Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill

The committee scrutinised the Armed Forces Bill 2026 with a focus on how the Armed Forces Covenant will be expanded and enforced, how reserves reform and the Defence Housing Service will operate, and how cross-departmental collaboration and data systems will underpin better support for the armed forces community. Government witnesses outlined concrete commitments: expanding the Covenant duty to 12+2 policy areas, establishing Covenant champions and VALOUR field officers, and providing significant funding for standardising procedures and housing. They also discussed governance changes for the Defence Housing Service (an arm’s length body reporting alongside the NAD), plans to better track and recall reservists via data systems and a veteran digital ID, and the introduction of enhanced powers to counter drones around defence sites. The session also addressed cost considerations (Milroy liability), battlefield readiness (Reserves), victims’ protections within the service justice system, and the international dimension (Cyprus).

The session scrutinised how the Armed Forces Bill 2026 intersects with the service justice system, victims’ rights, and governance. Witnesses highlighted progress since 2017, but raised concerns about culture change, information provision to victims, the independence and handling of service prosecutions, and overseas deployment challenges. Key themes included the statutory footing of a victims code, gaps in safeguarding and CO reporting duties, data transparency around rape convictions, and the need for clearer cross-system coordination (service and civilian jurisdictions, MAPPA). The government-facing positions touched on victims’ choice between civilian and service routes and how legislation should support independent, trauma-informed outcomes.

The committee scrutinised how the Armed Forces Bill’s service-justice provisions affect victims, policing independence, and governance. Witnesses highlighted progress in victim support (notably the Victim Witness Care Unit) and new orders to safeguard victims (sexual-harm, domestic-abuse, and stalking). They stressed the independence of Defence policing, outlined proposed duties on commanding officers, and debated how civilian and service jurisdictions should interact. Key points included the need for education and information for victims before choosing jurisdiction, the expansion of police powers in pre-charge custody, and the reform of service courts to better align with civilian practice. Witnesses also called for timely implementation, adequate resourcing and training, and robust governance to maintain victim confidence and protect the integrity of investigations.

This session scrutinised the establishment and governance of the Defence Housing Service (DHS) under the Armed Forces Bill 2026, focusing on governance, funding, accountability, delivery of a 10-year renewal plan, and the role of families in governance. Key government commitments include a 10-year renewal with around £9–9.2 billion of funding, an independent DHS board with service-family representation, annual reporting to Parliament, and a framework for financial controls and planning independence from short-term annual cycles. The witnesses highlighted the planned lifecycle approach to housing renewal, enhanced on‑ground oversight of contractors, a consumer charter with named housing officers, and a fast-track planning mechanism for military housing. Panel 2 emphasised stronger family involvement in governance and ongoing consultation; Panel 3 addressed service-justice policy in the Bill, including victims’ rights, reporting duties for commanding officers, and a push for civilian jurisdiction for serious offences. The overall tone balances ambitious reform with questions about timing, DIP publication, and implementation challenges, including the need for cross-department alignment on victims protections and broader planning safeguards.

Substantive scrutiny focused on how the Armed Forces Bill realigns Reserve forces with the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), the goal of increasing massed reserves, and the mechanisms for opt-in/opt-out, data systems, and employer engagement. Witnesses argued the Bill advances the Strategic Reserve and a continuum of service but emphasised that successful delivery depends on simplifying terms of service, delivering a digital registry of reservists, and maintaining a strong, society-wide narrative and housing/infrastructure foundations to support resilience.

The session scrutinised the expansion of the Armed Forces Covenant under the Armed Forces Bill 2026, focusing on practical delivery across local government, the NHS, and central Departments. Witnesses welcomed the broader Covenant but warned of capacity, funding and data-system challenges amid devolution and local-government reform. They called for a full, integrated impact assessment, clear guidance, and co-production with local authorities and health bodies. There were repeated recommendations for centrally funded Covenant lead officers, greater cross-Government coordination (including VALOUR), robust monitoring, and consistent messaging to public and frontline staff. The witnesses stressed the need for timely resources, and warned against regional disparities if infrastructure is not adequately developed. Concerns about implementation risk, the necessity of frontline embedding, and the role of leadership at local authorities were prominent throughout the evidence.