities the House will be given to debate, amend and either approve or reject the proposed limits on armed forces numbers under the new arrangements.

Matters not in the Bill

159.
The focus of our work, and of this report, has been scrutinising the measures included in the Bill. However, during the course of our scrutiny work we received evidence relating to issues which, while not addressed in the Bill as drafted, are relevant to the Armed Forces and therefore in principle within the scope of the Bill.

160.
In particular, we received several pieces of written evidence in support of Fighting With Pride’s Op INCLUSIO campaign, which raises LGBT veterans’ concerns about the Ministry of Defence’s LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme.
229
This scheme was launched in December 2024 to provide reparations to veterans who were affected by the ban on LGBT personnel serving in the Armed Forces between 1967 and 2000.
230
Fighting With Pride’s evidence states that nevertheless some veterans “remain excluded from full restorative justice,” specifically those who were dismissed prior to 1967 and the decriminalisation of homosexuality and those who were forced or coerced into resigning and so who do not meet the scheme’s criteria for Discharge and Dismissal recognition. Fighting With Pride also raised concerns about the promotion and administration of the scheme.
231

161.
We wrote to MOD to share the concerns raised by those who submitted evidence to us. In her response, the Minister for Veterans and People, Louise Sandher-Jones explained that the Financial Recognition Scheme was designed to cover personnel excluded between 1967 and 2000 only, because this was the period during which Armed Forces policy treated personnel differently to civilian law; she set out other forms of reparation available to pre-1967 veterans. The Minister said that veterans who felt pressured to resign during the ban were eligible to apply for an Impact Payment under the scheme. She also set out the work the department is doing to promote and deliver the scheme.
232
On 7 April MOD published an updated version of the scheme rules document with several clarifications.
233

162.

conclusion
We heard concerns about the ability of some LGBT veterans to receive redress for historical unjust treatment. While the progress on achieving restorative justice for LGBT veterans in recent years is welcome, it is clear that not all those who were unjustly treated in the past are satisfied with the restorative measures available.

163.

recommendation
The Ministry of Defence should hold a consultation exercise inviting feedback on the design and administration of the restorative measures currently available to LGBT veterans, including those who faced dismissal or discharge prior to 1967, to better understand the concerns about the present operation of the scheme. The Minister for Veterans and People should update the House on the findings of this exercise and any resulting changes to the scheme via a Written Ministerial Statement within twelve months of the publication of this Special Report.

Conclusion

164.

conclusion
It is very welcome that the House’s convention of creating a Select Committee to scrutinise Armed Forces Bills has given us the chance to examine the changes in this Bill so closely. The Bill would make several important changes to the law that would significantly affect the lives of people in the Armed Forces community. We believe it is important that the implementation of these changes is given equally close scrutiny. The established practices for post-legislative scrutiny of Acts should be well suited for this purpose, although we note that these have not always been consistently used.

165.

recommendation
We recommend that, three years after the passing of this Act, MOD submits a detailed memorandum to the Defence Committee giving a progress update on implementation of the Act, so that that Committee can properly scrutinise implementation of these changes. The department should facilitate any further scrutiny work that the Defence Committee may undertake—or any other parliamentary scrutiny activity undertaken—on the basis of this memorandum.

Conclusions and recommendations

The Armed Forces Covenant

1.
We welcome the principle of the expansion of the scope of the Armed Forces Covenant under Clause 2 of the Bill. The expanded Covenant will better reflect the range of areas in which the Armed Forces community faces disadvantage and provide a better statutory basis for addressing those disadvantages. If the expanded duty is properly implemented, we are confident it will make a positive difference to the lives of people in the Armed Forces community. (Conclusion, Paragraph 13)

2.
Legislating is only the first step in the process of strengthening the Covenant. The challenge over the coming years will be to ensure that the Covenant duty is properly understood and applied. Delivery of the existing Covenant is not as consistent as it should be, and there is a risk that this issue persists as the Covenant is expanded to new policy areas and delivery bodies. There will need to be clear guidance about what the duty means and how to meet it, and delivery of the Covenant needs to be appropriately prioritised and resourced if the expanded duty is to make a real difference. (Conclusion, Paragraph 14)

3.
The Government should publish an evaluation, before the end of this Parliament, of how the Covenant duty is being implemented by local authorities, Whitehall departments and the devolved administrations. This should evaluate whether the Covenant duty is being implemented consistently across the UK, and in a way that is consistent with the policy’s objectives. (Recommendation, Paragraph 15)

4.
Service providers do not always understand what the duty of ‘due regard’ means and what the Covenant asks of them, nor is it always clear to people in the Armed Forces community what due regard means for them and what kind of help they are entitled to. Clearer communication about the meaning of due regard would help improve understanding of the Covenant, and in doing so make delivery more consistent and increase confidence in the Covenant within the Armed Forces community. (Conclusion, Paragraph 16)

5.
The guidance issued to those responsible for delivering the Covenant duty must include a clear and prominent explanation of what it means to give due regard to the Covenant’s principles, similar to the explanation the department provided to us. Similarly, information about the Covenant aimed at the Armed Forces community needs to prominently explain what the Covenant legal duty entitles them to, to give them clear expectations about the kind of support they will receive. (Recommendation, Paragraph 17)

6.
We heard concerns that the Bill’s definition of a local authority to which the Covenant will apply does not capture all kinds of local authority in the UK. We assume the Government does intend for the Covenant duty to apply to these bodies. It would be helpful for the Bill to be clearer about who the duty will apply to. (Conclusion, Paragraph 19)

7.
The Government should consider whether the definition of local authority in the Bill needs updating to ensure that all types of local authority are subject to the Covenant duty and should amend the Bill accordingly if necessary. (Recommendation, Paragraph 20)

8.
The inclusion of a question in the 2021 census asking whether respondents had previously served in the Armed Forces has helped to support delivery of the Covenant. (Conclusion, Paragraph 22)

9.
The 2031 census should include a question asking whether respondents have previously served in the Armed Forces, repeating the question asked in the 2021 census. The Government should continue to convey, in its discussions with the Office for National Statistics about preparations for the census, the important value of this question in delivering the Armed Forces Covenant and supporting the veterans community. (Recommendation, Paragraph 23)

Defence Housing

10.
We recognise that a 10-year costed plan with £9 billion investment to support the Defence Housing Service’s delivery work is a positive outcome for Armed Forces families. The DHS must be adequately resourced to achieve its purpose of fixing Defence housing, and this requires more stable long-term funding than has previously been committed to building and maintaining the Defence estate. The MOD and Treasury must prioritise longer-term stability and multi-year funding settlements for the DHS in the future to provide service personnel and their families with the quality of housing they deserve. (Conclusion, Paragraph 36)

11.
The MOD has historically struggled to resolve issues with poor contractor performance, poor quality of maintenance and repair work and poor value for money. The Future Defence Infrastructure Services (FDIS) contracts for customer service, maintenance and repairs for SFA, continue until 2029. The Government must ensure that standards of workmanship and overall contractor performance improve during the time these contracts remain in place. (Conclusion, Paragraph 37)

12.
The DHS must embed accountability for contractors through robust processes and reporting mechanisms and ensure professional oversight of contractor performance and resources. These measures should include enforceable penalties for poor performance, independent inspections of refurbishment and maintenance works, better monitoring of customer satisfaction and an effective complaints process. (Recommendation, Paragraph 38)

13.
The Defence Housing Consumer Charter has introduced more housing officers on the ground to support families with their housing needs; however, this resource is provided by the contractor, who may not have direct understanding of service life. The DHS should trial using military personnel and veterans to fulfil the local housing officer roles. They understand service life and can ensure independent oversight of maintenance and repair work and consistency of housing standards across the estate. (Recommendation, Paragraph 39)

14.
We support the DHS’s remit to build homes on surplus Defence land to benefit serving personnel, veterans and local communities. We welcome the opportunity this presents to improve the provision of veterans’ housing, ensuring it meets veterans’ needs and results in better integration of veterans within local communities, with access to amenities and employment opportunities. (Conclusion, Paragraph 42)

15.
We encourage the MOD to have more meaningful engagement with veterans’ charities and local authorities to ensure that homes for veterans are given proper consideration as part of the regeneration of surplus MOD land. (Recommendation, Paragraph 43)

16.
The MOD’s housing allocation policy is outdated and does not meet the needs of modern families. Service personnel in long-term relationships and those with shared parental responsibilities have been waiting a long time to become entitled to Service Family Accommodation. They are currently eligible when surplus housing is available. Widening of entitlement was identified in the housing strategy as a long-term objective but, due to a shortage of housing, serving personnel have no clarity about when it will happen. The Families Federations said that an interim policy was due to be announced in April 2026. (Conclusion, Paragraph 49)

17.
Within 6 months of its establishment, the DHS should outline a timeline for widening entitlement to Service Family Accommodation to include those in long-term relationships and those with shared parental responsibilities; and provide more detailed information about its new proposed zonal approach to housing allocation, which is intended to reduce the number of times families are required to move. (Recommendation, Paragraph 50)

18.
We welcome the MOD’s review into Single Living Accommodation (SLA), to be published by the end of 2026. We urge the MOD to commit to a costed plan for improving the condition and maintenance of SLA in the UK and overseas within twelve months of the review’s completion. (Recommendation, Paragraph 52)

The Service Justice System

19.
We are concerned by evidence that pointed to potential difficulties regarding the enforceability of the restrictive orders to be introduced under Clauses 5 and 6, particularly in the unique context of forces life where Service personnel are deployed and operate globally in a range of environments, including Sovereign Base Areas. (Conclusion, Paragraph 62)

20.
The introduction of the restrictive orders under Clauses 5 and 6 should be accompanied by extensive training across the system in order for the measures to be properly understood, implemented, and enforced. (Recommendation, Paragraph 63)

21.
The Director of Service Prosecutions Mary Cowe identified a potential legislative gap which could undermine the enforceability of orders under Clause 6 of the Bill. Her interpretation was that someone convicted of an offence while in uniform, but who left the Service before Court Martial could not be subjected to Service Domestic Abuse Protection Orders and Service Stalking Protection Orders. This would run contrary to the policy objectives of the measure. (Conclusion, Paragraph 64)

22.
We recommend that the Ministry of Defence examines this potential legislative gap in order to determine whether it could have the effect outlined by the Director of Service Prosecutions. If such a gap does exist, we recommend that the Ministry of Defence brings forward amendments for Committee of the Whole House to address it. (Recommendation, Paragraph 65)

23.
We welcome the measures in the Bill relating to the victims’ code of practice under Clause 10 and agree with witnesses that it will help to deliver more consistent support for victims of service offences. However, the Government should pay careful attention to make sure the code is implemented effectively, given the unique context of Armed Forces life which means Service personnel have varying access to resources and support. (Conclusion, Paragraph 70)

24.
We recommend that the Ministry of Defence delivers comprehensive training and education to accompany the introduction of the victims’ code of practice. (Recommendation, Paragraph 71)

25.
We welcome the expansion of the existing duty on Commanding Officers to report serious offences to the Service Police, though there are concerns about whether Commanding Officers have the appropriate training to play this role in the reporting process. Whilst Service personnel are able to report criminal offences to Home Office police, and the Ministry of Defence has begun work to make reporting routes independent, it is unclear how widely understood these processes are. (Conclusion, Paragraph 84)

26.
The Ministry of Defence should review the training available to Commanding Officers to ensure there is a consistent understanding of their responsibilities when Service personnel report an offence. The Ministry of Defence should also deliver comprehensive education and communication to ensure that Service personnel are aware of these alternative reporting routes. (Recommendation, Paragraph 85)

27.
The Committee heard a range of evidence relating to concurrent jurisdiction and the Lyons Review recommendations that certain offences such as murder, manslaughter, and rape, should be exclusively tried in the Civilian system, except for cases where the Attorney General gives consent for the case to be heard in the Service Justice jurisdiction. There was broad support for the approach in Clause 25 and 26 regarding seeking the victim’s preference; however, it was also recognised that while there had been considerable progress in the SJS, further improvements were still needed. (Conclusion, Paragraph 91)

28.
The Government should not rule out opting for automatic civilian criminal jurisdiction in the future if the evidence suggests that this will result in better experiences and outcomes for victims. (Recommendation, Paragraph 92)

29.
There was some disagreement in the evidence we heard about whether information on conviction rates for serious sexual offences can be accurately compared between the Service and Civilian justice systems, for instance for the purpose of the guidance on criminal jurisdiction in Clause 25. (Conclusion, Paragraph 93)

30.
The Government should commission independent research into serious sexual offence conviction rates in the Service Justice System in order to achieve clarity on how the conviction rates between the Service and Civilian systems can be accurately compared. (Recommendation, Paragraph 94)

31.
We recognise concerns that only officers of rank OR-7 and above can sit on Court Martial Boards, which contrasts with the civilian justice system in which juries consist of randomly selected members of the public. (Conclusion, Paragraph 97)

32.
We recommend that the Ministry of Defence examines the merits of expanding the cohort of people who may sit on a Court Martial board, to include Service personnel of ranks lower than OR-7. (Recommendation, Paragraph 98)

Reserves

33.
We recognise the absurdity that currently, members of the Regular Armed Forces who wish to transfer to the Volunteer Reserve must be formally discharged from the regulars and then re-join the Reserves. The same is also true of any Reservist wishing to join the regulars. We also note that our witnesses saw the Bill’s flexible service measures as only a starting point and more work is needed on personnel being able to move easily around the spectrum of service. (Conclusion, Paragraph 107)

34.
We fully support the Bill’s intention to provide greater flexibility to Service personnel and to improve their ability to “zigzag” from the Regulars to the Reserves and vice versa. As national security threats change and increase at ever growing speed, it is essential that the UK Armed Forces are able to call on all available personnel without unacceptable administrative delays. (Conclusion, Paragraph 108)

35.
MOD should implement mechanisms to capture data on the level of use and effectiveness of the “zigzag” career pathways provisions. We agree with our witnesses that the measures in this Bill are only a starting point and look forward to the House receiving further detail from MOD on its plans for further reforms of the Armed Forces career pathways to utilise personnel to the best of their potential so as to enhance the UK Armed Forces. (Recommendation, Paragraph 109)

36.
We welcome the Reserves call-out and recall measures in Clauses 32 and 33 of the Bill. Strong Reserve Forces are an essential part of ensuring the defence and security of the nation and fulfilling the objectives and recommendations of the Strategic Defence Review. (Conclusion, Paragraph 113)

37.
We agree with our witnesses and MOD that the number of different types of Reserves needs simplification. We welcome the Bill’s measures to rationalise and harmonise the terms and conditions of service across all branches of the Reserves which will play a key part in reinvigorating the Reserves. (Conclusion, Paragraph 114)

38.
We agree with witnesses that there needs to be a greater effort to instil an ethos of national service in Service personnel and the wider population, and that it should be continuously emphasised to Service personnel that when they signed up for Regular service they also signed up for subsequent Reserve service. (Conclusion, Paragraph 119)

39.
We support the Government’s aim to encourage current Service personnel not to opt out of the new measures. Similarly, we support the plans to encourage those who have left to opt in to the new arrangements, as it is vital that we do not lose their skills and operational experience which would be invaluable in a potential crisis. (Conclusion, Paragraph 120)

40.
As the Bill progresses through the House, the Government should set out its planned communications strategy, and any planned incentives, for encouraging people to serve under the new terms and conditions. The Government should also assess how it can reinforce a sense of national service in the UK Armed Forces and wider population; part of this effort should be the placement of a greater and continuous emphasis to Regulars that when they enlisted, they were also signing up to a Reservist liability. (Recommendation, Paragraph 121)

41.
We support the Bill’s measures to unify the existing Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations into a single non-departmental public body. This is a long overdue reform from the Sullivan Review in 2019. We recommend that MOD invite the National Audit Office to carry out a review of the new body two years after its establishment to ensure that the concerns highlighted by the Review have been addressed. (Recommendation, Paragraph 124)

42.
We agree with witnesses that the Reserves measures in the Bill will have limited impact on the Active Reserve and the ambition to increase the Active Reserve by 20%. We look forward to the Defence Investment Plan and the promised Defence Readiness Bill both of which will be key to achieving this ambition. (Conclusion, Paragraph 128)

43.
While we welcome the Bill’s ambition to revitalise the Strategic Reserve, it is equally important to make progress on the Strategic Defence Review’s ambition to grow the Active Reserve. The Ministry of Defence should set out in further detail how it plans to coordinate its work on growing and utilising all types of Reservists. (Recommendation, Paragraph 129)

44.
An essential part of achieving the Bill’s aims will be developing an effective system for identifying and tracking Reservists. We note that the Strategic Defence and Security Review recommended that a digitised approach to Reserves management should be established by January 2027. However, there has been little detail from the Ministry of Defence on how this is progressing. We agree with our witnesses that the digital system for the management of Reserves should incorporate the ability to record the current skills of Reserves as well as the skills they had when serving in the Armed Forces. This will help identify the most appropriate Reservists to mobilise. We also share concerns that, in the event of mobilisation of the Reserve, precautions should be taken to ensure that Reservists who would have a critical role in supporting the Armed Forces, such as munitions production, should not be recalled. (Conclusion, Paragraph 133)

45.
Prior to the Committee of the Whole House, Ministers should make a statement to the House on progress on a digital system for managing Reserves, including the options under consideration and estimated costs. It is important that this digital system is in place prior to the Reserves measures of the Bill coming into force, which is expected in Spring next year. (Recommendation, Paragraph 134)

46.
The Ministry of Defence should set out how it intends to capture the current skills of Reservists as part of its new digital system for managing Reserves. We strongly recommend that MOD develop with the defence industry, especially primes, a system for identifying Reservists in key roles who should not be mobilised as to do so could have a negative impact on defence capabilities. (Recommendation, Paragraph 135)

47.
The planned exercises and development of KPIs to assess Reserve mobilisation readiness will be vital components of measuring the success of the Bill’s measures. It will also be essential to seek the views of Reservists on the effectiveness of the reforms. (Conclusion, Paragraph 138)

48.
MOD should ensure that future Tri-Service Reserves Continuous Attitude Surveys are adapted to capture Reservists’ feedback on measures introduced through the Bill. As the Reserves survey only covers the Volunteer Reserve, the MOD should ensure that the views of the Strategic Reserve are also captured by establishing a similar survey for the Strategic Reserve. (Recommendation, Paragraph 139)

49.
A challenge for the Ministry of Defence and wider Government will be the implementation of, and monitoring progress on, the Reserves measures. The Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations UK Reserves External Scrutiny Team provide vital independent scrutiny of the Reserve Forces, particularly through their statutory Annual Report. While their current formal remit under the Defence Reform Act 2014 is to prepare annual reports on the state of the Volunteer Reserve Force, they have also included comments on the Strategic Reserve and in evidence they indicated a willingness for this scrutiny to be placed on a formal basis. (Conclusion, Paragraph 142)

50.
The remit of the UK Reserves External Scrutiny Team (EST) should be extended to formally include the Strategic Reserve. This would give a holistic view of the state of UK Reserve Forces. In their annual reports the EST should scrutinise progress on the Bill’s measures and also assess the level to which the Reserves are supporting and improving Armed Forces Readiness. The EST should also include in its Annual Report an assessment of the effectiveness of the synthetic exercises and progress on the development of the KPIs, including whether the KPIs identified are the most appropriate for assessing the effectiveness of the mobilisation process. (Recommendation, Paragraph 143)

51.
MOD should develop robust measures to monitor progress on the intended growth in the Strategic Reserve and the Active Reserve. We note the External Scrutiny Team’s annual report suggests the development of new personnel target figures for the Reserves and recommend that MOD should consider developing indicative annual targets for the strength of the Active Reserve and Strategic Reserve, like those which were set out in the Future Reserves 2020 Report. (Recommendation, Paragraph 144)

52.
Some of the initiatives required to deliver the measures in the Bill, including annual training opportunities, exercises, and a digitised approach to Reserves management, are still being costed and developed. The Impact Assessment also gives no information on the pay and pension implications of the Bill, for example raising the age limit for Reservists to 65. It is important that the House has up to date information on the costs of the measures in the Bill. (Conclusion, Paragraph 147)

53.
Before the Bill is debated in Committee of the Whole House, the Government should update the House on the pay and pension implications of the measures in the Bill. (Recommendation, Paragraph 148)

Other matters

54.
We welcome the powers in Clause 4 of the Bill, which aim to counter drone activity around MOD sites. These powers should make it easier to protect defence sites from surveillance and interference. (Conclusion, Paragraph 152)

55.
MOD should publish an annual update on the number of times the powers in Clause 4 of the Bill have been used, to aid understanding of the frequency of drone activity and of the deterrence effect of these powers. MOD should also explore whether further targeted deregulation is needed to support Defence drone testing, training and operational use, ensuring the regulatory framework keeps pace with technological developments. (Recommendation, Paragraph 153)

56.
Clauses 38 and 39 remove the current statutory requirements for parliamentary control of Armed Forces numbers. We recognise the need for greater flexibility in the management of the Regular and Reserve forces. We believe this ought to be achievable without diminishing the important and long-standing principle of parliamentary control. (Conclusion, Paragraph 157)

57.
Before the Bill is considered in Committee of the Whole House, the Government should provide a written update to the House setting out its proposed arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny and control of armed forces numbers in the future. This should make clear what information will be made available to the House and what opportunities the House will be given to debate, amend and either approve or reject the proposed limits on armed forces numbers under the new arrangements. (Recommendation, Paragraph 158)

58.
We heard concerns about the ability of some LGBT veterans to receive redress for historical unjust treatment. While the progress on achieving restorative justice for LGBT veterans in recent years is welcome, it is clear that not all those who were unjustly treated in the past are satisfied with the restorative measures available. (Conclusion, Paragraph 162)

59.
The Ministry of Defence should hold a consultation exercise inviting feedback on the design and administration of the restorative measures currently available to LGBT veterans, including those who faced dismissal or discharge prior to 1967, to better understand the concerns about the present operation of the scheme. The Minister for Veterans and People should update the House on the findings of this exercise and any resulting changes to the scheme via a Written Ministerial Statement within twelve months of the publication of this Special Report. (Recommendation, Paragraph 163)

Conclusion

60.
It is very welcome that the House’s convention of creating a Select Committee to scrutinise Armed Forces Bills has given us the chance to examine the changes in this Bill so closely. The Bill would make several important changes to the law that would significantly affect the lives of people in the Armed Forces community. We believe it is important that the implementation of these changes is given equally close scrutiny. The established practices for post-legislative scrutiny of Acts should be well suited for this purpose, although we note that these have not always been consistently used. (Conclusion, Paragraph 164)

61.
We recommend that, three years after the passing of this Act, MOD submits a detailed memorandum to the Defence Committee giving a progress update on implementation of the Act, so that that Committee can properly scrutinise implementation of these changes. The department should facilitate any further scrutiny work that the Defence Committee may undertake—or any other parliamentary scrutiny activity undertaken—on the basis of this memorandum. (Recommendation, Paragraph 165)

Formal minutes

Wednesday 11 February 2026

Members present
234

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Luke Akehurst

Alex Ballinger

Sarah Bool

Juliet Campbell

Al Carns

Pam Cox

Mr Paul Foster

Mr Mark Francois

Gerald Jones

Jayne Kirkham

Mike Martin

Ian Roome

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

Rachel Taylor

Christian Wakeford

1 Declaration of Interests

Members declared their interests, in accordance with the Resolution of the House of 13 July 1992 (for details of declaration of interests, see Appendix).

2 Election of Chair

Clive Efford was called to the Chair.

3 Committee Working Practices

Resolved
, That the Committee examine witnesses in public, except where it otherwise orders.

Resolved
, That witnesses who submit written evidence to the Committee are authorised to publish it on their own account in accordance with Standing Order No. 135, subject always to the discretion of the Chair or where the Committee otherwise orders.

Resolved
, That the Committee shall not consider individual cases.

Resolved
, That the Committee shall adopt Public Bill Committee rules for line-by-line consideration of the Bill.

Resolved
, That the Committee shall delegate the following matters to the Chair’s discretion:

a.
Reporting correspondence or written evidence to the House between meetings of the committee in order to enable its publication.

b.
Engaging in correspondence on committee matters which is not sufficiently significant to require approval by the committee or is of a routine nature.

c.
Arranging informal meetings in Westminster on matters relating to the committee’s remit.

d.
Amending the timing of committee meetings, where necessary.

e.
Authorising the issue of press notices about forthcoming evidence sessions and reports.

f.
Deciding to which parliamentary proceedings committee reports should be tagged for debate in the House (or Westminster Hall).

4 Future Programme

Resolved
, That the Committee take oral evidence from the following:

Royal British Legion

Cobseo

Help for Heroes

RAF Families Federation

Naval Families Federation

Army Families Federation

Forces in Mind Trust

Combat Stress

Royal Star and Garter

Veterans Commissioners

Northern Ireland Veterans’ Commissioner

Scottish Veterans’ Commissioner

Veterans’ Commissioner for Wales

Local Government Association

Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

Welsh Local Government Association

NHS England

Scottish Government

Welsh Government

Northern Ireland Executive

Department for Work and Pensions

The Home Office

HM Treasury

Lord Houghton of Richmond

General Sir Richard Barrons

General Sir Patrick Sanders

Paul O’Neill CBE, Senior Associate Fellow, RUSI

Lord Peach, Chair, External Scrutiny Team, Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations

Major General (Retd) S J Potter, Vice Chair, External Scrutiny Team

Professor Vincent Connelly, Academic Member, External Scrutiny Team

Major General (Retd) J H Gordon CB CBE, Clerk to the External Scrutiny Team, and Chief Executive, Council of RFCAs

Major General Marc Overton, Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Reserves and Cadets)

Air Marshal Ranald Munro, Commandant General Royal Auxiliary Air Force

Natalie Elphicke-Ross, Chair, Defence Housing Strategy Review Team

Mike Green, Chief Executive, Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Aurora New Dawn

Bolt Burdon Kemp

Centre for Military Justice

Sarah Atherton

Wg Cmdr Graham House, Justice4Troops

Claire Waxman, Victims Commissioner

Mariette Hughes, Service Complaints Ombudsman

Defence Serious Crime Unit

Mary Cowe, Director of Service Prosecutions

HHJ Alan Large, Judge Advocate General

Jonathan Rees KC, Service Police Complaints Commissioner

Al Carns, Minister for the Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence

Sam des Forges, Director of Conduct, Equity and Justice, Ministry of Defence

Zoe Bishop, Director, Armed Forces People Policy, Ministry of Defence

Resolved,
that the Committee visit Portsmouth and Southwick Park, Fareham, in connection with its scrutiny of the Bill.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Tuesday 24 February 202 at 2.00pm.

Tuesday 24 February 2026

Members present

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Luke Akehurst

Alex Ballinger

Sarah Bool

Juliet Campbell

Al Carns

Mr Paul Foster

Gerald Jones

Jayne Kirkham

Mike Martin

Ian Roome

Christian Wakeford

1 Declaration of Interests

Jayne Kirkham declared her interests, in accordance with the Resolution of the House of 13 July 1992 (see Appendix).

2 Future Programme

The Committee discussed this matter

Resolved
, That the Committee take oral evidence from the following:

Lt Gen Sir Nick Pope, in his capacity as military adviser to the Haythornthwaite Review

Mark Hayhurst, Accommodation Policy Advisor at RAF Families Federation

Helen Fish, Senior Families Advocate & Accommodation Lead at Naval Families Federation

Cat Calder, Housing Specialist at Army Families Federation

3 Oral evidence - Armed Forces Bill 2026

Ted Arnold, Senior Public Affairs and Policy Manager, Help for Heroes; Mark Atkinson, Director General, Royal British Legion; Lt Gen. Sir Nick Pope KCB CBE, Chair, Confederation of British Serving and Ex-Service Organisations (Cobseo); Andrea Devlin, Director, RAF Families Federation; Collette Musgrave, Chief Executive, Army Families Federation; Rebecca Lovell, Head of Policy and Deputy CEO, Naval Families Federation; Mr Andy Cole, Chief Executive, Royal Star & Garter; Caroline Cooke, Head of Policy, Forces in Mind Trust; Chloe Mackay, Chief Executive, Combat Stress; Lt Cdr (Retd) Susie Hamilton, Scottish Veterans Commissioner; David Johnstone, Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner; and Col (Retd) James Phillips, Veterans Commissioner for Wales, gave oral evidence.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Wednesday 25 February 2026 at 9.00am.

Wednesday 25 February 2026

Members present

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Luke Akehurst

Alex Ballinger

Sarah Bool

Al Carns

Pam Cox

Mr Paul Foster

Gerald Jones

Jayne Kirkham

David Reed

Ian Roome

Rachel Taylor

Christian Wakeford

1 Declaration of Interests

David Reed declared his interests, in accordance with the Resolution of the House of 13 July 1992 (see Appendix).

2 Future Programme

The Committee discussed this matter.

3 Oral evidence - Armed Forces Bill 2026

Canon Peter Bruinvels CC, Co-Chair, Local Government Association Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network and Covenant Lead and Military Liaison Adviser, Kent and Surrey County Councils; Mike Callaghan, Policy Manager, Communities Team, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; Kate Davies, Director, Health and Justice, Armed Forces and Sexual Assault Services Commissioning, NHS England; Caroline Bell, Co-Chair, Local Government Association Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network and Lead Officer for the Armed Forces Covenant, Portsmouth City Council; Nick Hamer, Chief Risk Officer and Armed Forces Advocate, Department for Work and Pensions; and William Vineall, Director, NHS Quality, Safety, Investigations, Department for Health and Social Care-NHS England Medical Directorate, gave oral evidence.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Tuesday 3 March 2026 at 9.15am.

Tuesday 3 March 2026

Members present

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Luke Akehurst

Alex Ballinger

Sarah Bool

Al Carns

Pam Cox

Mr Paul Foster

Mr Mark Francois

Gerald Jones

Jayne Kirkham

Mike Martin

David Reed

Ian Roome

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

Rachel Taylor

Christian Wakeford

1 Armed Forces Bill 2026

Ordered
, That the following written evidence be reported to the House for publication:

AFB0001 – Hleb Buziuk

AFB0002 – Veterans Legal Link, Aberyswyth University

AFB0003 – Fighting With Pride

AFB0006 – Anthony (Tony) Sargeant

AFB0007 – Mr Gary Wilson

AFB0008 – Anonymous

AFB0009 – HHJ Alan M Large

AFB0011 – Aurora New Dawn

AFB0012 – Canon Peter Bruinvels, Local Government Association Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network, Surrey County Council and Kent County Council

AFB0014 – Forces in Mind Trust

AFB0015 – Royal British Veterans Enterprise

AFB0016 – SSAFA

2 Oral evidence - Armed Forces Bill 2026

The Rt Hon. The Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton TD, Author of the Reserve Forces Review 2030; Lt Gen. (Retd) Sir Nick Pope KCB CBE, Military Adviser to the Haythornthwaite Review; Air Chief Marshal Lord Peach KB GBE KCB DL, Chair, UK Reserve Forces External Scrutiny Team; Maj Gen. (Retd) Stephen Potter QVRM TD VR, Vice Chair, UK Reserve Forces External Scrutiny Team; Maj Gen. (Retd) Jamie Gordon CB CBE, Clerk, UK Reserve Forces External Scrutiny Team and Chief Executive, Council of Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations; Prof. Vincent Connelly, Academic Member, UK Reserve Forces External Scrutiny Team; and General (Retd) Sir Richard Barrons KCB CBE, Former Commander, Joint Forces Command and Reviewer, Strategic Defence Review 2025, gave oral evidence.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Wednesday 4 March 2026 at 9.00am.

Wednesday 4 March 2026

Members present

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Luke Akehurst

Sarah Bool

Juliet Campbell

Al Carns

Pam Cox

Mr Paul Foster

Mr Mark Francois

Gerald Jones

Jayne Kirkham

Mike Martin

David Reed

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

Rachel Taylor

1 Armed Forces Bill 2026

Ordered
, That the following written evidence be reported to the House for publication:

AFB0017 – Dr Angus Ryrie, Liverpool John Moores University

AFB0018 – The Royal British Legion

AFB0019 – Director of Service Prosecutions

AFB0020 – Living in Our Does Revisited project, University of Birmingham

AFB0021 – Mrs Linda Sprouting

AFB0022 – Captain RN (Retd) Mark Wyatt

AFB0023 – North Lanarkshire Council

AFB0024 – Welsh Local Government Association

AFB0025 – Greater Manchester Combined Authority

AFB0026 – Portsmouth City Council

AFB0027 – Local Government Association Supported Covenant Officers Network

AFB0028 – Glasgow Helping Heroes, Glasgow City Council

AFB0029 – Cobseo – the Confederation of Service Charities

AFB0030 – Help for Heroes

AFB0031 – Stevenage Borough Council

AFB0032 – The Naval, Army and RAF Families Federations

AFB0033 – Royal Star & Garter

AFB0034 – South Lanarkshire Council

AFB0035 – Local Government Association

AFB0036 – Mr Trevor Skingle

AFB0037 – Welsh Government

2 Oral evidence - Armed Forces Bill 2026

Natalie Elphicke Ross OBE, Chair, Defence Housing Strategy Review team; David Brewer, Chief Operating Officer, Defence Infrastructure Organisation, Ministry of Defence; Mark Hayhurst, Accommodation Policy Advisor, RAF Families Federation; Helen Fish, Senior Families Advocate & Accommodation Lead, Naval Families Federation; Cat Calder, Housing Specialist, Army Families Federation; and Sarah Atherton, Former Defence Minister and subject matter expert on Women in the Armed Forces, gave oral evidence.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Tuesday 10 March 2026 at 2.00pm.

Tuesday 10 March 2026

Members present

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Alex Ballinger

Luke Akehurst

Juliet Campbell

Mr Paul Foster

Gerald Jones

Jayne Kirkham

Mike Martin

David Reed

Ian Roome

Rachel Taylor

Christian Wakeford

1 Armed Forces Bill 2026

Ordered
, That the following written evidence be reported to the House for publication:

AFB0038 – Mr Christopher Dennis

2 Future Programme

The Committee considered this matter.

3 Armed Forces Bill 2026

The Committee considered this matter.

Jonathan Rees KC, Service Police Complaints Commissioner, His Honourable Judge Alan Large, Judge Advocate General, Brigadier Kristian Rotchell, Provost Marshal for Serious Crime, Defence Serious Crime Command and Nina Slocombe, Head of Victim Witness Care Unit, Defence Serious Crime Command, gave oral evidence.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Tuesday 17 March 2026 at 2.00pm.

Wednesday 11 March 2026

The Chair, Luke Akehurst, Sarah Bool, Juliet Campbell, Pam Cox, Mr Paul Foster, Gerald Jones, Jayne Kirkham, Mr Mark Francois, David Reed, Ian Roome, Neil Shastri-Hurst and Rachel Taylor visited Defence Serious Crime Command in Fareham and Defence Housing in Emsworth in connection with the Committee’s inquiry into the Armed Forces Bill 2026, in accordance with the Committee’s decision of 11 February 2026.

Tuesday 17 March 2026

Members present

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Luke Akehurst

Alex Ballinger

Al Carns

Mr Paul Foster

Mr Mark Francois

Mike Martin

David Reed

Ian Roome

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

Rachel Taylor

Christian Wakeford

1 Armed Forces Bill 2026

Ordered
, That the following written evidence be reported to the House for publication:

AFB0040 - Professor Vincent Connelly

AFB0041 - The Centre for Military Justice

AFB0042 - Home Office

AFB0043 - Ministry of Defence

AFB0044 - Anonymous

Correspondence with the Minister for the Armed Forces regarding the Armed Forces Covenant duty of due regard

2 Future Programme

The Committee considered this matter.

3 Armed Forces Bill 2026

Zoe Jackson, Deputy Chief Executive, Aurora New Dawn; Ahmed Al-Nahhas, Head of Military Claims, Bolt Burdon Kemp; Emma Norton, Director, Centre for Military Justice; and Mary Cowe, Director of Service Prosecutions, Service Prosecuting Authority, gave oral evidence.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Wednesday 18 March 2026 at 9.00am

Wednesday 18 March 2026

Members present

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Luke Akehurst

Alex Ballinger

Al Carns

Pam Cox

Mr Paul Foster

Mr Mark Francois

Ian Roome

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

1 Armed Forces Bill 2026

Ordered
, That the following written evidence be reported to the House for publication:

Correspondence with the Department for Work and Pensions following up on evidence on the Armed Forces Covenant

Correspondence with the Minister for Veterans and People regarding LGBT veterans

2 Armed Forces Bill 2026

Al Carns, Minister for the Armed Forces; Sam des Forges, Director, Equity and Justice, Ministry of Defence; Sarah Houghton, Director, Armed Forces People Policy, Ministry of Defence; Maj Gen. Marc Overton, Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Reserve Forces and Cadets), Ministry of Defence; and David Brewer, Chief Operating Officer, Defence Infrastructure Organisation, gave oral evidence.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Tuesday 24 March 2026 at 9.00am

Tuesday 24 March 2026, morning session

Members present

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Sarah Bool

Juliet Campbell

Al Carns

Pam Cox

Mr Paul Foster

Mr Mark Francois

Gerald Jones

Jayne Kirkham

Mike Martin

David Reed

Ian Roome

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

Rachel Taylor

Christian Wakeford

1 Evidence reported for publication

Ordered
, That the following written evidence be reported to the House for publication:

Scottish Government (AFB0045)

Emile Solanki (AFB0046)

2 Armed Forces Bill 2026

The Committee deliberated.

Resolved
, That the Armed Forces Bill be now considered.

[The text of amendments and new clauses proposed are recorded in the proceedings of the Committee relating to the Bill on 24 March 2026 in the Official Report (Hansard).]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2.

Amendment (8) proposed. –
(David Reed)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 6
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
Mike Martin
David Reed
Ian Roome
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst
Noes, 8
Juliet Campbell
Al Carns
Pam Cox
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Rachel Taylor
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment (5) proposed. –
(Ian Roome.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 6
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
Mike Martin
David Reed
Ian Roome
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst
Noes, 8
Juliet Campbell
Al Carns
Pam Cox
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Rachel Taylor
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment (10) proposed. –
(Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made:-Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (13) proposed. –
(David Reed.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made:-Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Tuesday 24 March 2026 at 2.00pm

Tuesday 24 March 2026, afternoon session

Members present

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Sarah Bool

Juliet Campbell

Al Carns

Pam Cox

Mr Paul Foster

Mr Mark Francois

Gerald Jones

Jayne Kirkham

Mike Martin

David Reed

Ian Roome

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

Rachel Taylor

Christian Wakeford

1 Armed Forces Bill 2026

The Committee deliberated.

Resolved
, That the Armed Forces Bill be further considered.

[The text of amendments and new clauses proposed are recorded in the proceedings of the Committee relating to the Bill on 24 March 2026 in the Official Report (Hansard).]

Clause 2 agreed to.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Thursday 26 March 2026 at 9.25am

Thursday 26 March 2026

Members present

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Alex Ballinger

Sarah Bool

Al Carns

Mr Paul Foster

Mr Mark Francois

Gerald Jones

Jayne Kirkham

Mike Martin

David Reed

Christian Wakeford

1 Evidence reported for publication

Ordered
, That the following written evidence be reported to the House for publication:

AFB0047 - Ministry of Defence

Correspondence from the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry regarding the cost of renovating defence housing

2 Armed Forces Bill 2026

The Committee deliberated.

Resolved
, That the Armed Forces Bill be further considered.

[The text of amendments and new clauses proposed are recorded in the proceedings of the Committee relating to the Bill on 26 March 2026 in the Official Report (Hansard).]

Clause 3.

Amendment (17) proposed. –
(Mr Mark Francois.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
Mike Martin
David Reed
Noes, 6
Alex Ballinger
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment (14) proposed. –
(Mr Mark Francois.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
Mike Martin
David Reed
Noes, 6
Alex Ballinger
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment (3) proposed. –
(Mike Martin.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
Mike Martin
David Reed
Noes, 6
Alex Ballinger
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment (15) proposed. –
(Mr Mark Francois.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made:-Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (2) proposed. –
(Mike Martin.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made:-Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (16) proposed. –
(Mr Mark Francois.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
Mike Martin
David Reed
Noes, 6
Alex Ballinger
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Tuesday 14 April 2026 at 9.25am

Tuesday 14 April 2026, morning session

Members present

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Luke Akehurst

Alex Ballinger

Sarah Bool

Al Carns

Mr Paul Foster

Mr Mark Francois

Gerald Jones

Jayne Kirkham

David Reed

Ian Roome

Neil Shastri-Hurst

Rachel Taylor

Christian Wakeford

1 Evidence reported for publication

Ordered
, That the following written evidence be reported to the House for publication:

AFB0048 – Sarah Atherton

AFB0049 – The Centre for Military Justice (CMJ)

Correspondence from the Judge Advocate General dated 25 March 2026

2 Armed Forces Bill 2026

The Committee deliberated.

Resolved
, That the Armed Forces Bill be further considered.

[The text of amendments and new clauses proposed are recorded in the proceedings of the Committee relating to the Bill on 14 April 2026 in the Official Report (Hansard).]

Clauses 4 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 12.

Amendment (6) proposed. –
(Ian Roome.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made:-Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 20.

Amendment (9) proposed. –
(Mr Mark Francois.)

Adjournment

Adjourned till Tuesday 14 April 2026 at 2.00pm

Tuesday 14 April 2026, afternoon session

Members present

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Luke Akehurst

Alex Ballinger

Juliet Campbell

Al Carns

Mr Paul Foster

Mr Mark Francois

Gerald Jones

Jayne Kirkham

Mike Martin

David Reed

Ian Roome

Neil Shastri-Hurst

Rachel Taylor

Christian Wakeford

1 Armed Forces Bill 2026

The Committee deliberated.

Resolved
, That the Armed Forces Bill be further considered.

[The text of amendments and new clauses proposed are recorded in the proceedings of the Committee relating to the Bill on 14 April 2026 in the Official Report (Hansard).]

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made:-Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 24 agreed to.

Clause 25.

Amendment (18) proposed. – (
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst.
)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made:-Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clauses 26 to 30 agreed to.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Thursday 16 April 2026 at 11.30am

Thursday 16 April 2026, morning session

Members present

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Luke Akehurst

Alex Ballinger

Sarah Bool

Juliet Campbell

Al Carns

Mr Paul Foster

Mr Mark Francois

Gerald Jones

Jayne Kirkham

Mike Martin

David Reed

Ian Roome

Neil Shastri-Hurst

Rachel Taylor

Christian Wakeford

1 Armed Forces Bill 2026

The Committee deliberated.

Resolved
, That the Armed Forces Bill be further considered.

[The text of amendments and new clauses proposed are recorded in the proceedings of the Committee relating to the Bill on 16 April 2026 in the Official Report (Hansard).]

Clause 31.

Amendment (7) proposed. –
(Mike Martin.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made:-Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33.

Amendment (1) proposed. –
(Ian Roome.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made:-Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (24) proposed. –
(Mr Mark Francois.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 6
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
Mike Martin
David Reed
Ian Roome
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst
Noes, 9
Luke Akehurst
Alex Ballinger
Juliet Campbell
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Rachel Taylor
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clauses 34 to 36 agreed to.

Clause 37.

Amendment (25) proposed. –
(Mr Mark Francois.)

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made:-Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 agreed to.

Clauses 38 to 41 agreed to.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Thursday 16 April 2026 at 2.00pm

Thursday 16 April 2026, afternoon session

Members present

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Luke Akehurst

Sarah Bool

Juliet Campbell

Al Carns

Mr Paul Foster

Mr Mark Francois

Gerald Jones

Jayne Kirkham

David Reed

Ian Roome

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

Christian Wakeford

1 Armed Forces Bill 2026

The Committee deliberated.

Resolved
, That the Armed Forces Bill be further considered.

[The text of amendments and new clauses proposed are recorded in the proceedings of the Committee relating to the Bill on 16 April 2026 in the Official Report (Hansard).]

Clauses 42 to 55 agreed to.

A Clause (NC1) - (
Ian Roome
) - brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time- Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

A Clause (NC2) –
(Ian Roome)
– brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time.

Question negatived.

A Clause (NC3) –
(Ian Roome)
– brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
David Reed
Ian Roome
Noes, 7
Luke Akehurst
Juliet Campbell
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.

A Clause (NC4) –
(Ian Roome)
– brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time- Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

A Clause (NC5) - (
Ian Roome
) - brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time- Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

A Clause (NC6) –
(Sarah Bool.)
– brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
David Reed
Ian Roome
Noes, 7
Luke Akehurst
Juliet Campbell
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.

A Clause (NC7) –
(Mr Mark Francois.)
– brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time- Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

A Clause (NC8) –
(Mr Mark Francois.)
– brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
David Reed
Ian Roome
Noes, 7
Luke Akehurst
Juliet Campbell
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.

A Clause (NC9) –
(David Reed.)
– brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
David Reed
Noes, 7
Luke Akehurst
Juliet Campbell
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.

A Clause (NC10) –
(David Reed.)
– brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
David Reed
Noes, 7
Luke Akehurst
Juliet Campbell
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.

A Clause (NC11) –
(David Reed.)
– brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
David Reed
Noes, 7
Luke Akehurst
Juliet Campbell
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.

A Clause (NC12) –
(Mr Mark Francois.)
– brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
David Reed
Noes, 7
Luke Akehurst
Juliet Campbell
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.

A Clause (NC13) –
(Mr Mark Francois.)
– brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
David Reed
Noes, 7
Luke Akehurst
Juliet Campbell
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.

A Clause (NC14) –
(David Reed.)
– brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
David Reed
Noes, 7
Luke Akehurst
Juliet Campbell
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.

A Clause (NC15) –
(Mr Mark Francois.)
– brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
David Reed
Noes, 7
Luke Akehurst
Juliet Campbell
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.

A Clause (NC16) –
(Mr Mark Francois.)
– brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3
Sarah Bool
Mr Mark Francois
David Reed
Noes, 7
Luke Akehurst
Juliet Campbell
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.

A Clause (NC17) –
(Mr Mark Francois.)
– brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3
Mr Mark Francois
David Reed
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst
Noes, 7
Luke Akehurst
Juliet Campbell
Al Carns
Mr Paul Foster
Gerald Jones
Jayne Kirkham
Christian Wakeford
Question accordingly negatived.

Schedules 1–7 agreed to.

Adjournment

Adjourned till Tuesday 21 April 2026 at 9.00am

Tuesday 21 April 2026

Members present

Clive Efford, in the Chair

Luke Akehurst

Sarah Bool

Juliet Campbell

Al Carns

Pam Cox

Mr Paul Foster

Mr Mark Francois

Gerald Jones

David Reed

Ian Roome

Neil Shastri-Hurst

Rachel Taylor

Christian Wakeford

1 Evidence reported for publication

Ordered
, That the following written evidence be reported to the House for publication:

AFB0050 – East Anglian Divers

AFB0051 – The Ministry of Defence

2 Armed Forces Bill 2026

The Committee considered this matter.

Draft Special Report (
Armed Forces Bill 2026
), proposed by the Chair, brought up, and read.

Ordered
, That the draft Special Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 165 read and agreed to.

Summary agreed to.

Resolved
, the Report be the First Special Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered
, That the Chair make the Special Report to the House.

Ordered,
That embargoed copies of the Report be made available (Standing Order No. 134).

Ordered
, That the Armed Forces Bill, without amendment, be reported to the House.

Adjournment

The Committee adjourned.

Appendix - Declaration of Members’ Interests

Akehurst, Luke (North Durham)

4. Visits outside the UK

Name of donorLabour Friends of Israel Ltd
Address of donor: BM LFI, London WC1N 3XX
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Flights, accommodation and meals, value £2,500
Destination of visit: United States (Washington DC)
Dates of visit: 22 February 2025 to 25 February 2025
Purpose of visit: Delegation to Washington DC. Meetings with US politicians and
civil servants. Attending AIPAC Congressional Summit 2025.
(Registered 3 March 2025)
Name of donor: ELNET UK
Address of donor: 4th Floor, 6 Princes Street, London W1B 2LG
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Flights (£724 for two people), two rooms hotel accommodation for three nights (£730), meals for 3.5 days (£608 for two people) and minibus travel in country (£196 for two people). I travelled with my Parliamentary Assistant (£1,129 per person), value £2,258
Destination of visit: Estonia (Tallinn and Narva)
Dates of visit: 12 October 2025 to 15 October 2025
Purpose of visit: Study tour: participation in Common Threats, Joint Defence, UK - Estonia - Israel Strategic Mission
(Registered 16 October 2025)
7. (i) Shareholdings: over 15% of issued share capital
Name of company or organisation: Labour First Ltd
Nature of business: Political organisation within the Labour Party
(Registered 22 July 2024)
Name of company or organisation: Labour to Win Ltd
Nature of business: Political organisation within the Labour Party
(Registered 22 July 2024)
8. Miscellaneous
PLP Representative on Labour Party National Executive Committee.
Date interest arose: 17 July 2024
(Registered 22 July 2024)
Trustee, Friends of Labour Students. This is an unpaid role.
(Registered 3 August 2024)
Director, Labour to Win Ltd. This is an unpaid role.
(Registered 3 August 2024)
Director/Secretary, Labour First Ltd. This is an unpaid role.
(Registered 3 August 2024)
Member, British-American Parliamentary Group Executive Committee. This is an unpaid role.
Date interest arose: 30 October 2024
(Registered 8 January 2025)
12 February 2026: Additional declarations:

Former Member of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill Committee
Ballinger, Alex (Halesowen)

4. Visits outside the UK

Name of donorDoha Forum
Address of donor: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Almirqab Tower, West Bay, Doha,
Qatar
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Flights (£5,581), food and accommodation (£404), value £5,985
Destination of visit: Qatar (Doha)
Dates of visit: 5 December 2025 to 8 December 2025
Purpose of visit: To participate in the Doha Forum 2025 on regional diplomacy and dialogue. Included meetings with Qatari ministers, ministers from other countries and key multilateral partners to discuss efforts to resolve regional conflicts. This visit is relevant to my role as a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
(Registered 16 December 2025)
8. Miscellaneous

Trustee of The Birmingham Settlement. This is an unpaid role.
(Registered 15 July 2024)
Member, Rowley Regis Town Board. This is an unpaid role.
(Registered 18 November 2025)
Member, Halesowen Abbey Trust Board. This is an unpaid role.
(Registered 18 November 2025)
12 February 2026: Additional declarations:

Co-Chair of the APPG for the Armed Forces
Former Royal Marine
Bool, Sarah (South Northamptonshire)

3. Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources

Name of donorCarlton Club
Address of donor: 69 St James Street, London SW1A 1PJ
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Joining fee for the
club was waived, value £2,105
Date received: 2 June 2025
Date accepted: 2 June 2025
Donor status: other (Private Members Club)
(Registered 7 June 2025)
Name of donor: Motorsport UK
Address of donor: Bicester Motion, Bicester OX27 8FY
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: A seat at the Night of Champions Awards Dinner, value £428
Date received: 25 January 2025
Date accepted: 25 January 2025
Donor status: company, registration 01344829
(Registered 7 June 2025)
Name of donor: Silverstone Circuits Limited
Address of donor: Silverstone Circuit, Towcester, Northamptonshire NN12 8TN
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: One ticket with
hospitality for the Saturday of the Grand Prix, value £700
Date received: 5 July 2025
Date accepted: 5 July 2025
Donor status: company, registration 00882843
(Registered 10 July 2025)
Name of donor: Silverstone Circuits Limited
Address of donor: Silverstone Circuit, Towcester, Northamptonshire NN12 8TN
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: One ticket with
hospitality for the Sunday of the Grand Prix, value £1,195
Date received: 6 July 2025
Date accepted: 6 July 2025
Donor status: company, registration 00882843
(Registered 10 July 2025)
Name of donor: Silverstone Circuits Ltd
Address of donor: Silverstone Circuit, Towcester, Northamptonshire, NN12 8TN
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: 5 Tickets for Friday
4th July Grand Prix (1 ticket for me and 4 for members of staff) with hospitality,
value £2,000
Date received: 4 July 2025
Date accepted: 4 July 2025
Donor status: company, registration 00882843
(Registered 10 July 2025)
Name of donor: Silverstone Circuits Limited
Address of donor: Silverstone Circuit, Towcester, Northamptonshire, NN12 8TN
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Lunch hospitality at
Escapade after site visit with a team member, value £100
Date received: 2 May 2025
Date accepted: 2 May 2025
Donor status: company, registration 00882843
(Registered 21 July 2025)
Name of donor: Rugby World Cup (England 2025)
Address of donor: Onside Law LLP, 642A Kings Road, London SW6 2DU
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: A hospitality ticket to the Women’s Rugby World Cup at Franklin’s Gardens, Northampton, following an invitation from West Northamptonshire Council, value £386
Date received: 30 August 2025
Date accepted: 30 August 2025
Donor status: company, registration 14228593
(Registered 6 September 2025)
Name of donor: Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme
Address of donor: House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Armed Forces
Parliamentary Trust Sponsors’ Dinner, value £170.60
Date received: 12 March 2025
Date accepted: 12 March 2025
Donor status: other (Charity Commission number 1159312)
(Registered 1 December 2025)
Name of donor: Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust
Address of donor: House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: End of Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme Dinner, value £76
Date received: 17 July 2025
Date accepted: 17 July 2025
Donor status: other (Charity Commission number 1159312)
(Registered 1 December 2025)
Name of donor: Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust
Address of donor: House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: AFPS Graduation
Dinner, Royal Air Force Club, value £123.20
Date received: 21 October 2025
Date accepted: 21 October 2025
Donor status: other (Charity Commission number 1159312)
(Registered 1 December 2025)
Name of donor: Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust
Address of donor: House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Admiralty House
Alumni Reception, value £65.62
Date received: 28 January 2025
Date accepted: 28 January 2025
Donor status: other (Charity Commission number 1159312)
(Registered 1 December 2025)
Name of donor: Motorsport UK Association Ltd
Address of donor: 141 The Command Works Southern Avenue, Bicester Heritage,
Bicester OX27 8FY
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Hospitality at the
Motorsports UK Night of Champions Awards Dinner, value £600
Date received: 24 January 2026
Date accepted: 24 January 2026
Donor status: company, registration 01344829
(Registered 2 February 2026)
4. Visits outside the UK

Name of donorParliamentarians for Diabetes Global Network (PDGN Limited - Company No. 10339168)
Address of donor: 44 Howard Road, New Malden, Surrey KT3 4EA
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Flights (£359.95),
accommodation (£266.89), half day meal, coffee and beverages package
(£93.49) and airport transfers (£50.04), value £770.37
Destination of visit: Malta
Dates of visit: 14 November 2025 to 16 November 2025
Purpose of visit: To attend the Global Parliamentary Advocacy Forum organised
by Parliamentarians for Diabetes Global Network (PDGN)
(Registered 1 December 2025)
Name of donor: Conservative Friends of Israel Limited (Company No. 08114952)
Address of donor: PO Box 72288, London SW1P 9LB
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Air travel,
accommodation and hospitality (value has been estimated), value £3,200
Destination of visit: Israel and Palestine
Dates of visit: 4 January 2026 to 8 January 2026
Purpose of visit: Fact finding political delegation: Israel and the Palestinian
Authority
(Registered 18 January 2026)
12 February 2026: Additional declarations:

Participant in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme
Campbell, Juliet (Broxtowe)

8. Miscellaneous

Trustee of MammaKind - Baby Bank supporting families in south-east London.
This is an unpaid role.
(Registered 24 July 2024)
12 February 2026: Additional declarations:

Former Member of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill Committee
Carns, Al (Birmingham Selly Oak)

6. Land and property portfolio with a value over £100,000 and where indicated, the portfolio provides a rental income of over £10,000 a year

Type of land/propertyResidential property (Flat)
Number of properties: 1
Location: Aberdeen
Ownership details: co-owned with my spouse
(Registered 1 August 2024)
12 February 2026: Additional declarations:

Minister for the Armed Forces
Former Colonel in the Royal Marines
Current Reservist
Cox, Pam (Colchester)

6. Land and property portfolio with a value over £100,000 and where indicated, the portfolio provides a rental income of over £10,000 a year

Type of land/propertyResidential property (House)
Number of properties: 1
Location: Colchester
Ownership details: co-owned with a family member
(Registered 30 July 2024)
8. Miscellaneous

I served as an unpaid Colchester City Councillor from July 2024. (I opted not to take up the associated financial allowance following my election.)
Date interest ended: 8 September 2025
(Registered 4 August 2025; updated 13 October 2025)
12 February 2026: Additional declarations:

Participant in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme
Former Member of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill Committee
Efford, Clive (Eltham and Chislehurst)

3. Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources

Name of donorEnglish Football League
Address of donor: Fifty Paddington, 50 Eastbourne Terrace, London W2 6LG
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Hospitality at the
English Football League Division One play-off Final, at Wembley Stadium Sunday
25th June, value £400
Date received: 25 May 2025
Date accepted: 25 May 2025
Donor status: company, registration 00080612
(Registered 2 June 2025)
8. Miscellaneous

Trustee of Millwall Community Trust. This is an unpaid role.
Date interest arose: 1 December 2014
(Registered 30 January 2025)
Foster, Mr Paul (South Ribble)

6. Land and property portfolio with a value over £100,000 and where indicated, the portfolio provides a rental income of over £10,000 a year

Type of land/propertyResidential property
Number of properties: 1
Location: Preston
(Registered 22 July 2024)
7. (i) Shareholdings: over 15% of issued share capital

Name of company or organisationProject Furnishings Management Ltd
(Dormant)
Nature of business: Supplies furniture
(Registered 23 July 2024)
Name of company or organisation: NWSD Professional Services Ltd
Nature of business: Social housing/student accommodation development consultancy
(Registered 23 July 2024)
Name of company or organisation: PFPM (Preston) Ltd
Nature of business: Project & Development Management Consultancy
(Registered 24 July 2024)
8. Miscellaneous

Unpaid Director of PFPM Preston Ltd
(Registered 22 July 2024)
Unpaid Directorship of Project Furnishings Management Ltd.
(Registered 23 July 2024)
A 10% shareholding in WT IP Ltd. The shareholding is below the threshold for
registration.
(Registered 23 July 2024)
Unpaid director of WT IP Ltd.
Date interest arose: 5 July 2024
(Registered 24 July 2024)
Unpaid Director of NWSD Professional Services Ltd.
Date interest arose: 5 July 2024
(Registered 24 July 2024)
Unpaid Director of Home Safe Veterans & Homeless Support Ltd. This entity is
currently seeking charitable status.
Date interest arose: 29 July 2024
(Registered 30 July 2024)
12 February 2026: Additional declarations:

Member of the British-American Parliamentary Group
Co-chair of the Armed Forces APPG
Vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Kosovo
Francois, Mr Mark (Rayleigh and Wickford)

1. Employment and earnings

Role, work or servicesWriting a book
Payer: Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) Amazon.com Inc, 410 Terry Avenue, North
Seattle, Washington 98109, USA
4. Visits outside the UK

Name of donorPyne and Partners
Address of donor: Suite 2 10 Bourke Street Barton, ACT 2600, Australia
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Flights (approx £3,217.62) Accommodation (approx £447.13) approx, value £3,664.75
Destination of visit: United States (Washington DC)
Dates of visit: 8 April 2025 to 12 April 2025
Purpose of visit: Speaking at the AUKUS Defence Conference, in Washington DC.
(Registered 6 May 2025)
Name of donor: Defence24
Address of donor: 18 Foksal Street, 00–372 Warsaw, Poland
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Flights (£420.20), hotel Accommodation (£138), value £558.20
Destination of visit: Poland
Dates of visit: 4 May 2025 to 7 May 2025
Purpose of visit: Speaking at the Defence24 Days Conference in Warsaw
(Registered 19 May 2025)
12 February 2026: Additional declarations:

Patron of the Rayleigh Branch of the Royal British Legion
Honorary President, 1476 (Rayleigh) Squadron, Air Training Corps
Former Member of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill Committee
Jones, Gerald (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare)

8. Miscellaneous

A Trustee of a local charity, Phillipstown Residents and Community Association.
Date interest arose: 11 May 2018
(Registered 9 March 2023)
9. Family members employed and paid from parliamentary expenses

NameTyrone Powell
Relationship: Partner
Role: Senior Parliamentary Assistant
Working pattern: Full time
(Registered 4 June 2015)
12 February 2026: Additional declarations:

Former Shadow Defence Minister prior to 2020
Former Participant in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme
Kirkham, Jayne (Truro and Falmouth)

8. Miscellaneous

Trustee for True Butterflies Foundation, a domestic violence support charity. This is an unpaid role.
(Registered 2 August 2024)
Martin, Mike (Tunbridge Wells)

1. Employment and earnings

Role, work or servicesBook Royalties
Payer: Hurst and Co (Book Publishers), Somerset House, New Wing, Strand,
London WC2R 1LA
(Registered 5 December 2025)
Payment: £2,386.45
Received on: 2 December 2025. Hours: Book Royalties so hours worked not applicable.
(Registered 5 December 2025; updated 9 December 2025)
2. (a) Support linked to an MP but received by a local party organisation or indirectly via a central party organisation

Name of donorDominic Mathon
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £800
Donor status: individual
(Registered 3 February 2025)
Name of donor: Phillip Kerle
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £1,500
Donor status: individual
(Registered 27 February 2025)
Name of donor: Dominic Mathon
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £800
Donor status: individual
(Registered 27 February 2025)
Name of donor: Phillip Kerle
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £750
Donor status: individual
(Registered 27 February 2025)
Name of donor: Dominic Mathon
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £800
Donor status: individual
(Registered 7 April 2025)
Name of donor: Dominic Mathon
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £800
Donor status: individual
(Registered 7 April 2025)
Name of donor: Dominic Mathon
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £800
Donor status: individual
(Registered 5 May 2025)
Name of donor: Timothy Wormington
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £1,500
Donor status: individual
(Registered 5 May 2025)
Name of donor: Timothy Wormington
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £500
Donor status: individual
(Registered 5 May 2025)
Name of donor: Charles Pope
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £1,500 political
campaigning
Donor status: individual
(Registered 12 May 2025)
Name of donor: Antony Harris
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £500 political
campaigning
Donor status: individual
(Registered 12 May 2025)
Name of donor: Antony Harris
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £1,000 political
campaigning
Donor status: individual
(Registered 12 May 2025)
Name of donor: Antony Harris
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £1,000 political
campaigning
Donor status: individual
(Registered 12 May 2025)
Name of donor: Charles Pope
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £750 political
Campaigning
Donor status: individual
(Registered 12 May 2025)
Name of donor: Ramesh Dewan
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Hosted a fundraising dinner for local party, value £3,330.92
Donor status: individual
(Registered 16 May 2025)
Name of donor: Antony Harris
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £500 defence dinner
Donor status: individual
(Registered 31 May 2025)
Name of donor: Dominic Mathon
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £800
Donor status: individual
(Registered 7 June 2025)
Name of donor: Dominic Mathon
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £800
Donor status: individual
(Registered 7 July 2025)
Name of donor: Sue Bishop
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £2,000
Donor status: individual
(Registered 9 July 2025)
Name of donor: Dominic Mathon
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £800
Donor status: individual
(Registered 7 August 2025)
Name of donor: Antony Harris
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £1,250
Donor status: individual
(Registered 1 September 2025)
Name of donor: Dominic Mathon
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £800
Donor status: individual
(Registered 1 September 2025)
Name of donor: Charles Pope
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £1,500
Donor status: individual
(Registered 1 September 2025)
Name of donor: William Reeve
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £1,500
Donor status: individual
(Registered 3 September 2025)
Name of donor: William Reeve
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £1,500
Donor status: individual
(Registered 3 September 2025)
Name of donor: Field View Mentors Limited
Address of donor: St Catherine’s House, 5 Nuthatch Close, Farnham GU10 5TN
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £3,000
Donor status: company, registration 09883118
(Registered 7 September 2025)
Name of donor: Ramesh Dewan
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Ramesh hosted a
dinner for me, value £3,153.28
Donor status: individual
(Registered 12 September 2025)
Name of donor: Dominic Mathon
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £800
Donor status: individual
(Registered 28 October 2025)
Name of donor: Dominic Mathon
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £800
Donor status: individual
(Registered 7 November 2025)
Name of donor: Leslie Hurst
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £1,500
Donor status: individual
(Registered 5 December 2025)
Name of donor: Susan Barone
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £5,000
Donor status: individual
(Registered 5 December 2025)
Name of donor: Leslie Hurst
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £1,000
Donor status: individual
(Registered 5 December 2025)
Name of donor: Carl Michel
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £2,000
Donor status: individual
(Registered 5 December 2025)
Name of donor: Dominic Mathon
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £2,000
Donor status: individual
(Registered 5 December 2025)
Name of donor: Simon Curtis
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £1,000
Donor status: individual
(Registered 5 December 2025)
Name of donor: Andy Byrne
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £5,000
Donor status: individual
(Registered 5 December 2025)
Name of donor: Stephen Gosling
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £2,000
Donor status: individual
(Registered 5 December 2025)
Name of donor: Phillip Kerle
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £1,000
Donor status: individual
(Registered 5 December 2025)
Name of donor: Jonathon Goodfellow
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £1,000
Donor status: individual
(Registered 8 December 2025)
Name of donor: Jonathon Goodfellow
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £1,500
Donor status: individual
(Registered 9 December 2025)
Name of donor: John Harley
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £2,000
Donor status: individual
(Registered 15 December 2025)
3. Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources

Name of donorNational Liberal Club Ltd
Address of donor: 1 Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2HE
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Honorary Membership of National Liberal Club as an Liberal Democrat MP, value £1,183.90
Date received: 8 July 2024 to 11 July 2025
Date accepted: 12 July 2024
Donor status: company, registration 01355034
(Registered 18 July 2024; updated 9 December 2025)
6. Land and property portfolio with a value over £100,000 and where indicated, the portfolio provides a rental income of over £10,000 a year

Type of land/propertyResidential property (Flat)
Number of properties: 1
Location: London
Interest held: until 15 December 2025
(Registered 18 July 2024; updated 9 December 2025)
7. (i) Shareholdings: over 15% of issued share capital

Name of company or organisationThreshed Thought Ltd
Nature of business: Conflict and defence
Interest held: until 27 February 2025
(Registered 18 July 2024; updated 27 February 2025)
8. Miscellaneous

Unpaid director of Threshed Thought Ltd
Date interest ended: 27 February 2025
(Registered 18 July 2024; updated 27 February 2025)
Senior Visiting Fellow, War Studies Department, King’s College London. This is an unpaid role.
(Registered 24 July 2024)
12 February 2026: Additional declarations:

I am a member of the armed forces reservists but do not serve nor attend any training days.
Former Army Officer
Former Member of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill Committee
Reed, David (Exmouth and Exeter East)

3. Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources

Name of donorArmed Forces APPG
Address of donor: Houses of Parliament, St Margaret St, London SW1A 0AA
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Briefing dinner with Director Strategy Cyber and Specialist Operations Command, value £60
Date received: 13 October 2025
Date accepted: 13 October 2025
Donor status: other (Armed Forces APPG)
(Registered 25 November 2025)
Name of donor: Armed Forces APPG
Address of donor: Houses of Parliament, St Margaret St, London SW1A 0AA
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Briefing dinner with the Commander of Strategic Command, value £60
Date received: 7 July 2025
Date accepted: 7 July 2025
Donor status: other
(Registered 25 November 2025)
Name of donor: Armed Forces APPG
Address of donor: Houses of Parliament, St Margaret St, London SW1A 0AA
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Briefing dinner with the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff, value £60
Date received: 24 November 2025
Date accepted: 24 November 2025
Donor status: other
(Registered 25 November 2025)
Name of donor: Armed Forces APPG
Address of donor: Houses of Parliament, St Margaret St, London SW1A 0AA
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Briefing dinner with the Chief of the Air Staff, value £60
Date received: 2 June 2025
Date accepted: 2 June 2025
Donor status: other
(Registered 25 November 2025)
Name of donor: Armed Forces APPG
Address of donor: Houses of Parliament, St Margaret St, London SW1A 0AA
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Briefing dinner with the First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff, value £60
Date received: 16 June 2025
Date accepted: 16 June 2025
Donor status: other
(Registered 25 November 2025)
Name of donor: Armed Forces APPG
Address of donor: Houses of Parliament, St Margaret St, London SW1A 0AA
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Standing reception with the Chief of the Defence Staff, value £25
Date received: 28 April 2025
Date accepted: 28 April 2025
Donor status: other
(Registered 25 November 2025)
Name of donor: Armed Forces APPG
Address of donor: Houses of Parliament, St Margaret St, London SW1A 0AA
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Briefing dinner with Chief of the General Staff, value £60
Date received: 16 December 2025
Date accepted: 16 December 2025
Donor status: other
(Registered 17 December 2025)
4. Visits outside the UK

Name of donorMOFA Taiwan
Address of donor: 50 Grosvenor Gardens, London SW1W 0EB
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Flights (£5325), hotel (£1404), local transportation (£300) and food (£492), value £7,521
Destination of visit: Taiwan
Dates of visit: 14 February 2025 to 22 February 2025
Purpose of visit: Visit to Taiwan with a delegation from the Taiwan APPG to discuss UK-Taiwan relations, including trade and regional security, and to meet with Taiwanese political and economic leaders.
(Registered 18 March 2025)
Name of donor: Westminster Foundation for Democracy
Address of donor: Clive House, 70 Petty France, London SW1H 9EX
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Flights (£864.12), accommodation (£415.28) and meals (£60.89), value £1,340.29
Destination of visit: Sri Lanka
Dates of visit: 27 March 2025 to 31 March 2025
Purpose of visit: Workshop for Presiding Officers of the Parliament of Sri Lanka.
(Registered 23 April 2025)
Name of donor: Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Address of donor: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2 Ketagalan Blvd., Zhongzheng
District, Taipei City 100202 Taiwan (Republic of China)
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Flights (£4691.52), accommodation (£945.48), transport (£180), food and refreshments (£260), value £6,077
Destination of visit: Taiwan
Dates of visit: 3 November 2025 to 8 November 2025
Purpose of visit: Visit organised by RUSI in partnership with the Taiwanese Representative Office in London, giving participants a detailed introduction to Taiwan’s political and security landscape. It included high-level meetings with key ministries and agencies, especially relating to defence and security.
(Registered 2 December 2025)
Name of donor: Coalition for Global Prosperity
Address of donor: 1 Horse Guards Avenue, London SW1A 2HU
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Flights (£1,968.73), accommodation (£1,005.08), local transport (£519.47) and food/miscellaneous (£669.93), value £4,163.21
Destination of visit: United States (Washington DC)
Dates of visit: 30 November 2025 to 5 December 2025
Purpose of visit: Cross-party delegation to strengthen transatlantic relations and to discuss UK-US foreign policy priorities, challenges and opportunities with members of Congress and policymakers.
(Registered 16 December 2025)
8. Miscellaneous

Unpaid Director of BigByte Digital Ltd, a software company.
Date interest ended: 31 July 2025
(Registered 19 July 2024; updated 27 August 2025)
Roome, Ian (North Devon)

1. Employment and earnings

Role, work or servicesDistrict Councillor
Until: 11 March 2025.
Payer: North Devon District Council, North Devon District Council, PO Box 379, Barnstaple EX32 2GR
Additional information: 10% of this councillor allowance is donated to North
Devon Liberal Democrats
(Registered 1 August 2024; updated 12 June 2025)
Remuneration: £901.15 a month this payment includes a SRA for being
Leader (going forward I will not receive this SRA)
Until: 11 June 2025.
Hours: 20 hrs a month this is an estimate of hours as it depends on casework.
(Registered 1 August 2024; updated 12 June 2025)
Role, work or services: Devon County Councillor
Until: 1 May 2025.
Payer: Devon County Council (County Council), Devon County Council, Topsham Road County Hall, Exeter EX2 4QD
(Registered 1 August 2024; updated 12 June 2025)
Remuneration: £1,256 a month
Until: 1 May 2025.
Hours: 40 hrs a month estimate of hours worked as it depends on casework.
(Registered 1 August 2024; updated 12 June 2025)
Role, work or services: Member of Devon and Somerset Fire Authority
Until: 3 February 2025.
Payer: Devon and Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority, Service HQ, The Knowle, Clyst St George, Exeter EX3 0NW
(Registered 1 August 2024; updated 4 February 2025)
Remuneration: £657.92 a month I receive and SRA for being the Chair of the Audit Committee (intending to stand down in September) - this role is representing Devon County Council on the Board of Members ,
From: 30 June 2023. Until: 3 February 2025.
Hours: 3 hrs a week hours worked vary depending on committee business and research needed for the role.
(Registered 1 August 2024; updated 3 February 2025)
3. Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources

Name of donorNational Liberal Club
Address of donor: 1 Whitehall Place Westminster, London SW1A 2HE
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: honorary membership of National Liberal Club, for those who reside outside of London, value £1,310.75
Date received: 16 September 2024 to 31 December 2025
Date accepted: 16 September 2024
Donor status: company, registration 01355034
(Registered 9 October 2024)
12 February 2026: Additional declarations:

Member of the Royal British Legion
RAF veteran
Royal College of Defence Studies (RCDS) course
Associate Member of the Royal Marines Charity (north Devon Branch)
Member of the Royal Air Force Association
Shastri-Hurst, Dr Neil (Solihull West and Shirley)

1. Employment and earnings

Role, work or servicesBarrister
Payer: No5 Chambers, 103 Colmore Row, Birmingham B3 3AG
(Registered 10 July 2024)
Payment: £700 (Includes 15% to be deducted on account of Chambers’ fees)
Received on: 28 January 2025. Hours: 4 hrs.
Ultimate payer: Moore Barlow LLP (Solicitor), 2 Sheen Road, Richmond TW9 1AE
(Registered 18 February 2025)
Payment: £500 (Includes 15% to be deducted on account of Chambers’ fees)
Received on: 18 February 2025. Hours: 2.5 hrs Approximate hours worked.
Ultimate payer: MTUK Solicitors Ltd (Solicitors), 6 Gate Street, Lincolns Inn Field, London WC2A 3HP
(Registered 18 February 2025)
Payment: £750
Received on: 4 March 2025. Hours: 5 hrs Approximate number of hours work.
Ultimate payer: Irwin Mitchell LLP (Birmingham) (Solicitors), The Colmore Building, 20 Colmore Circus, Birmingham B4 6AH
(Registered 4 March 2025)
Payment: £875
Received on: 4 March 2025. Hours: 5 hrs.
Ultimate payer: Cordell & Co (Solicitors), 176–180 High Street, Dorking, Surrey RH 4 1QR
(Registered 4 March 2025)
Payment: £150
Received on: 4 March 2025. Hours: 2 hrs Approximate number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Minster Law Limited (Solicitors), Kingsfisher House, Calder Park, Wakefield, WF2 7UA
(Registered 4 March 2025)
Payment: £1,000 (Includes 15% to be deducted on account of Chambers’ fees)
Received on: 6 March 2025. Hours: 5 hrs.
Ultimate payer: Harding Evans LLP t/a Harding Evans Solicitors, Queens Chambers, 2 North Street, Newport, Gwent NP20 1TE
(Registered 6 March 2025)
Payment: £500
Received on: 7 March 2025. Hours: 2.5 hrs Approximate number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Fletchers Solicitors Limited t/a Fletchers Solicitors (Solicitor), Dukes House, 34 Hoghton Street, Southport, Merseyside PR9 0PU
(Registered 10 March 2025)
Payment: £1,600
Received on: 25 March 2025. Hours: 8 hrs Approximate number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: The Co-operative Legal Services Limited (Solicitor), Aztec Centre, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, B232 4SD
(Registered 25 March 2025)
Payment: £900
Received on: 25 March 2025. Hours: 4.5 hrs.
Ultimate payer: The Co-operative Legal Services Limited (Solicitors), Aztec Centre, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, B232 4SD
(Registered 25 March 2025)
Payment: £2,750
Received on: 25 March 2025. Hours: 25 hrs Approximate number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: The Co-operative Legal Services Limited (Solicitor), Aztec Centre, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, B232 4SD
(Registered 25 March 2025)
Payment: £1,566.67 (Includes 15% to be deducted on account of Chambers’ fees)
Received on: 27 March 2025. Hours: 8 hrs Approximate number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Higgs LLP (Solicitor), 3 Waterfront Business Park, Dudley Road, Brierley Hill, West Midlands, DY5 1LX
(Registered 27 March 2025)
Payment: £6,000
Received on: 22 April 2025. Hours: 25 hrs Approximate number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Lime Solicitors (Solicitors), Bridgeway House, Bridgeway, Stratford-upon-Avon, CV37 6YX
(Registered 22 April 2025)
Payment: £4,173.75
Received on: 25 April 2025. Hours: 30 hrs Approximate number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Higgs LLP (Solicitor), 3 Waterfront Business Park, Dudley Road, Brierley Hill, West Midlands, DY5 1LX
(Registered 25 April 2025)
Payment: £2,000
Received on: 30 April 2025. Hours: 10 hrs Approximate number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Powell & Co (Solicitor), Verbruggens House, Number One Street, Royal Woolwich Arsenal, London, SE18 6HG
(Registered 1 May 2025)
Payment: £160
Received on: 1 May 2025. Hours: 2 hrs Approximate number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Thompsons Solicitors LLP (Solicitors), 1st Floor, Churchill House, 47 Regent Road, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire, ST1 3BT
(Registered 1 May 2025)
Payment: £600 (Includes 15% to be deducted on account of Chambers’ fees)
Received on: 22 May 2025. Hours: 3 hrs Estimated number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Prosperity Law LLP (Solicitor), Vantage Point, 4 Hardman Street, Spinningfields, Manchester M3 3HF
(Registered 22 May 2025)
Payment: £1,200 (Includes 15% to be deducted on account of Chamebrs’ fees)
Received on: 5 June 2025. Hours: 6 hrs Approximate number of hours work.
Ultimate payer: Talbots Law Limited (Solicitors), 23 Foregate Street, Worcester WR1 1DN
(Registered 7 June 2025)
Payment: £272.48 (Includes 15% to be deducted on account of Chambers’ fees)
Received on: 18 June 2025. Hours: 3 hrs Approximate number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Thompsons Solicitors LLP (Solicitors), Congress House, 26–28 Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3LW
(Registered 20 June 2025)
Payment: £3,056.23 (Includes 15% to be deducted on account of Chambers fees)
Received on: 25 June 2025. Hours: 23 hrs Approximate hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Powell & Co (Solicitor), Verbruggens House, Number One Street, Royal Woolwich Arsenal, London SE18 6HG
(Registered 25 June 2025)
Payment: £1,500
Received on: 18 July 2025. Hours: 7.5 hrs Approximate number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Powell & Co (Solicitor), Verbruggens House, Number One Street, Royal Woolwich Arsenal, London, SE18 6HG
(Registered 18 July 2025)
Payment: £3,762.50
Received on: 25 July 2025. Hours: 21 hrs Approximate hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Harding Evans Limited Liability Partnership t/a Harding Evans Solicitors (Solicitor), Queens Chambers, 2 North Street, Newport, Gwent, NP20 1TE
(Registered 25 July 2025)
Payment: £1,603.33 (Includes 15% to be deducted on account of Chambers’ fees)
Received on: 28 July 2025. Hours: 8 hrs Approximate number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Slater and Gordon UK Limited (Solicitor), Dempster Building, Atlantic Way, Liverpool, Merseyside L3 4UU
(Registered 28 July 2025)
Payment: £212.27 (Includes 15% to be deducted on account of Chambers’ fees)
Received on: 30 July 2025. Hours: 1.5 hrs Approximate hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Thompsons Solicitors LLP (Solicitor), Congress House, 26–28 Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3LW
(Registered 30 July 2025)
Payment: £300 (Includes 15% to be deducted on account of Chambers’ fees)
Received on: 15 August 2025. Hours: 2 hrs.
Ultimate payer: Minster Law Limited (Solicitor), Kingfisher House, Calder Park, Wakefield WF2 7UA
(Registered 15 August 2025)
Payment: £150
Received on: 11 September 2025. Hours: 1.5 hrs Estimated number of hours of work.
Ultimate payer: Minster Law Limited (Solicitors), Kingfisher House, Calder Park, Wakefield, WF2 7UA
(Registered 11 September 2025)
Payment: £3,750
Received on: 30 September 2025. Hours: 25 hrs Approximate number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Talbots Law Limited (formerly Scaiff LLP) (Solicitor), 23 Foregate Street, Worcester, WR1 1DN
(Registered 30 September 2025)
Payment: £8,220
Received on: 10 October 2025. Hours: 35 hrs Approximate number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Prosperity Law LLP (Solicitor), Vantage Point, 4 Hardman Street, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3HF
(Registered 10 October 2025)
Payment: £630
Received on: 14 October 2025. Hours: 4 hrs Approximate hours worked.
Ultimate payer: True Solicitors LLP (Solicitor), Percy House, Percy Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear, NE1 4PW
(Registered 14 October 2025)
Payment: £700
Received on: 8 January 2026. Hours: 3.5 hrs Approximate number of hours worked.
Ultimate payer: Blythe Liggins LLP (Solicitor), Edmund House, Rugby Road, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire CV32 6EL
(Registered 8 January 2026)
Role, work or services: Member of the Appeals Committee for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
Payer: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, 2nd Floor, 2 Redman Place, London E20 1JQ
Additional information: Payments will be listed below
(Registered 11 July 2024)
Role, work or services: Legal services rendered as a barrister
Payer: Confidential in accordance with footnote 9 of paragraph 8(b) of the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules (Solicitor), Address not published in accordance with footnote 9 of paragraph 8(b) of the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules
(Registered 3 September 2025)
Payment: £1,700 (of which £835 was paid to my solicitors)
Received on: 3 September 2025. Hours: 10 hrs Estimated number of hours worked.
(Registered 3 September 2025)
2. (b) Any other support not included in Category 2(a)

Name of donorUB Healthcare Ltd
Address of donor: Office 716, Highlands Road, Shirley, Solihull B90 4ND
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £2,000
Date received: 7 November 2024 to 25 February 2025
Date accepted: 7 November 2024
Donor status: company, registration 13950973
(Registered 26 February 2025)
Name of donor: Eleanor Shanks
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £2,000
Date received: 3 April 2025
Date accepted: 3 April 2025
Donor status: individual
(Registered 4 April 2025)
Name of donor: UB Healthcare Ltd
Address of donor: Office 716 Highlands Road, Shirley, Solihull, England, B90 4ND
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £300 sponsorship towards the costs of my upcoming Pensioners’ Fair
Date received: 18 July 2025
Date accepted: 18 July 2025
Donor status: company, registration 13950973
(Registered 18 July 2025)
3. Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources

Name of donorLord Banner KC
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Tickets for my wife and myself at the O2 Arena for a Lady Gaga concert on 2 October 2025, including seating in the suite, food, and refreshments, value £445.10
Date received: 2 October 2025
Date accepted: 2 October 2025
Donor status: individual
(Registered 2 October 2025)
4. Visits outside the UK

Name of donorCoalition for Global Prosperity (CGP)
Address of donor: 1 Horse Guards Avenue, London SW1A 2HU
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Flights (£2694.99); accommodation (£1222.83); transport (£544.68); and food/miscellaneous (£633.80); airport parking (£158.63), value £5,254.93
Destination of visit: United States (Washington DC and Missouri)
Dates of visit: 6 April 2025 to 11 April 2025
Purpose of visit: Fact-finding political delegation to strengthen transatlantic relations and to discuss joint UK-US foreign policy challenges with US politicians, policymakers and experts.
(Registered 29 April 2025)
8. Miscellaneous

Member of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee (West Midlands). This is an unpaid role.
(Registered 10 July 2024)
12 February 2026: Additional declarations:

British Army Veteran, having served in the Royal Army Medical Corps. I remain on the RARO List. During my career I had dealings with the Service Complaints process.
I worked in the NHS at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust, which hosts the Royal Centre of Defence Medicine. My work involved treated Armed Forces personnel.
Member of the Royal British Legion.
Member of the West Midlands Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee.
Former Chair of the APPG for Defence Technology.
Royal Star & Garter have a Care Home within my constituency which I have visited on a number of occasions. This has included meetings with the CEO, Andy Cole.
I attended the Birmingham Military Tattoo as a guest of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council in 2025 and will be doing so again on 15 February 2026. The value of this hospitality falls below the registerable threshold.
Taylor, Rachel (North Warwickshire and Bedworth)

1. Employment and earnings

Role, work or servicesDirector
Until: 31 July 2025.
Payer: Rachel Taylor Consultancy Limited (Provision of Legal Services), The Old College, Ratcliffe Road, Atherstone, CV9 1LF
(Registered 6 August 2025)
Payment: £15,624 Dividends declared to cancel Director Loan account in order to wind up company.
Received on: 31 July 2025. Hours: no hours entered.
(Registered 6 August 2025)
3. Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources

Name of donorThe Premier League
Address of donor: Brunel Building, 57 North Wharf Road, London W2 1HQ
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Two tickets and hospitality for the Dua Lipa concert at Wembley Stadium, value £1,798
Date received: 20 June 2025
Date accepted: 20 June 2025
Donor status: other (Sport body)
(Registered 2 July 2025)
Name of donor: Lawn Tennis Association
Address of donor: The National Tennis Centre, 100 Priory Lane, Roehampton, London SW15 5JQ
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Centre Court ticket and lunch at The Queens Club during the Ladies HSBC Championships, value £399.47
Date received: 12 June 2025
Date accepted: 12 June 2025
Donor status: company, registration 07459469
(Registered 2 July 2025)
Name of donor: The Lawn Tennis Association Limited
Address of donor: The National Tennis Centre 100 Priory Lane, Roehampton, London SW15 5JQ
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Two tickets for Centre Court at Wimbledon during week 2 of the Championships, value £540
Date received: 11 July 2025
Date accepted: 11 July 2025
Donor status: company, registration 07459469
(Registered 28 July 2025)
Name of donor: Rugby Football Union
Address of donor: Rugby House, Allianz Stadium, 200 Whitton Road, Twickenham TW2 7BA
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: One ticket and lunch at the England v New Zealand match on 15 November 2025, value £329
Date received: 15 November 2025
Date accepted: 15 November 2025
Donor status: company, registration IP27981R
(Registered 18 November 2025)
4. Visits outside the UK

Name of donorCoalition for Global Prosperity (CGP)
Address of donor: 1 Horse Guards Avenue, London SW1A 2HU
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Visa (£43.25), flights and travel (£2182.98), food and refreshments (£131.90), accommodation (£711.67), value £3,199.80
Destination of visit: Zimbabwe (Harare, Hatcliff, Mutare and Chinhoyi,)
Dates of visit: 15 February 2025 to 21 February 2025
Purpose of visit: Overseas visit to Zimbabwe to see UK Development Projects “in action” and meet with development experts and partners
(Registered 13 March 2025)
Name of donor: LKQ Group (UK) Limited
Address of donor: T2 Birch Coppice Business Park, Danny Morson Way, Dordon B78 1SE
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Flights £216.08, accommodation £329.60. Per person cost (£272.84), value £545.68
Destination of visit: Poland
Dates of visit: 29 July 2025 to 3 August 2025
Purpose of visit: My partner and I drove a decommissioned ambulance full of medical supplies to the Poland/ Ukraine Border as part of a humanitarian mission organised by LKQ. The trip covered 1,300 miles and consisted of overnight stays along the route with a return flight once the ambulance was handed over to Ukrainian medics.
(Registered 26 August 2025)
6. Land and property portfolio with a value over £100,000 and where indicated, the portfolio provides a rental income of over £10,000 a year

Type of land/propertyResidential property (flat)
Number of properties: 2
Location: Atherstone
Rental income: Yes
(Registered 26 July 2024)
7. (i) Shareholdings: over 15% of issued share capital

Name of company or organisationRachel Taylor Consultancy Limited
Nature of business: provision of legal services
(Registered 25 July 2024)
8. Miscellaneous

North Warwickshire Borough Councillor, (unpaid since 5 July 2024 and previously registered under Category 1)
Date interest ended: 1 May 2025
(Registered 25 July 2024; updated 27 November 2025)
Wakeford, Christian (Bury South)

Nil

Witnesses

The following witnesses gave evidence. Transcripts can be viewed on the
inquiry publications page
of the Committee’s website.

Tuesday 24 February 2026

Ted Arnold
, Senior Public Affairs and Policy Manager, Help for Heroes;
Mark Atkinson
, Director General, Royal British Legion;
Lt Gen. Sir Nick Pope KCB CBE
, Chair, Confederation of British Serving and Ex Service Organisations (Cobseo)
Q1-15

Andrea Devlin
, Director, RAF Families Federation;
Collette Musgrave
, Chief Executive, Army Families Federation;
Rebecca Lovell
, Head of Policy and Deputy CEO, Naval Families Federation
Q16-31

Mr Andy Cole
, Chief Executive, Royal Star & Garter;
Caroline Cooke
, Head of Policy, Forces in Mind Trust;
Chloe Mackay
, Chief Executive Officer, Combat Stress
Q32-45

Lt Cdr (Retd) Susie Hamilton,
Scottish Veterans Commissioner;
David Johnstone
, Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner;
Col. James Phillips
,

Veterans Commissioner for Wales
Q46-56

Wednesday 25 February 2026

Canon Peter Bruinvels CC
, Co-Chair, Local Government Association Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network, Covenant Lead and Military Liaison Adviser, Kent and Surrey County Councils;
Mike Callaghan
, Policy Manager, Communities Team, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities;
Kate Davies
, Director, Health and Justice, Armed Forces and Sexual Assault Services Commissioning, NHS England;
Caroline Bell
, Co-Chair, Local Government Association Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network, Lead Officer for the Armed Forces Covenant, Portsmouth City Council
Q57-70

Nick Hamer
, Chief Risk Officer and Armed Forces Advocate, Department for Work & Pensions;
William Vineall
, Director, NHS Quality, Safety, Investigations, Department for Health and Social Care-NHS England Medical Directorate
Q71-92

Tuesday 3 March 2026

The Rt Hon. the Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton TD
, author of Reserve Forces Review 2030;
Lt Gen Sir Nick Pope
, military adviser to the Haythornthwaite Review
Q93-107

Maj Gen Jamie Gordon
, Reserves External Scrutiny Team Clerk and Chief Executive, Council of RFCAs;
Professor Vincent Connelly
, Academic member, Reserves External Scrutiny Team;
ACM Lord Peach
, Chair, Reserves External Scrutiny Team;
Maj Gen Stephen Potter
, Vice Chair, Reserves External Scrutiny Team
Q108-132

Gen (retd) Sir Richard Barrons
,

External Reviewer, Strategic Defence Review
Q133-150

Wednesday 4 March 2026

Natalie Elphicke Ross OBE
, Chair, Defence Housing Strategy Review team;
David Brewer
, Chief Operating Officer, Defence Infrastructure Organisation, Ministry of Defence
Q151-191

Mark Hayhurst
, Accommodation Policy Advisor, RAF Families Federation;
Helen Fish
, Senior Families Advocate & Accommodation Lead, Naval Families Federation;
Cat Calder
, Housing Specialist, Army Families Federation
Q192-206

Sarah Atherton
, former Defence Minister
Q207-222

Tuesday 10 March 2026

KC Jonathan Rees
, Service Police Complaints Commissioner, Office of the Service Police Complaints Commissioner
Q223-240

His Honour Judge Alan Large
, Judge Advocate General, Office of The Judge Advocate General
Q241-258

Brigadier Kristian Rotchell
, Provost Marshal for Serious Crime, Defence Serious Crime Command (DSCC);
Nina Slocombe
, Head of Victim Witness Care Unit, Victim Witness Care Unit
Q259-285

Tuesday 17 March 2026

Zoë Jackson
, Deputy Chief Executive, Aurora New Dawn;
Ahmed Al Nahhas
, Head of Military Claims, Bolt Burdon Kemp;
Emma Norton
, Director, Centre for Military Justice (CMJ)
Q286-300

Mary Cowe
, Director of Service Prosecutions, Service Prosecuting Authority
Q301-315

Wednesday 18 March 2026

Al Carns MP
, Minister for the Armed Forces;
Sam des Forges
, Director of Conduct, Equity and Justice, Ministry of Defence;
Major General Marc Overton
, Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Reserve Forces and Cadets), Ministry of Defence;
Sarah Houghton
, Director, Armed Forces People Policy, Ministry of Defence;
David Brewer
, Chief Operating Officer, Defence Infrastructure Organisation, Ministry of Defence
Q316-381

Published written evidence

The following written evidence was received and can be viewed on the
inquiry publications page
of the Committee’s website.

AFB numbers are generated by the evidence processing system and so may not be complete.

1
Anonymised 
AFB0044

2
Anonymised 
AFB0008

3
Sargeant, Anthony (Tony) 
AFB0006

4
Atherton, Sarah 
AFB0048

5
Aurora New Dawn 
AFB0011

6
Buziuk, Hleb 
AFB0001

7
Cobseo - The Confederation of Service Charities 
AFB0029

8
Connelly, Professor Vincent (Professor of Psychology, Oxford Brookes University) 
AFB0040

9
Cowe, Miss Mary (Director of Service Prosecutions, Service Prosecuting Authority) 
AFB0019

10
Dennis, Mr Christopher 
AFB0038

11
East Anglian Divers 
AFB0050

12
Fighting with Pride 
AFB0003

13
Forces in Mind Trust 
AFB0014

14
Glasgow City Council; and Glasgow Helping Heroes 
AFB0028

15
Greater Manchester Combined Authority 
AFB0025

16
Help for Heroes 
AFB0030

17
Home Office 
AFB0042

18
Large, HHJ Alan M (Judge Advocate General, Office of The Judge Advocate General) 
AFB0009

19
Liverpool John Moores University 
AFB0017

20
Local Government Association 
AFB0035

21
Local Government Association (LGA) supported Covenant Officers Network; Surrey County Council and Kent County Council; Greater Manchester Combined Authority; and Portsmouth City Council 
AFB0027

22
MS, Ken Skates (Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, Welsh Government) 
AFB0037

23
Ministry of Defence 
AFB0051

24
Ministry of Defence 
AFB0047

25
Ministry of Defence 
AFB0043

26
Misca, Dr Gabriela (Principal Investigator, Living in Our Shoes Revisited project, University of Birmingham) 
AFB0020

27
North Lanarkshire Council 
AFB0023

28
Portsmouth City Council 
AFB0026

29
Captain RN (Retd.) Mark Wyatt 
AFB0022

30
Royal British Veterans Enteprise 
AFB0015

31
Royal Star & Garter 
AFB0033

32
SSAFA the Armed Forces charity 
AFB0016

33
Scottish Government 
AFB0045

34
Skingle, Mr Trevor 
AFB0036

35
Solanki, Emile 
AFB0046

36
South Lanarkshire Council 
AFB0034

37
Sprouting, Mrs Linda 
AFB0021

38
Stevenage Borough Council 
AFB0031

39
Surrey County Council and Kent County Council; and LGA Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network 
AFB0012

40
The Centre for Military Justice 
AFB0049

41
The Centre for Military Justice 
AFB0041

42
The Naval, Army and RAF Families Federations 
AFB0032

43
The Royal British Legion (RBL) 
AFB0018

44
Veterans Legal Link, Aberystwyth University 
AFB0002

45
Welsh Local Government Association 
AFB0024

46
Wilson, Mr Gary 
AFB0007

Footnotes

1
UK Parliament,
Armed Forces Bill

2
GOV.UK
The Armed Forces Covenant
, Accessed 27 January 2026

3

Armed Forces Act 2006
[as amended], section 340A

4

Armed Forces Act 2006
[as amended], section 343AA

5
Labour Party,
Labour’s manifesto
, 13 June 2024

6

Pledge to Protect Armed Forces Community Through New Armed Forces Covenant Legal Duty
, HCWS747, 30 June 2025

7

[EN] Armed Forces Bill
, p. 7

8
The twelve policy areas that the new duty would cover are: childcare; education and training; employment; health and social care’ housing; social security benefits; personal taxation; criminal justice; transport; pensions; immigration and citizenship; and armed forces compensation. See
Armed Forces Bill
, 2(2).

9

Armed Forces Bill
[as introduced], clause 2(2)

10
E.g. Forces in Mind Trust (
AFB0014
); Portsmouth City Council (
AFB0026
);
Q2
[Ted Arnold, Help for Heroes]

11
Forces in Mind Trust (
AFB0014
); The Royal British Legion (RBL) (
AFB0018
); Help for Heroes (
AFB0030
)The Naval, Army and RAF Families Federations (
AFB0032
); South Lanarkshire Council (
AFB0034
)

12
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (
AFB0025
); Portsmouth City Council (
AFB0026
)

13

Q76
[Nick Hamer]

14

Q47
[Lt Cdr Susie Hamiltion, Scottish Veterans Commissioner; David Johnstone, Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner; Col James Phillips, Veterans Commissioner for Wales]

15

Qq48–50
[Lt Cdr Susie Hamiltion, Scottish Veterans Commissioner; David Johnstone, Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner; Col James Phillips, Veterans Commissioner for Wales]

16

Q58
[Caroline Bell, Portsmouth City Council and LGA Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network];
Q61
[Mike Callaghan, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities]; Glasgow City Council, Glasgow Helping Heroes (
AFB0028
); Local Government Association (
AFB0035
); Welsh Local Government Association (
AFB0024
)

17
The Naval, Army and RAF Families Federations (
AFB0032
)

18

Q61
[Caroline Bell, Portsmouth City Council and LGA Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network]

19
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (
AFB0025
); Local Government Association (
AFB0035
); The Royal British Legion (RBL) (
AFB0018
); South Lanarkshire Council (
AFB0034
)

20

Qq65, 70
[Caroline Bell, Portsmouth City Council and LGA Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network]; Help for Heroes (
AFB0030
); Local Government Association (
AFB0035
)

21
Local Government Association (
AFB0035
)

22

Q66
[Caroline Bell, Portsmouth City Council and LGA Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network]; Surrey County Council and Kent County Council, LGA Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network (
AFB0012
); Forces in Mind Trust (
AFB0014
); The Royal British Legion (RBL) (
AFB0018
); Greater Manchester Combined Authority (
AFB0025
); Help for Heroes (
AFB0030
); The Naval, Army and RAF Families Federations (
AFB0032
)

23

Q25
[Collette Musgrave, Army Families Federation]

24

Q28
[Collette Musgrave, Army Families Federation]

25

Letter from the Minister for the Armed Forces to the Committee
, 9 March 2026

26

Q5
[Ted Arnold, Help for Heroes];
Q8
[Lt Gen. Sir Nick Pope, Cobseo]; Canon Peter Bruinvels, Surrey County Council and Kent County Council, LGA Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network (
AFB0012
)

27

Q8
[Lt Gen. Sir Nick Pope, Cobseo]; The Royal British Legion (RBL) (
AFB0018
); Help for Heroes (
AFB0030
); The Naval, Army and RAF Families Federations (
AFB0032
)

28

Q319

29

Q66
[Canon Peter Bruinvels, Local Government Association Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network]; Canon Peter Bruinvels, Surrey County Council and Kent County Council, LGA Armed Forces Covenant Lead Officers Network (
AFB0012
)

30
Forces in Mind Trust (
AFB0014
); Dr Gabriela Misca (Principal Investigator, Living in Our Shoes Revisited project at University of Birmingham) (
AFB0020
); Greater Manchester Combined Authority (
AFB0025
); Portsmouth City Council (
AFB0026
)

31
Local Government Association (LGA) supported Covenant Officers Network, Surrey County Council and Kent County Council, Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Portsmouth City Council (
AFB0027
)Forces in Mind Trust (
AFB0014
)

32

Q327

33
The ‘fix on fail’ approach refers to the MOD suspending proactive/preventative maintenance in response to budget cuts.

34
Oral evidence taken by the Defence Committee on 27 February 2024,
Q218–222
[Michael Green, Chief Executive, Defence Infrastructure Organisation]

35
House of Commons Library,
Adequacy of service accommodation
, 15 December 2023

36
Ministry of Defence,
UK Regular Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey Results 2023
, 1 June 2023

37
Ministry of Defence,
Government buys back 36,347 military homes to improve housing for forces families and save taxpayers billions
, 17 December 2024

38
Ministry of Defence,
The Defence Housing Strategy 2025
, September 2025, p46;
Q356

39

Armed Forces Bill
, Clause 3

40

Armed Forces Bill
, Schedule 1, Part 1, (5)

41

Armed Forces Bill
, Schedule 1, Part 1, (15)

42
Ministry of Defence,
Homes fit for heroes: Raft of new measures to improve military family housing
, 18 April 2025

43

Q24

44

Q358

45

Q371

46
The Royal British Legion (RBL) (
AFB0018
); Dr Gabriela Misca (Principal Investigator, Living in Our Shoes Revisited project at University of Birmingham) (
AFB0020
); North Lanarkshire Council (
AFB0023
); Glasgow City Council, Glasgow Helping Heroes (
AFB0028
); Cobseo - The Confederation of Service Charities (
AFB0029
); The Naval, Army and RAF Families Federations (
AFB0032
)

47

Qq155 -159

48
Ministry of Defence commissioned review,
Living in our Shoes: Understanding the needs of UK Armed Forces families
, June 2020

49
Dr Gabriella Misca (Principal Investigator, Living in Our Shoes Revisited project at University of Birmingham) (
AFB0020
)

50
The Naval, Army and RAF Families Federations (
AFB0032
)

51
Ministry of Defence,
The Defence Housing Strategy 2025
, September 2025, p16

52
House of Commons Library Research Briefing,
Armed forces family housing: Maintenance issues
, 13 November, 2024

53
Ministry of Defence,
The Defence Housing Strategy 2025
, September 2025, p52

54

Q167

55

Q168

56

Q172

57

Q173

58
Ministry of Defence,
The Defence Housing Strategy 2025
, September 2025, p75

59
Royal British Veterans Enterprise (RBVE) (
AFB0015
); Cobseo - The Confederation of Service Charities (
AFB0029
); The Local Government Association (LGA) (
AFB0035
)

60
Cobseo - The Confederation of Service Charities (
AFB0029
)

61
Royal British Veterans Enterprise (RBVE) (
AFB0015
)

62
Oral evidence taken by the Defence Committee on 27 February 2024,
Q184
[James Cartlidge MP, former Minister for Defence Procurement]

63
Oral evidence taken by the Defence Committee on 27 February 2024,
Q191
[Vice Admiral Hally]

64
Ministry of Defence,
The Defence Housing Strategy 2025
, September 2025, p29

65

Q201

66
The Naval, Army and RAF Families Federations (
AFB0032
)

67

Q187

68

Q24
and
Q200

69
Ministry of Defence,
New review of single living accommodation to transform military housing standards
, 30 January 2026

70
Commons Library research briefing CBP-9118,
The review of the service justice system
, 20 January 2021;
Armed Forces Act 2006

71
Separate protocols exist which provide guidance on the exercise of criminal jurisdiction between the Service Prosecuting Authority and its civilian equivalents in England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. These protocols contain information on factors that should be considered by prosecutors when deciding on which jurisdiction a case should be tried in; England and Wales: Crown Prosecution Service,
Protocol regarding the exercise of criminal jurisdiction in England and Wales
, 12 February 2026; Scotland: Attorney General’s Office,
Protocol between the Law Officers and the Service Prosecuting Authority
, 23 January 2024; Northern Ireland: MOD,
Joint Prosecution Protocol – Northern Ireland
, 28 November 2024

72
UK Parliament,
Armed Forces Bill
, clauses 5–29

73

HC Deb 14 April 2026 cc91–146

74

[EN] Armed Forces Bill
, p6

75
Doughty Street Chambers,
Inquest into the death of Gunner Jaysley Beck: Coroner concludes UK government may have breached soldier’s right to life
, 20 February 2025

76
Women in the Armed Forces: From Recruitment to Civilian Life,
Protecting those who protect us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life
, 25 July 2021

77
Defence Committee,
Protecting those who protect us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life
, 25 July 2021

78
E.g. Aurora New Dawn (
AFB0011
), The Centre for Military Justice (
AFB0041
),
Q288
[Ahmed Al-Nahhas, Bolt Burdon Kemp],
Q222
[Sarah Atherton, former Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families]

79

Q284
[Nina Slocombe, Head of Victim Witness Care Unit];
Q287

80
UK Parliament,
Armed Forces Bill
, clauses 5–9

81
Home Office,
Victims protected through game changing domestic abuse orders
, 25 November 2025

82
Aurora New Dawn (
AFB0011
)

83
HHJ Alan M Large (Judge Advocate General at Office of The Judge Advocate General) (
AFB0009
)

84
Miss Mary Cowe (Director of Service Prosecutions at Service Prosecuting Authority) (
AFB0019
)

85
Aurora New Dawn (
AFB0011
)

86
Aurora New Dawn (
AFB0011
)

87
Portsmouth City Council (
AFB0026
)

88
Portsmouth City Council (
AFB0026
)

89
Miss Mary Cowe (Director of Service Prosecutions at Service Prosecuting Authority) (
AFB0019
); “ This gap exists due to the fact that Section 229 1 (b) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 reads that a Service Restraining Order can be made on conviction or acquittal and when “the defendant is subject to service law or is a civilian subject to service discipline”, rather than, for example, that he or she was subject to service law or service discipline on the first date that the alleged behaviour forming part of the charges took place.”

90
Miss Mary Cowe (Director of Service Prosecutions at Service Prosecuting Authority) (
AFB0019
)

91
UK Parliament,
Armed Forces Bill
, clauses 10–11; Clause 11 removes the requirement for victims of a service offence to raise a complaint via an MP before it can be escalated to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

92
Ministry of Defence,
Services to be provided by the armed forces to victims of crime (JSP 839)
, 29 November 2023

93

Armed Forces Bill
, clause 10

94
E.g. Aurora New Dawn (
AFB0011
), The Centre for Military Justice (
AFB0041
), Miss Mary Cowe (Director of Service Prosecutions at Service Prosecuting Authority) (
AFB0019
),
Q278
[Nina Slocombe, Head of the Victim Witness Care Unit]

95

Q289
[Zoë Jackson, Aurora New Dawn]

96

Q216
[Sarah Atherton, former Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families and subject matter expert]; Aurora New Dawn (
AFB0011
);
Q305
[Mary Cowe, Director of Service Prosecutions]

97

Q289
[Ahmed Al-Nahhas, Bolt Burdon Kemp]

98

Q216
[Sarah Atherton]

99

Q216
[Sarah Atherton]

100

Q216
[Sarah Atherton]; In written evidence, Aurora New Dawn highlighted that 29% of their referrals in the last 12 months had been self-referrals

101

Q289
[Emma Norton, Centre for Military Justice]

102
UK Parliament,
Armed Forces Bill
, clauses 12–16

103
UK Parliament,
Armed Forces Bill
, clause 12

104

[EN] Armed Forces Bill
, p45

105

Armed Forces Act 2006
, s115A

106

Q271
[Brigadier Kristian Rotchell, Defence Serious Crime Command]

107
Miss Mary Cowe (Director of Service Prosecutions at Service Prosecuting Authority) (
AFB0019
)

108
The Centre for Military Justice (
AFB0041
)

109
UK Parliament,
Armed Forces Bill
, clause 17

110

Armed Forces Act 2006
, sch 2

111
Miss Mary Cowe (Director of Service Prosecutions at Service Prosecuting Authority) (
AFB0019
)

112

Q234
[Jonathan Rees KC, Service Police Complaints Commissioner]

113

Q352
[Sam des Forges, Ministry of Defence, Director for Conduct, Equity and Justice]

114
The Centre for Military Justice (
AFB0041
) Aurora New Dawn (
AFB0011
)
Q300
[Ahmed Al-Nahhas, Bolt Burdon Kemp] [Emma Norton, Centre for Military Justice] [Zoë Jackson, Aurora New Dawn]

115
Aurora New Dawn (
AFB0011
)

116
The Centre for Military Justice (
AFB0041
); Commanding Officers only have to refer offences contained in
Schedule 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006
to the Service police. Schedule 2 does not include domestic abuse-related offences such as common assault or actual bodily harm in a domestic abuse context. Commanding Officers have the power to investigate and decide upon minor disciplinary and criminal offences at summary hearings. COs can issue a punishment of up to 28 days’ detention, which may be extended to 90 days’ with approval from Higher Authority. Service personnel have the right to appeal these decisions to the Summary Appeal Court; Ministry of Defence,
Commanding officers guide (manual of service law: JSP 830 volume 1)
, 23 March 2021

117
The Centre for Military Justice (
AFB0041
)

118
The Centre for Military Justice (
AFB0041
); UK Parliament,
Explanatory Notes: Armed Forces Bill
, p6; Clause 9 would make provision for offenders who have committed certain serious violent, sexual or specified offences and meet certain sentencing criteria to be automatically supervised under multi-agency public protection arrangements upon their release. Clause 9 specifies that this applies to convictions achieved in the Service Courts. The CMJ suggest that this would exclude convictions following a summary hearing before a Commanding Officer.

119

Q300
[Ahmed Al-Nahhas, Bolt Burdon Kemp] [Emma Norton, Centre for Military Justice]

120
Ministry of Defence,
Armed Forces Sexualised Behaviours and Sexual Harassment Survey
, 13 November 2025, para 29.1

121

Q269

122

Q300

123

Q268
[Brigadier Kristian Rotchell, Defence Serious Crime Command]

124

Q295
[Ahmed Al-Nahhas, Bolt Burdon Kemp]

125

Q268

126

Q268

127
UK Parliament,
Armed Forces Bill
, clauses 20–26

128
In cases that occur overseas, jurisdiction is often regulated by a treaty, Memorandum of Understanding or other agreement. This is discussed in detail in
JSP 830: Manual of service law, Vol 1, Ch 3
.

129
UK Parliament,
Armed Forces Bill
, clause 25

130
UK Parliament,
Explanatory Notes: Armed Forces Bill
, p53

131

JSP 830Manual of service law, Vol 1, Ch 3
, Jurisdiction and time limits, para 51

132

JSP 830Manual of service law, Vol 1, Ch 3
, Jurisdiction and time limits, para 51

133
Ministry of Defence,
Service Justice System review: part 1
, 27 February 2020, p3

134
Ministry of Defence,
Service Justice System review: part 1
, 27 February 2020, p41

135
Ministry of Defence,
Sir Richard Henriques’ Review Report on strengthening the Service Justice System
, 21 October 2021, para 7.4.4

136
Aurora New Dawn (
AFB0011
)

137
Aurora New Dawn (
AFB0011
)

138
Sarah Atherton (former Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families) (
AFB0048
);
Q221

139

Q228
[Jonathan Rees KC, Service Police Complaints Commissioner and former Director of Service Prosecutions]

140

Q220
[Sarah Atherton, former Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families]

141

Q291
[Emma Norton, Centre for Military Justice]

142

Q291
[Emma Norton, Centre for Military Justice];
Q349
[Sam des Forges, Ministry of Defence, Director of Conduct, Equity and Justice] The Centre for Military Justice (
AFB0049
); According to CMJ analysis of quarterly
Court Martial conviction data
, updated in March 2026, of all the rape charges since 2010, guilty verdicts were recorded in around just 22% of rape charges completed at court martial. The CMJ has compared this with research undertaken by UCL which examined rape outcomes by charge in the Crown Court and which showed that over a 14-year period (2007–2021), the jury conviction rate for all rape charges had steadily increased from 55% to 75% in civilian courts).

143

Q309
[Mary Cowe, Director of Service Prosecutions]

144

Armed Forces Act 2021
, sch 1, para 1 (5) and (8); Ministry of Defence,
Key to Rank codes April 2019
, 18 October 2019; “OR-7” refers to Other Rank 7. This is equivalent to Flight Sergeant in the RAF, Staff Sergeant in the Army and Chief Petty Officer/Colour Sergeant in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines respectively.

145
UK Parliament,
Explanatory Notes: Armed Forces Bill
, p50

146
UK Parliament,
Armed Forces Bill
, clause 20

147

Q315
[Mary Cowe, Director of Service Prosecutions]; N.B. Boards are already de-conflicted to ensure that those on each board do not have any relationship to either the defendant or prosecution.

148

Q355
[Sam des Forges, Director of Conduct, Equity and Justice, Ministry of Defence]

149

Reserve Forces Act 1996

150

UIN61694

151
The Volunteer Reserve is also sometimes known as the Active Reserve. The Active Reserve are made up of volunteers, many with full-time jobs, who use their spare time to train as part of the armed forces and can expect to be called up and deployed on operations alongside their full-time regular colleagues. They provide additional trained personnel and specialist capabilities that regular forces cannot always readily generate or sustain, such as medical and cyber skills. (Source: Public Accounts Committee, 43rd report of Session 2024–26,
MoD’s oversight of Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations
, HC 893, para 4).

152
House of Commons Library,
Armed Forces Bill
, Research Briefing 10471, 21 January 2026, p25

153
Ministry of Defence,
Strategic Defence Review
, 2 June 2025, recommendations 14 and 28

154

Q95

155

Q109

156

Q330

157
Ministry of Defence,
Reserve Forces Review 2030
, 12 May 2021, Chapter 4

158
Ministry of Defence,
Agency and Agility: Incentivising people in a new era
, 19 June 2023, p. 44

159
Ministry of Defence,
Defence Command Paper Refresh: Defence’s response to a more contested and volatile world
, CP 901, 18 July 2023

160

[EN] Armed Forces Bill
, p9

161
Ministry of Defence, Armed Forces Bill Impact Assessments:
Impact Assessment Strategic Reserves
, 2 March 2026

162

[EN] Armed Forces Bill
, January 2026, para 17

163

Q99

164

Q99

165
Reserve Forces Act 1996,
Section 54

166
Reserve Forces Act 1996,
Section 68

167
Professor Vincent Connelly (Professor of Psychology at Oxford Brookes University) (
AFB0040
)

168
Portsmouth City Council (
AFB0026
)

169

Q105

170
Professor Vincent Connelly (Professor of Psychology at Oxford Brookes University) (
AFB0040
)

171

[EN] Armed Forces Bill
, p. 11

172

Q117

173

Q118

174
Professor Vincent Connelly (Professor of Psychology at Oxford Brookes University) (
AFB0040
)

175

Q139

176

Q330

177

Q332

178

Q333

179

Qq334–335

180

[EN] Armed Forces Bill 2026
, para 31

181
Ministry of Defence,
Review of the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations 2019
, 24 March 2020

182

[EN] Armed Forces Bill
, pp11–12

183
Ministry of Defence (
AFB0043
)

184

Q130

185

Q130

186
The Active Reserve forces are made up of volunteers, many with full-time jobs, who use their spare time to train as part of the armed forces and can expect to be called up and deployed on operations alongside their full-time regular colleagues. They provide additional trained personnel and specialist capabilities that regular forces cannot always readily generate or sustain, such as medical and cyber skills (Source: Public Accounts Committee, 43rd report of Session 2024–26,
MoD’s oversight of Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations
, HC 893, para 4).

187
Ministry of Defence,
Strategic Defence Review
, 2 June 2025, Recommendation 14, p70

188
Ministry of Defence,
Strategic Defence Review
, 2 June 2025, Recommendation 28, p93

189
Ministry of Defence,
Strategic Defence Review
, 2 June 2025, Recommendation 28, p93

190
Ministry of Defence,
Strategic Defence Review
, 2 June 2025, Recommendation 28, p93

191

Q135

192
Professor Vincent Connelly (Professor of Psychology at Oxford Brookes University) (
AFB0040
)

193
Ministry of Defence (
AFB0043
), paras 55

194
Ministry of Defence (
AFB0043
), para 55

195
Ministry of Defence (
AFB0043
), para 55

196

Q336

197

Q338

198

Qq123–124

199

Q104

200

Q104

201

Q119

202

Q338

203

Q339

204
Ministry of Defence, Armed Forces Bill Impact Assessments:
Impact Assessment Strategic Reserves
, 2 March 2026, p7

205
Defence Reform Act 2014,
section 47

206
For example, see
United Kingdom Reserve Forces External Scrutiny Team Annual Report 2025
, 16 December 2025, p4 and pp 9–10, which discuss the need for the empowerment and reinvigoration of the Strategic Reserve

207

Qq127–129

208
Ministry of Defence,
United Kingdom Reserve Forces External Scrutiny Team Annual Report 2025
, 16 December 2025, pp11–17. The EST also noted: “There has been no public announcement of any change since the issue of the FR20 report, although the RN amended the FR20 trained strength target to +/- 20% of 3,100 and the Army has reduced its trained strength requirement by 3,000 from 30,100 to 27,097. The RAF has set itself a more ambitious target to expand to 5,000”.

209
Ministry of Defence, Armed Forces Bill Impact Assessments:
Impact Assessment Strategic Reserves
, 2 March 2026

210
Ministry of Defence, Armed Forces Bill Impact Assessments:
Impact Assessment Strategic Reserves
, 2 March 2026

211
Ministry of Defence, Armed Forces Bill Impact Assessments:
Impact Assessment Strategic Reserves
, 2 March 2026

212

Advocate General for Scotland v Milroy
, [2026] EAT 25, 29 January 2026

213

Q342

214

Q343

215
Transcripts of our line-by-line scrutiny sessions can be read on the
Armed Forces Bill page
on Parliament’s website.

216
Armed Forces Bill, Clause 4

217

[EN] Armed Forces Bill
, p. 8;
Ministry of Defence Memorandum to the Defence Committee
, 20 January 2026

218
BBC News,
Airbases drone inquiry ends without any suspects
, 3 February 2026

219

Ministry of Defence Memorandum to the Defence Committee
, 20 January 2026

220

Q372

221
For example, see
Ministry of Defence Votes A: 2026 to 2027
, 10 February 2026

222

Bill of Rights 1688

223

Air Force (Constitution) Act 1917
, Section 1;
Reserve Forces Act 1996
, Section 3

224

Armed Forces Bill
, Clauses 38–39

225

Ministry of Defence Memorandum to the Defence Committee on the Armed Forces Bill
, 20 January 2026

226

Q379

227

[EN] Armed Forces Bill
, p. 12

228

Letter from the Defence Committee to the Minister for the Armed Forces regarding the Armed Forces Bill
, 21 January 2026

229
Fighting with Pride (
AFB0003
); Anonymous (
AFB0008
); Anthony [Tony] Sargeant (
AFB0006
); Mr Christopher Dennis (
AFB0038
); Mr Gary Wilson (
AFB0007
); Mr Trevor Skingle (
AFB0036
)

230

LGBT VeteransEtherton Review
, HCWS306, 12 December 2024

231
Fighting with Pride (
AFB0003
)

232

Letter from the Minister for Veterans and People
, 17 March 2026

233
Ministry of Defence,
LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme: Scheme Rules, Version 6
, 7 April 2026

234
The list of members present at each meeting of the Committee indicates those committee members who were present for all or part of the meeting.