Ian Roome MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  The new clause would create a deadline and shorten the timeframe. The Minister has just said that some complicated cases can take up to three months, but it is probably those cases that need the urgency of a 28-day timeframe. I know that in future it may all go digital, but at the moment we cannot confirm that, and I get some really serious and difficult cases in my constituency casework. Does the Minister therefore agree that we really need to improve the timeframe to 28 days?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Amendment 1 would introduce an exemption from recall to former service personnel who have been discharged due to physical or mental health reasons, to ensure that, even as the Bill seeks to make it easier to recall reservists in times of urgent need, those with long-term injuries or other serious medical conditions can be automatically screened out. Currently, clause 33 updates section 65 of the Reserve Forces Act to alter the terms under which a former serviceperson can be recalled to include reserves, specifying time periods in relation to re-enlistment and tidying up certain terminology. We feel that section 65(2) should specify that, in addition to the recall provision not applying to anybody over 65 or beyond 18 years after discharge, the exclusion should recognise a medical exemption as standard procedure. That would apply to a medical discharge from either the regular or the reserve forces, closing off the possibility that an individual who might otherwise be medically exempted would be targeted for recall because of their previous service. The mental health element is particularly significant, given the well-documented prevalence of conditions such as PTSD among veterans, at nearly double the rate of the adult population. This amendment would avoid doing harm to vulnerable individuals, as well as removing the need for the armed forces to go through the process of ruling someone not fit for service a second time.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Strategic Defence Review: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  In the words of Lord Robertson, we are underprepared, underinsured and under attack. We are not safe. Britain’s national security and safety is in peril. I have asked over six times when the defence investment plan will be published. I now know the answer: “We are working flat out”. Will the Minister give me a timeframe? What is “working flat out”, and how long does it take?

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

  More

  The Minister mentions that there are 200 officers at one star and above. Does he have the facts on how many of those 200 one-stars do not know one another?

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

  More

  It is important that we take on board the evidence from our visits. Otherwise, what is the point of going on them? That point was brought up when we debated a previous amendment, with reference to the use of the civilian or military justice system. The hon. and gallant Member for Solihull West and Shirley made an excellent speech about using retired officers. We heard from those who are recruiting that there are delays. We heard during a visit that a senior officer had struggled to find a panel, and the process had been delayed because permission from the then Secretary of State was needed to use an officer of a lower rank. We also heard that it would be much easier to find officers. It is difficult to find officers of an equivalent rank, particularly among the higher ranks, who have not served or trained together or do not know each other, and to be sure that they do not have any relevant interest in protecting someone or perverting the course of justice. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford also made a good point about who constitutes the panel. I support amendment 9, because what is the point of our going on visits if we do not act on what we have been told is an issue? We also heard a point that has not been mentioned today, which is that those in the non-commissioned ranks, such as warrant officers who have 25 or 30 years’ experience in the job, could also sit on the panels. It is not addressed in the amendment, but we heard evidence that those with years of military service and a lot of experience could be used on the panels too.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Amendment 6 would introduce a requirement for the service police and the Defence Serious Crime Command to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the civilian police forces for investigation and subsequent trial in the civilian justice system. Clause 12 currently inserts into the Armed Forces Act 2006 a new section requiring the Secretary of State to issue a “service policing protocol” to co-ordinate the work of the Defence Council, each service police force and the tri-service serious crime unit. That provision aims to better co-ordinate those organisations’ vital work and to protect against improper interference in their criminal investigations. This amendment would insert an additional section requiring the provost marshal to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the relevant civilian police force. That is important because, although cases involving this kind of accusation may be heard faster under military investigation, many fear that these cases continue to be adversely influenced by the close-knit community within the armed forces and by the military chain of command. It was a recommendation of the 2021 Atherton report, in which more than 2,000 female service personnel and veterans said that they had been victims of bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual assault during their service in our armed forces. Some reported a culture where cases are minimised, evidence is lost and perpetrators are protected. Transferring that role to independent civilian police would remove the risk of a conflict of interest that can happen when the military investigates itself. In the shocking case of Royal Artillery Gunner Jaysley Beck, who tragically took her own life in 2021, the coroner ruled that the sexual harassment she had suffered should have been referred to the police. The Ministry of Defence aims to see the percentage of women in our armed forces increase from 12% to 30% by 2030, and independent police investigation of sexual crimes would help to rebuild trust and accountability. Under subsection (3), a “relevant offence” would be committing, attempting or conspiring to commit an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 or an offence involving domestic abuse as defined by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The Secretary of State would also have the power to add additional offences should it be deemed necessary.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 12, page 29, line 6, at end insert— “115C Duty to refer sexual offences and domestic abuse to civilian police (1) This section applies where a service police force or the tri-service serious crime unit is made aware of an allegation that a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, has committed a relevant offence in the United Kingdom. (2) The Provost Marshal of the relevant service police force, or the Provost Marshal for serious crime, must immediately refer the allegation and transfer the investigation to the relevant civilian police force. (3) In this section— “relevant civilian police force” means the civilian police force for the area in which the alleged offence took place; “relevant offence” means— (a) any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, (b) an offence involving domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, or (c) an offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence within sub-paragraph (a) or (b). (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify further offences which are to be treated as a relevant offence for the purposes of this section.” This amendment requires the Service Police and the Defence Serious Crime Command to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the civilian police forces for investigation and subsequent trial in the civilian justice system.

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

  More

  I will withdraw the amendment, but I ask that the Minister takes on board the comments made by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley in his powerful speech, so that this can come out on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment , by leave, withdrawn. Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 Entry for purposes of obtaining evidence etc Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  Back in February, former Royal Navy officers and other expert witnesses warned the Defence Committee that although tapping an undersea cable is very difficult, they are vulnerable to sabotage, and more than three quarters of the UK’s natural gas is imported via undersea pipelines from Norway. Given Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, does the UK not need to press ahead faster with the Atlantic Bastion initiative? In light of recent defence budget pressures, can the Minister confirm whether funding levels are adequate to maintain long-term submarine detection and tracking capabilities?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I was a local armed forces champion. I was in local government for 22 years and ended up being council leader before entering this place. I can tell the Committee that, in practice, I was going around and screaming my head off to make sure that people were listening but, as it was not mandatory, they could just refer to due regard and make their interpretation of the guidance. I was a local armed forces champion for eight years, right up until I entered this place in July 2024, and I struggled to get veterans the help they needed. I just want the Minister to take that on board.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister outline what the minimum requirement is currently?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  When I was a council leader, we signed up to the armed forces covenant scheme, which set some principles for councils. Can the Minister give any indication of how many councils up and down the country have actually signed up to the armed forces covenant scheme?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the Defence Committee report on the armed forces covenant, which is based on evidence from witnesses. It says: “As the current duty of ‘due regard’ is inconsistently interpreted, the extended duty must be accompanied by clear guidance so that the duty is clearly understood and is not treated as a tick-box exercise.” It goes on to say: “We heard many examples where the Covenant was not working as designed, resulting in people who have served being financially disadvantaged, unable to access medical care, or unable to find an appropriate school for their children as a result of their service.” That was all due to the wishy-washy interpretation of due regard.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We heard in the Defence Committee that a lot of people currently serving in the armed forces have never even heard of the armed forces covenant; they do not know what it is. We are discussing how to educate the public, but a lot of people serving have never heard of the armed forces covenant. Does the Minister think that the education needs to start within the Ministry of Defence on how it handles the armed forces covenant?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is nice to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Amendment 5 would add a new section to the armed forces covenant provisions that were introduced in the Armed Forces Act 2006 to try to make access to services more consistent. This Bill requires specified persons to have due regard to the covenant for specified matters, such as the fair provision of childcare, healthcare and social care, housing and other services listed in clause 2. Some of those specified persons are national bodies, but others are local authorities, educational bodies and health bodies, many of which are much more localised. Without a national benchmark for supporting armed forces families, we risk that due regard to the covenant will still be interpreted in very different ways by, say, neighbouring local councils. I fear that some might see it just as a paper exercise. That could be unfair on armed forces personnel in some parts of the country, but would make life especially hard for those being reposted every two years. For example, Devon has one, two or three overlapping levels of local government, depending on where someone lives. Our NHS hospital trusts, police, fire authorities and other services have different boundaries too. The problem of a postcode lottery was identified as a weakness in the original covenant. If someone is in uniform, they could easily be reposted from a big city to RAF Lossiemouth or RNAS Culdrose—a completely different kind of community. The Defence Committee’s report on the armed forces covenant found that some councils have priority housing rules for veterans, while others still require a local connection. That can be unfair on service families who move around a lot.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Published guidance can be interpreted differently from authority to authority. It is about how they put that into action. Local NHS services have a mad patchwork of transfer rules depending on where someone moves from across the country, which can make access to medical care difficult, as I am sure some of us have experienced—I have, because I have a large garrison in my constituency, and I receive casework from serving personnel about the difference that they have experienced around the country. That is part of what we are trying to fix. We should expect the Secretary of State to put specific protocols in writing for local bodies across the country. That would be fairer to our service personnel, but it would also make the Government’s responsibilities clearer—it would end our discussion now, where we are asking what due regard means—if local bodies fail to uphold what is being asked for in the Bill. The amendment would require a standardised set of protocols to be produced by the Secretary of State within six months of the Bill passing, require local bodies to act accordingly, and require the protocols to be brought back to Parliament when the procedures need to be revised.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  We are still waiting for the defence investment plan, and according to the strategic defence review, items should be deleted from that plan only on the advice of the national armaments director; service chiefs must advise the Secretary of State if anything is to be removed from the defence to-do list. Has the Secretary of State received any such advice? I understand that it is a draft plan at the moment, but it must be finished.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  6. What progress his Department has made towards the publication of the defence investment plan.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. Last week, HMS Dragon left Portsmouth bound for Cyprus, having been prepared for deployment inside six days. The Royal Navy says that preparation would normally have taken six weeks. What can the Government do to ensure that more of our surface fleet is available when urgently needed?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. Many small businesses in my constituency are gearing up for the busy tourist season that is just around the corner. What steps are the Government taking to support small businesses in the south-west, to help them make the most of their biggest window of opportunity over the summer?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Postal Delivery Services · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that by being asked to focus on parcels over letters, and having overtime hours for deliveries restricted, many hard-working postal workers will feel that public trust in Royal Mail is being undermined?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee for securing this estimates debate on defence. Of all the demands on public finances, none are more serious than paying for this country’s defence. Recent years—even the last few days—have brought that into sharp relief. This time last year, at the spring statement, the Government said they would go further and faster on defence, announcing a £2.2 billion uplift to the Ministry of Defence budget, helping the UK to reach a defence spending target of 2.5% of GDP under the NATO definition. It remains the Government’s stated ambition for the UK to reach 3% during the next Parliament. The Liberal Democrats want to see that delivered this side of 2030, but the sooner it can be achieved, the better. The numbers must be weighed against what we expect from our armed forces, but we must guard against Russian aggression despite the cost. We can still do more. The Prime Minister’s assertion that the Government would spend an additional £13.4 billion on defence every year from 2027 is an increase in cash terms, but not in real terms. As a percentage of GDP, we are simply returning to the early 1990s levels of defence spending, not the far higher levels we saw during the cold war. However, we must not be too hard on ourselves: in real terms, defence spending will soon approach the heights of the 1980s—but protecting a much bigger economy. The UK provides an immensely powerful nuclear deterrent to the NATO nuclear mission—a highly specialised capability, even among our allies—and many of Europe’s leading defence companies are based here in the UK. The great south-west has a particularly strong defence sector, and the Government are recognising the massive economic value of investing in a world-leading defence industry. Defence spending supports over 430,000 jobs across the UK, with a giant supply chain that stretches across every region. We are one of only four European allies with aircraft carrier capability. The radar array at RAF Fylingdales and signals intelligence at GCHQ provide indispensable data gathering to our Five Eyes partners. There is also firm political agreement about national defence across the House. Our freedom, democratic values and an open society must be defended—by force of arms if necessary. Our allies also face similar budget choices, so we should co-ordinate getting more bang for our buck. We must maximise our resources and defence capabilities by working as a team. Even as eastern European nations plan against a scenario of a land war, we should lean into Britain’s position in the Atlantic and our historic strength in naval operations, in shipbuilding and in aviation. We must be honest with the public: the peace dividend that we have all enjoyed since the end of the cold war must now be retained and reinvested in these more difficult times in order to keep us all safe. Last year, the Defence Committee and I visited Estonia, where defence spending is already over 5% of GDP. It is projected to rise to an astonishing 5.4% by the end of the decade. The Estonians recognise the threat to their way of life and consider this their duty. Our defence spending might be the price we pay to avoid something far worse. A pound invested today could be more important than 10 times that sum spent too late.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I am getting frustrated about the defence investment plan. Could the Minister, when he sums up, confirm whether it is stuck in the Treasury, and the two Departments are arguing about what it can and cannot include? What is the hold-up between the MOD and the Treasury?

• 4 Mar 2026 · NHS Capital Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) for introducing this important debate. I thank the Minister for visiting North Devon district hospital to see the estate for herself and for listening to the passionate pleas from NHS clinicians serving on the frontline. The hospital is now the third of nine hospitals in wave 3 of the new hospital programme and faces a further 10-year wait for the capital funding it needs. That investment is desperately needed to replace an ancient intensive care unit and operating theatres that are nearly 50 years old. I thank the Government for approving phase 1, building new residences for staff and medical students, which will also recover land for the all-important clinical rebuild. On paper, however, phase 2 is unlikely to begin before 2035. The cost of keeping these facilities running for another 10 years will be immense. Our hospital has a maintenance backlog of “high” and “critical” grade work of over £40 million, the most per square metre of any hospital in the south-west, higher even than many of the hospitals afflicted by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, or RAAC. Our NHS trust worries, as I expect many people in this Chamber worry, that that is simply throwing good money after bad. In January, the National Audit Office released its update on the new hospital programme, which makes it clear that the current Labour Government have tried to financially rescue a programme that the last Conservative Government had doomed to disaster. However, many of my constituents feel that they have lost out yet again. It is not only that patients in northern Devon are being asked to wait another 10 years for new critical care facilities, but the ever-increasing maintenance costs of keeping their ageing hospital going will demand a bigger and bigger share of NHS funding from the area. Worse still, the Department of Health and Social Care says that hospitals built to the new hospital 2.0 standard are expected to deliver operational savings. Whose hospitals will really benefit from that approach? When I queried it in a written question, the Minister said on 13 February that trusts and integrated care boards manage budgets, and that the centralised new hospital programme does not redistribute savings. If an NHS trust is lucky enough to receive the capital spending for new facilities sooner rather than later, patients in that community will benefit twice; if not, tough luck. Furthermore, the estimated cost of the scheme in my area given in the new hospital programme review seems to bear no relation to the bid originally submitted by the trust. The Government will not answer questions on the multi-criteria decision support analysis tool that is being used to score the bids for capital funding under the new hospital programme, nor even answer freedom of information requests to state the name of the provider of the tool. Consequently, we as parliamentarians are unable to scrutinise that detail. I have some questions for the Minister. First, will the Department explain these cost estimates, because £1.5 billion is a vastly inflated figure, which is far beyond the 50% adjustment stated in the review? That should not delay work on NHS hospitals such as mine in North Devon. The trust is ready to build the next phase now, so if there is any capital available, please bear North Devon in mind. In addition, what else can the Government do in the coming years to avoid entrenching real health inequalities in communities such as mine in North Devon?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor refers to opportunities that young people deserve. However, hundreds of college students in my North Devon constituency have spent weeks unable to travel to college due to flooding and rail closures. Will the Government confirm that they will invest in their life chances by doing more to upgrade our transport infrastructure, especially our rural railway lines, such as the Tarka line in North Devon, because that infrastructure is not working?