Neil Shastri-Hurst MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing Holly’s story, which sadly, is far too frequent. I remember from my time in clinical practice that those subtle signs were sadly sometimes missed. We need to do much more to ensure that our clinicians are aware of them so that they can make an early diagnosis. Of course, when those diagnoses arrive, it is inevitably devastating. It turns lives upside down in an instant. Parents are told that their child has a condition with few treatment options, husbands and wives are forced to confront an uncertain future and children become carers. Families who should be planning birthdays, holidays and life milestones instead find themselves navigating endless hospital corridors, scans and treatments. Behind every statistic is a person and behind every policy discussion is a family desperately hoping for more time. Today, I want to particularly recognise the courage of those families whose stories have been shared, often while living through the most unimaginable grief, so that others might one day have a better chance. I also want to pay tribute to the remarkable charities, researchers, clinicians and campaigners who have worked tirelessly to keep this issue on the national agenda: organisations such as the Brain Tumour Charity, Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, Brain Tumour Research, Cancer Research UK and countless others that have not only supported patients and families, but have driven forward research, awareness and innovation.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are countless charities that have done a huge amount of work, and what they are doing is making a tangible difference to people’s lives. Sadly, brain tumours remain one of the most challenging forms of cancer. In many instances, outcomes are no better than when I worked as a doctor in neurosurgery almost a decade and a half ago. The less survivable cancers taskforce has highlighted that one-year survival rates for less survivable cancers, which include brain cancers, remain significantly lower than the average across all cancers. Despite advances in medicine, outcomes for many patients have not improved at the pace that we would all wish to see. That is why the concerns raised by the petitioners are so important. Quite rightly, the petition calls for greater investment in research, wider access to whole-genome sequencing and stronger support for innovative treatments. Those are priorities that cannot be ignored any longer. However, before I turn to those challenges, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the progress that has been made. The National Institute for Health and Care Research has established the brain tumour research consortium, which has brought together dozens of organisations to co-ordinate research and is backed by up to £25.5 million of investment. The recently enacted Rare Cancers Act 2026 represents another significant step forward, and I want to commend the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for his work in bringing that legislation on to the statute book. The establishment of the national speciality lead and a dedicated cancer registry service have the potential to improve co-ordination and data collection and strengthen research. The national cancer plan has recognised rare cancers as a priority area and committed to expanding successful models such as the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission. Those developments are of course all welcome. As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we supported the Rare Cancers Act throughout its passage through Parliament because we recognise that patients with rare cancers deserve the same urgency, focus and ambition as those with more common conditions. However, the reality is that legislation alone does not save lives; the real test is the effectiveness of its implementation. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could update us on what progress has been made in establishing the new structures required under the Rare Cancers Act. In particular, has the national specialty lead been appointed? When will the rare cancer registry become fully operational? How will success be measured? Patients and families deserve to know when they will begin to see tangible benefits from the legislation that Parliament has passed. The petition also raised important questions about research participation and access to innovation. The Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission highlighted that fewer than 5% of eligible adult brain tumour patients were able to access whole-genome sequencing because of limitations in tissue sampling and biobanking capacity, which is deeply concerning. Genome sequencing has enormous potential to improve the understanding of tumour biology, identify personalised treatment pathways and increase participation in clinical trials. However, opportunities remain unevenly distributed across the country. The Brain Tumour Charity has also highlighted significant variations in infrastructure and staffing across neuro-oncology centres.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right that when someone is facing a devastating crisis, but has to travel excessive distances to get the treatment they deserve, there is something wrong with the system. If we are serious about accelerating research, we must ensure that every patient has a fair opportunity to participate in it. That requires investment not only in laboratories and technology, but in a workforce that supports research and clinical innovation. What specific action are the Government taking to address those disparities and ensure that advances in research can benefit patients regardless of where they live? The petition also reflects a wider frustration felt by many families facing brain cancer. When conventional options are exhausted, patients understandably look to emerging treatments and clinical trials with hope. Such hope is entirely understandable, but at the same time we must maintain rigorous standards of safety and evidence. The challenge for us as policymakers is not choosing between innovation and safety; it is ensuring that innovation can be assessed, trialled and adopted as quickly as possible, when the evidence supports it. That is why clinical research capacity and trial recruitment matter so much, and it is why access to cutting-edge treatments must remain a key priority. On that point, the Government have committed to increase spending on branded medicines, and they have set out ambitious objectives for expanding participation in commercial clinical trials. Of course those ambitions are welcome, but they must be matched by delivery. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that increasing spending on branded medicines will carry significant costs over the coming years, so can the Minister explain how the Government intend to fund those commitments? Patients need confidence that the announcements we hear today will be translated into treatments tomorrow. Similarly, while we welcome the publication of the national cancer plan earlier this year, questions remain about its implementation. The shadow Health and Social Care Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), supported the ambitions set out within the plan. However, he quite rightly called for clear, funded milestones, and those questions remain unanswered. When will the Government publish measurable targets for rare cancers, and how will progress be reported? For all the challenges that we have discussed today, it is important that we recognise the reasons for hope. Medical research continues to achieve what once seems impossible. Just a few years ago, diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma was regarded as one of the most devastating childhood brain cancers, with very few children surviving beyond two years. However, through participation in innovative clinical trials, a young boy from Belgium named Lucas Jemeljanova experienced something quite extraordinary. Having been diagnosed at six, he entered the trial and, over time, scans showed a shrinking tumour, which eventually disappeared altogether. Lucas is now 13, and he is considered cured. With every breakthrough that provides a scientific curiosity, the challenge before us as a Government, as an Opposition and as clinicians and researchers is to ensure that those breakthroughs happen more quickly and often, so that they can reach patients quicker. That is what the families behind this petition are seeking, and they deserve no less.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mrs Barker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening this important debate, and to other right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to it. I also pay tribute to Brain Cancer Justice and to all the people—over 109,000 in total—who signed this petition to ensure that we have had the opportunity to debate this important issue here today. At its heart, this debate has been about the patients, families and loved ones whose lives have been irreparably changed by a brain tumour diagnosis. For many families, of course, that diagnosis arrives suddenly, although too often it is also delayed.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the former Defence Secretary said that the Prime Minister was unable and the Chancellor unwilling to fund the resources needed to tackle the threats facing our nation. Does the Minister agree with that assessment, and if not, why not?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), but the reality is that every day shopkeepers are facing abuse and threats and being stolen from. A direct consequence of the presumption in the Sentencing Act 2026 that those with a sentence of 12 months or less will not face prison is that there is no deterrent. Can the Minister genuinely say that our streets are safer as a result?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  4. What advice she has provided to the Government on the potential impact of restricting the right to jury trials on the rule of law.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Imagine a scenario in which two individuals are both charged with the same offence and the factual matrix of each case is identical. However, the first defendant has a string of previous convictions, whereas the second has none. Under the Government’s proposal, the first defendant would be able to elect for a jury trial, depending on the length of the potential sentence, whereas the second would not. How does that align with the Solicitor General’s assessment of the rule of law?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Defence Readiness Legislation · Hansard source

  More

  6. Whether he plans to introduce a defence readiness Bill.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Defence Readiness Legislation · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s constant refrain is that they are “working at pace”, but the reality is that our adversaries are doing exactly that. In an increasingly unstable world, the lack of a defence readiness Bill is a significant disadvantage. Will the Minister set out when the Bill will be published, and the specific date on which it will come before the House?

• 19 May 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. I think it is fair to say that the Government and I do not see eye to eye when it comes to the policy of curtailing trial by jury. However, if the Government are determined to go down that route, their own impact assessment sets out that a significant number of magistrates need to be recruited—the MOJ has put it at 7,000 over three years. In order for the Government’s own plan to work, will they commit not to change any of the rules around trial by jury until they have recruited those magistrates?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Phoenix shops are a blight on many of our high streets, including in my constituency of Solihull West and Shirley. Councillor Karen Grinsell, the leader of Solihull metropolitan borough council, recently brought forward a motion to have greater statutory powers to close down these stores. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time to debate this issue so that we can close these stores for good?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? As the Prime Minister will know, that means “Who guards the guards themselves?” With that in mind, and on the subject of holding those in power to account, can he explain why he took almost a week to come to this House, when the public will have been expecting answers much sooner?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Before I start, I should probably put it on record that I am on the RARO—Regular Army Reserve of Officers—list as a former Regular Army officer. I joined my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford on the delegation to Ukraine, which was put together by UK Friends of Ukraine and during which we had some very interesting conversations, as he said, about the ability to mobilise reserve forces at a time of pressing threats. I want to speak very briefly—I am sure other Members will be pleased that my contribution will be brief—on amendments 20 to 24. I will start with amendments 20 and 21, with amendment 21 being consequential on amendment 20. These appear to be sensible technical amendments that would bring the Bill in line with the civilian world. In the light of the facts that the retirement age is likely to be pushed forward as people are living longer, that we need to have a more flexible and resilient reserve force, and that the nature of warfare has changed, with many more technical roles, it seems sensible to increase the age of liability to 67. On amendment 22, my right hon. Friend set out very clearly the growing threats. It is a daily occurrence for us in this place to be talking about the increasing and ongoing threats facing us across the world. In those circumstances, it seems wise to extend the duration of a recall order from 12 months to 18 months. That does not mean it would have to go up to the 18-month point, but it would provide more flex and resilience in the system. Amendment 23, again, reflects the realities of life. Many individuals who have served in uniform go into roles that are vital for our defence, albeit are no longer required still to wear the uniform of His Majesty. In those circumstances, to lose their skillset by automatically requiring them to be recalled from those reserved occupations seems counterproductive to the aims we should be seeking to achieve. Finally, amendment 24 recognises the reality of the situation we live in. We need more flexibility to respond with agility and speed to changing circumstances. Therefore, halving the notice period for recall from 180 days to 90 would seem a sensible and prudent approach. I promised Members that my contribution would be short this time, and I have delivered on that promise.

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  I was expecting a promotion there, Dame Siobhain. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on securing the debate. He has brought forward an issue that sits right at the centre of how we shape the future of our national health service: how we use data, who we trust with it and how we ensure that technology supports care rather than complicates it. The debate has been a thoughtful one, and in many respects it has been revealing. It has shown both the promise of the NHS federated data platform and the unease that still surrounds it. That tension really matters. I am grateful for the significant contributions we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members, with 13 coming from the Back Benches by my count. Let me start by setting out where I think there is common ground across the House. The NHS is under enormous pressure as demand is rising, complexity is increasing and waiting lists remain too high. Too often, clinicians are working without the full picture in front of them. Anyone who has spent time in the health service knows that this is not a system that lacks dedication. It is, however, a system that too often lacks coherence. Data is part of that problem as it is scattered, fragmented and difficult to use in a joined-up way. Records do not always reliably follow the patient, and information is duplicated, delayed or simply not available when it is needed most. The consequence of that is not just theoretical; it is time lost, inefficiencies and, at times, patients not getting the care they should when they should. The case for doing things better is a strong one; in fact, it is unavoidable. The FDP is one attempt to respond to that challenge. It seeks to bring together information in a way that allows the NHS to work more effectively, helping clinicians and supporting managers with the ultimate aim of improving care for patients. There are some early signs that this is beginning to deliver; waiting lists have been cleaned up, and some hospitals have reported better flow through theatres and wards. Those are practical improvements. As is so often the case in government, the easier question is whether something can work; the much harder question is whether it will be accepted. There are clearly concerns here. We have heard about reluctance in part of the workforce. I am not suggesting there is uniform opposition, but there is certainly hesitation and, in some cases, disengagement. We should be careful, however, not to exaggerate that. Big reforms in the NHS have always faced resistance, often at the start. This is not necessarily something new, and on its own it is not necessarily decisive. At the same time, however, it is not irrelevant; if the people expected to use this system do not have confidence in it, its impact will always be limited. Will the Minister say what is the assessment of staff engagement with the FDP and how the Government are ensuring that this is something done with the NHS, rather than done to it? In the end, that will make the real difference. The same issue arises with public trust. People are right to care about their medical data—it is sensitive, personal and deeply private. Once confidence is lost in this area, it is very difficult to rebuild it. There are important safeguards in place: the data remains under NHS control, the access is tightly regulated, and the provider does not own or use the data for its own purposes. The legal framework underpinning those safeguards is strong. Those are not minor points—they really matter. However, we also have to recognise something else. People are not just asking whether the system is safe today, but what it enables tomorrow. Could the data be combined in ways that reveal more than people expect? Could systems evolve in ways not originally intended? Could future Governments choose to use the capability in different ways? Those are not unreasonable questions; they are the natural questions people ask when large new systems are created. Again, I ask the Minister what more will be done to reassure the public about the limits of how NHS data can be used and whether he can set out clearly where parliamentary oversight comes in if the use of data is expanded in the future. Trust is not built by reassurance alone; it is built by clarity and restraint. A significant part of this debate has understandably focused on Palantir, and it is right that it has. Palantir is now a major supplier within the NHS data infrastructure as well as elsewhere across Government, and that raises legitimate questions about not just capability but dependence. For some the concern is political, while for others it is about principle. For many, though, it is something much more practical: what happens if we become too reliant on a single provider for something as critical as health data infrastructure? I think that is a fair question. However, we should also separate those questions from the broader argument about the company’s international work. In a global economy, companies will inevitably work with different Governments, and that alone is not a sufficient reason to exclude them from public contracts in the UK. The question of procurement design, competition and resilience, however, is a different matter.

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not. I want the Minister to have sufficient time to respond to the multiple contributions there have been today. I ask the Minister the following questions. How are the Government ensuring that the NHS is not locked into a single supplier over the long term? What is the plan for maintaining genuine competition in this space? How easy would it be in practical terms to move to an alternative system if that was ever required? There is then the issue of resilience. Some have argued that the FDP creates a single point of failure, while others have argued that the current fragmented system is itself a weakness and that greater coherence improves security and oversight. Both arguments deserve to be taken seriously. But practical questions remain: how resilient is this system to cyber-attacks or technical failure? What safeguards are in place? What happens if something goes wrong at scale? The last matter I wish to address is that of governance. With the abolition of NHS England, there is now a question about where the responsibilities for the FDP properly sit. That matters because accountability cannot be diffuse. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister: who is responsible for the programme now, where does that accountability lie, and how will Parliament be able to scrutinise its performance going forward? Better use of data has a real role to play in NHS reform, and the FDP may well prove to be part of that answer. Success will depend on more than just delivery; it will depend on confidence within the system: confidence from clinicians that the system helps rather than hinders them, confidence from patients that their data is properly protected and confidence from the public that our decisions are transparent, proportionate and properly accountable. If those conditions are met, this reform can succeed. If they are not, even the best designed system will struggle. We, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, will support what improves care and welcome what works, but will continue to ask questions that ensure reform is done properly in a way that sustains public trust. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On the basis of the Minister’s clarification and reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn . Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 27 Driving disqualification orders: reduced disqualification period Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I will speak in support of amendments 18 and 19 and, in doing so, will address clause 25 more broadly. At its heart, clause 25 concerns one of the most sensitive and important decisions in the entire service justice framework—the point at which a victim is asked to express a preference as to whether an allegation should proceed in the service justice system or the civilian justice system. For many victims, this is the first moment at which they are invited into a process that will shape not only the course of an investigation, but their experiences of justice itself. That is precisely why it is incumbent on us to get it right. I think all of us would accept that asking a victim to make a jurisdictional choice without proper, balanced and comprehensible information risks placing an unfair burden upon them at a moment of deep vulnerability. It risks substituting clarity for confusion, and it risks turning what should be an informed decision into, in effect, an uninformed guess between systems they may not fully understand. Amendment 18 seeks to address that concern directly, and it does so by placing clear statutory requirements on the nature, quality and neutrality of the information that must be provided before any preference is expressed. That principle is incredibly important because, if we are asking victims to make decisions that can affect the trajectory of an investigation, we have a duty—indeed, a moral obligation—to ensure that those decisions are properly informed.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 25, page 43, line 23, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— “(a) must require that, before a victim is asked to express a preference regarding jurisdiction— (i) the victim is provided with a standardised explanation of the service justice system and the civilian justice system, (ii) such information is presented in a clear, accessible and neutral manner, (iii) the information includes an explanation of the key features, processes, available support and potential outcomes of each system, sufficient to enable the victim to make an informed decision, and (iv) the victim is informed of the availability of any independent legal advice or advocacy and how it may be accessed, (b) must require that— (i) a written record is made of the information provided to the victim, and (ii) where a victim expresses a preference, a record is made of the reasons for that preference, so far as provided by the victim, (c) must not present information in a way that is misleading or lacking appropriate context.”. This amendment creates requirements for the information victims receive regarding both justice systems.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the clause. Will the Minister set out how there will be consistency in the use of these powers by commanding officers, to ensure that there is equality of justice across the board?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of new clause 12 and offer broader support for clauses 5 to 9, which represent a significant strengthening of the protective framework in the service justice system. It is worth setting out the basic principle that the armed forces justice system must be capable not only of dealing fairly and effectively with wrongdoing, but of ensuring that the protection of victims and management of risk do not fall between institutional cracks. The credibility of the service justice system depends on continuity, coherence and, above all, confidence that protective measures will not be undermined by procedural happenstance. Clauses 5 to 9 make important and welcome progress. They will extend the availability and operation of sexual harm prevention orders, sexual risk orders, domestic abuse protection orders, stalking protection orders and restraining orders in the service justice system. They make provision for enforcement, variation and guidance structures, including in respect of the important role of provost marshals and service police in the exercise of those functions. The clauses will modernise the service justice landscape in a way that recognises the reality of contemporary risk management. They will ensure that service personnel and civilians subject to service discipline are not operating in a parallel system that is less capable of protecting victims or managing dangerous individuals. In particular, the extension to the service courts of protections against domestic abuse and stalking is a welcome alignment with civilian criminal justice standards, ensuring consistency of safeguarding irrespective of jurisdiction. However, as is often the case in the refinement of complex statutory schemes, there remains a narrow but important residual gap, which is precisely what new clause 12 seeks to address. The core issue is one of jurisdictional continuity. At present, protective orders in the service justice system are clearly available while an individual is subject to service law. Clauses 5 to 9 also go further by making provision for enforcement in certain circumstances in which the individual ceases to be subject to service discipline after an order has been made. A difficulty arises, however, in the transitional space where an individual is charged or even convicted while subject to service law, but ceases to be subject to service law before the protective order is imposed or finalised. Without express provision, there is a risk that such an individual, by virtue of leaving service, will fall outside the effective reach of the service court’s protective jurisdiction at precisely the point at which such orders are most necessary. New clause 12 performs a simple but important function. It would provide that where a person is charged with or convicted of an offence in the service justice system and was subject to service law at the relevant time, the service court may impose specified protective orders as if the person remained subject to service law. It is, in effect, a statutory deeming provision, preserving jurisdiction for protective purposes notwithstanding the cessation of service status. The legal merits of that approach are clear. First, it prevents what might properly be described as jurisdictional arbitrage. Without such a provision, there is a theoretical, though in practice very real, risk that individuals could seek to avoid the imposition of protective orders by leaving service prior to trial or sentencing. Even if such behaviour is not deliberately engineered, the mere existence of a gap creates inconsistency and undermines confidence in the system. The protective reach of the service justice system should not be rendered contingent on administrative status at a particular moment in time. Secondly, the new clause reflects a well-established principle in criminal justice, which is that protective orders are ancillary to the underlying offence and risk posed by the offender, not merely to their procedural status. The civilian courts retain wide powers to impose protective orders at sentencing precisely because the assessment of risk is rooted in conduct, not institutional affiliation. New clause 12 would ensure that the service courts are placed in an equivalent position, recognising that the underlying risk does not evaporate simply because service status changes. Thirdly, the new clause would promote legal certainty and coherence. Through clauses 5 to 9, the existing framework already recognises that certain orders may continue to have effect or be enforced after a person leaves service. However, enforcement is not the same as imposition. It is logically and legally cleaner to ensure that the court retains the power to make the order at the point of disposal, rather than relying on subsequent conversion or deeming mechanisms. The new clause therefore fills a structural gap and ensures that the life cycle of protective orders is not disrupted by jurisdictional transition. Fourthly, the new clause is carefully drafted in respect of its propriety. It would not create an unfettered or novel category of punitive power. Rather, it would explicitly confine the service court’s ability to make orders to those that it would have been able to make had the individual remained subject to service law. It is, in essence, a continuity provision, not an expansion of jurisdiction. Importantly, subsection (3) of the new clause would provide that such orders are to have effect “as if made by a civilian court of equivalent jurisdiction” and are “enforceable accordingly.” That is a critical safeguard. It would ensure interoperability between the service justice system and the civilian criminal justice system, avoiding the creation of parallel regimes that might otherwise give rise to confusion about enforcement authority. Subsection (4) of the new clause, enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding recognition, enforcement and variation, is also welcome. It would provide necessary flexibility in an area where procedural interfaces between service and civilian jurisdictions must be capable of adjustment over time. In particular, it would allow for clarity as to which court is best placed to vary or discharge orders once a person has fully transitioned out of service life. That is a sensible delegation of secondary rule-making power, consistent with the established constitutional practice in this field.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the amendment, which was tabled in the name of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and to set out my broader support for clause 20. I will begin with the clause itself, because it addresses the composition of the court martial. In such circumstances, it is right that we support the very sensible change that the clause sets out, with its underlying intent to ensure that the court martial is properly constituted and capable of commanding confidence across the armed forces and the wider public. Enlarging the pool of those who can sit on it is a welcome amendment. Precisely because we support that principle, however, we also need to examine whether the system is fully equipped for the realities it faces. In that context, the amendment becomes not only relevant, but in my view increasingly necessary. The amendment proposes a simple change, as set out by my right hon. Friend, to include retired holders of the relevant rank among those qualified for membership of the court martial. At first glance the amendment may appear relatively modest, but I suggest that, like many apparently modest changes in defence legislation, it subtly reflects something much more significant. It reflects a recognition of the demands placed on our armed forces justice system and how those are changing over time, and changing rapidly. We are operating in an era of increasing operational tempo—a phrase that is often used in defence debates, sometimes frequently.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is right to challenge me on the case that I am making. It is about competing challenges facing those in senior rank in the armed forces. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford gave the example of colonels or above. We have heard of very senior officers being brought before a court martial in cases that may involve, for instance, continuity of education allowance. These are senior individuals who then take out other senior individuals. They are often in a fairly small pool and have perhaps worked closely with one another during their service, but they also have increasing demands, given the global instability that we are currently facing. It therefore makes logical sense to widen that pool and take the pressure off the shoulders of those who have operational responsibilities by allowing those who have served in the past, and hold those ranks by virtue of their service, to sit within the court martial system and increase capacity. I am not suggesting that there is an inefficiency in the service—everybody involved is doing the best job they can. It is about flexing resources so that they are used most appropriately to deliver the outcomes that we need not only from a national security and defence perspective, but to maintain the integrity and speed with which service justice is administered. There is also a broader strategic point that we must not overlook, and it touches on the Minister’s point. We often speak about the importance of a whole-force concept and the idea that national defence is about not simply those currently in uniform but a wider ecosystem of reserve capability, which we will come on to later. It is also about veterans, institutional memory and those who can bring expertise from their time in service. We are, quite rightly, investing in the reserve forces. We are also increasingly recognising the value of civilian expertise in a variety of fields, such as cyber-intelligence or technology. In many respects, we are trying to build a much more flexible and adaptive defence structure, and yet, when it comes to the service justice system, we have not always applied the same logic with equal measure or consistency. We have in effect treated participation as something that must be narrowly confined to serving personnel, even when highly experienced retired officers could make a valuable contribution.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who from his time as a Defence Minister knows well how to keep tabs on those who have served our country but are now retired. The pension scheme is an obvious way to do so. In addition, he makes an important point about the willingness of individuals to engage in the process. These are people who have given enormous service to their country, and often wish to continue giving service long into their years of retirement from active service. Our armed forces are more stretched and more globally engaged than before, and they are more frequently deployed than at almost any point in recent decades. The spectrum of threats facing our country is widening, from state-based adversaries to hybrid war, cyber-operations and persistent instability in regions where British forces are called to act with precision and professionalism. As I have set out, when operational tempo increases every part of the system is affected. It is not just about equipment, logistics or personnel numbers, but about the justice system that underpins discipline, accountability and command authority. The question, therefore, is a relatively simple one: does our current system of service justice have the flexibility, depth and resilience required to meet that demand? Amendment 9 is one attempt to ensure that it does. It recognises that we are asking a great deal of a relatively small pool of serving officers. We are asking them not only to command forces in complex environments but, where necessary, to sit in judgment in court martial proceedings, including in cases involving senior rank, complex evidence, and often significant reputational consequence for all involved. That is not to say that these individuals are incapable of doing those tasks, but that is a heavy burden on any system. It becomes more difficult still when we consider the practical realities of availability. Senior serving officers are, by definition, in high demand. They are deployed, rotated, assigned to strategic planning roles or engaged in operational command responsibilities that cannot simply be paused or rescheduled. At the same time, the court martial system requires a bench that is credible, experienced and capable of understanding the realities of service life. It is not enough that those sitting in judgment are legally competent to interpret the evidence; they must also understand the context in which decisions are made, the pressures under which orders are given and the operational environments in which conduct is assessed. That combination of legal competence and operational understanding is not easily found, and it is here that amendment 9 can make a tangible contribution. By extending eligibility to retired officers of appropriate rank, we end up expanding the pool of individuals who can bring that essential combination of experience and judgment to the court martial system. I want to be clear about what the amendment seeks to do and what it does not seek to do. It is not an attempt to dilute standards. On the contrary, it is an attempt to strengthen them by widening the field of those who meet them. It is not an attempt to undermine the authority of serving officers; it is an attempt to relieve them of some of the competing pressures that now fall on them in an increasingly demanding environment. It is not an attempt to create a separate or parallel justice system where some are tried by those who are still in active service and some are held in judgment by those who have retired. It is merely an attempt to ensure that the existing system has the necessary capacity to function effectively.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a helpful challenge. Clearly, there is no impact assessment with the amendment. However, there is a joint service publication, the RARO—regular army reserve of officers—list, and there are those letters I receive annually asking me to update my address and contact details. There are already mechanisms by which individuals can be identified and recalled for this service. Given the operational tempo that I have described, it makes sense that we ameliorate the pressure on those who are currently in active service while not impacting the flow of justice through the service justice system.