Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

Alex Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

In a moment.

We face a revanchist Russian led by Putin, who launched an invasion of Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, and then an even more brutal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. As someone who visited Ukraine in February of this year, I remind the House that the Ukrainians would argue that they have therefore been at war with Russia not for four years, but for 12 years—longer than the first and second world wars combined.

Against that rising threat, Labour produced its much-vaunted strategic defence review, and there was much good in it. However, it still contained echoes of the 10-year rule, declaring the Government’s intention, on page 43,

“to deter, fight and win—with allies—against states with advanced military forces by 2035.”

That is nine years away. The Chief of the General Staff has warned that we might have to fight Russia by 2027, the First Sea Lord said 2029, and even the outgoing Prime Minister said that this might happen by 2030. How are we supposed to deter Putin without a single attack submarine currently at sea, with no new AWACS aircraft in service in the Royal Air Force, still, and with Ajax almost a decade late and still not in operational service, despite Ministers previously promising us that it was fine? That really is corrosive complacency, is not it? The threat is now, and we need to rearm accordingly, including by spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2029 at the very latest, if not earlier.

The three co-authors of the SDR were adamant that the cost of implementing it was spending 3% of GDP on defence, and a year after the SDR was published, we finally received Labour’s plan for how to pay for it: the so-called defence investment plan. But that was not before Labour’s Defence Secretary and Armed Forces Minister—the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is in his place—both resigned on 11 June after months of frustration with the Treasury over the paucity of funding in the plan.

As the outgoing Defence Secretary powerfully wrote in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister,

“you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.”

That is damning. The former Armed Forces Minister said in his letter:

“I have sat in the rooms, seen the assessments, and spoken to the commanders who will be asked to do more with less, and I cannot in good conscience stand at the dispatch box and defend a level of investment I know to be inadequate to the task.”

Moreover, the outgoing Defence Secretary revealed that he had been offered an increase in defence spending to only 2.68% of GDP by 2030—billions short of what the SDR authors required.

The new Defence Secretary has tried to argue that he has been given some additional funding—a bit more than £1 billion—but that takes defence spending to barely 2.69% of GDP by 2030, a difference that does not even touch the sides. Sadly, it is worse than that. The chiefs of staff have been urging the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to invest an additional £28 billion in defence over the next four years, partly to enable them to implement Labour’s SDR. They were offered barely £15 billion instead. On closer examination, even that sum unravels rapidly.

As we have heard, £10.7 billion relies on so-called efficiency savings, which is Whitehall code for cuts in MOD spending over the next four years, the bulk of which have not even been identified. On the day of publication, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee described that as an old accountant’s trick. It still does not disguise the fact that the MOD would have to make massive in-year spending cuts, including from operations and training, to recycle that money to fund the defence investment plan. The Chief of the Defence Staff warned of the implications of doing that only the other day.

The disastrous DIP also relies on a further £4.7 billion, which has not yet been cleared by the Treasury and will be subject to another public spending round. In other words, the two sums combined will be more than the £15 billion of extra money that was promised. There is practically no new money for defence at all. All we have been offered is Enron accounting and smoke and mirrors to try to pretend that there is a massive increase in defence spending—barely 0.01% of GDP over four years.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

No, I am summing up.

Lord Robertson, the lead author of the SDR, told the Defence Committee only yesterday that

“we are running out of years… the challenge is now bigger, more serious and earlier than we had anticipated, yet the defence investment plan does not come up to it.”

General Barrons, his co-author, told the same Committee that

“the Prime Minister is saying that Russia could attack NATO by 2030, and we essentially lost a year of mobilising for that.”

Incredibly, even the DIP says on page 78:

“The figures presented are indicative rather than precise cost estimates. They do not constitute binding commitments and are subject to the Government’s approval processes, affordability considerations and contracting procedures. Figures have been rounded and, therefore, may not sum.”

You can say that again. In other words, the document isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. The plan relies on extra money that does not exist. We will not deter the likes of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping with such unfunded proposals. If Trotsky was right, and war is interested in us, we must rearm now to deter it.

I reluctantly find that the Labour Government are failing the people of this country in the first duty of Government: the defence of the realm. If the incoming Prime Minister cannot plug the £5 billion black hole that he is about to inherit, he should make way for people who can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

Twenty four years of serving this great nation means that I am acutely aware of the risks that the Opposition presented me and manifested during my time in service. That is why I am resolute in addressing these challenges and why I am backing the defence investment plan.

Let me make one point crystal clear: Britain has always met its NATO spending obligations in the past, and under this Government we always will. That begins with the early delivery of our first commitment to raise defence investment to 2.7% of GDP next year, compared with just 2.3%, which was missing from the Opposition’s analysis of the decline in our defence spending.

[Alex Baker]

The debate about percentages of GDP is slightly irrelevant, because even if defence spending were raised to 3%, we have no ability to spend that money within the industrial base, as we do not have the capacity. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look at a much more innovative approach to some of these things, with multilateral options? I have been campaigning for the UK to join the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank for over a year.

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend has advocated for the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and alternative finance methods for the past two years. It was pleasing to see the DSR Bank announcement from Canada over the last couple of days alongside the multilateral defence mechanism announcement from our Government, which, significantly, was joined by Poland. I hope that we will see the DSR and the MDM aligned as we go forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Baker Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that important issue, and I pay tribute to her constituent and the work that he is doing in the constituency. She has made an entirely fair challenge, and of course we will have conversations with colleagues across Government to ensure that services are in place to provide that support for those who need it. There is an important role for the NHS, which is why we are working with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, but I am sure that the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), will be happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Lady.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

This weekend we had the pleasure of hosting the Nepal cup in Aldershot—a celebration of the Brigade of Gurkhas. Talking to some of the Gurkha veterans there, and hearing of their experiences, again underlined the urgent need for a resolution of long-standing issues such as Gurkha pensions. I pay tribute to the new Minister for Veterans and People for the progress that has been made, and I thank him for working with me to engage directly with Gurkha veterans and ensure that they feel heard. Will the Secretary of State explain how he will build on that work so that those veterans receive the support and recognition they deserve?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that she does to champion the service of our Gurkhas, who I am sure the whole House holds in the very highest regard. I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet her in her constituency a few days ago, when we discussed the importance of this matter in detail. I hope she will understand that we are working through the details of an engagement plan with the right stakeholders, including the G10. I am confident that my colleague the Minister for Veterans and People is on the case and providing the assurances that are sought, and I know that he would be happy to discuss the matter with her further.

Defence Investment Plan

Alex Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The defence investment plan represents a very significant commitment from this Government on defence spending—nearly £300 billion over the next four years. There is £15 billion of new money in this plan. He has heard the point I made about the real-terms spending increase of 27%. I have been very clear about the need to spend more on defence, and the fact that the next spending review will provide the resource required to chart the trajectory from 3% to 3.5%. I agree with him that that is precisely what our allies want to see, and I am confident that we will make good on that commitment in the context of the next spending review.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

Today is a step forward and a down payment on the future of places like my towns of Aldershot and Farnborough. However, much as we wrangle over percentages of GDP, on the ground, we still lack the industrial capacity to spend this money and build more. Defence companies in my patch and across the supply chain cannot access the finance that they need in order to hire more people and expand production. That is why I have campaigned for more than a year for the UK to join the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank. Does the Secretary of State recognise this challenge? What will we do to increase our industrial capacity?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It was an absolute pleasure to be in her constituency at the weekend for Armed Forces Day. Aldershot is the home of the British Army, and she has done a fantastic job representing her constituents and her constituency. She is right to raise the point on defence finance. I can tell her and the House that the defence finance and investment strategy will be published in the autumn.

Armed Forces Bill

Alex Baker Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for referring to me as the Minister. I was the Minister once and—who knows?—I may be one day again. I must say, in fairness to the previous Minister, that I believe the Government tabled amendments in Committee to clarify the matter that the hon. Lady has raised, and I think that on their behalf, if it is not precocious, I can give her and the LGA an absolute reassurance in that regard.

We believe that as military personnel are often moving at the behest of the state, the state has a moral duty under the covenant to ensure that any EHCP—and, as we all know from our constituency work, obtaining EHCPs is often a tortuous process—is then fully transferable. When we debated that in Committee, we received considerable support from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who has received a field promotion of his own in recent days, and will therefore hopefully be a friend to these measures within the Department. I would welcome him too, but I am saving him up for Defence questions in July.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

We in the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community—including my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey)—have been working on these issues with the Royal British Legion for the past year. The Minister for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), has come before us, has listened to the views of service personnel and their families, and has committed to ensuring that serving personnel are included in the SEND reforms process. I want to thank her for her work, alongside that of the Royal British Legion and the APPG.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Lady for a very helpful intervention. I will come to the NHS in a moment, but during the Bill’s earlier stages we have suggested that if the Government do not feel that they can accept this amendment—amendment 3—in this primary legislation, which was our preferred route, now that we know there will be a new Bill on special educational needs, they should seek to address the problem in that Bill, and because it is a Department for Education Bill, hopefully local education authorities will then give it considerable weight. So we are in absolute agreement about that route, and, if I may say so, what the hon. Lady has said about education Ministers is heartening.

Amendment 4 makes, in a sense, the same argument as we have made on the EHCPs with regard to fostering or adoption by service personnel. Amendment 5 argues, in a similar vein, that military personnel who transfer from one military location to another should not lose their place on any NHS waiting list as a result. Again, there is forthcoming legislation on NHS reorganisation, and we hope that this issue can be tackled via that legislative route. I believe this is a relatively straightforward moral argument, in all three cases, and I hope that the Government may yet accept the logic of what we are putting forward this evening.

Let me now turn to the subject of funding for the proposed new Defence Housing Service. As I said during the Select Committee stage of the Bill, there is almost universal agreement that we want to improve the quality of accommodation for service personnel and their families. The remaining area of contention is how best to achieve that, given that there is almost complete unanimity on the desired end state.

Nevertheless, following media reports—especially in The Sunday Times—Opposition Members are increasingly concerned about the possibility that money for capital improvements, and even maintenance, may now be taken away from the Defence Housing Service before it is even born, and reallocated to other priorities in Labour’s very long-awaited defence investment plan. We know from evidence sessions on the Bill that there is already a plan for the Defence Housing Service to reduce the spending on housing maintenance by 25%, compared to current practice. That sounds worrying, although officials, and indeed the previous Minister, were keen to stress that they believed the new Defence Housing Service would be able, by renegotiating certain contracts and the actual operation of maintenance, to do this more efficiently.

The proof of the pudding for all that will be very much in the eating. However, what we understand is now being proposed is that the capital allocations for the Defence Housing Service will be raided in order to fund other defence priorities elsewhere. That process will only be exacerbated if, as has been widely reported, the amount of money that will be available for the DIP—if and when it is finally published—will be the lowest of the three options widely canvassed in the press, namely an additional £10 billion of spending on defence over the next four years.

Given the challenges faced by defence—which were laid out starkly by both the former Defence Secretary and the former Armed Forces Minister in their powerful resignation letters—£10 billion over four years will not even touch the sides. Let me humbly remind Labour Members that all three authors of the strategic defence review, which was published over a year ago on 2 June 2025, were adamant that the price tag for delivering Labour’s much-vaunted SDR would be defence spending of at least 3% of GDP. What is on offer is clearly nowhere near that. Indeed, in his scathing resignation letter, the former Defence Secretary said that all that was being offered to him was an increase in defence spending from 2.6% of GDP this year to 2.68% of GDP by 2030—in other words, a 0.08% increase over four years. Those numbers completely and utterly demolish Labour’s constantly repeated mantra that they are now funding

“the biggest…increase in defence spending since the Cold War.”

That is simply not true.

However, the situation is even worse than that. In addition to the headline “increases”, which are now minuscule, as the resignation letter starkly reveals, last year, at the Treasury’s behest, the Labour Government introduced a target of making efficiency savings—“cuts” in plain English—of some £2.6 billion from operational and revenue spending in the Ministry of Defence. What that means in practice is fewer ship days at sea, fewer hours for our pilots to fly, and fewer exercises on Salisbury plain. Incredibly, in this financial year—2026-27—the efficiency savings target has now been increased to £3.5 billion of cuts, which means even more operational and revenue spending reductions than last year.

For Labour to continue the mantra that it has provided the largest increase in defence spending since the cold war, in the face of these self-imposed, Treasury-driven in-year cuts, simply destroys any credibility that the Government had that they really are striving to keep this country safe. This is not the result of enemy action—unless one regards the Treasury as the enemy, which many in the military now do. This is a self-inflicted wound brought about by a Labour Government who are completely paralysed by inaction, and who now have no idea whatsoever of how to credibly fund the defence of this country.

In the light of today’s events, it remains to be seen whether the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will attempt to introduce any order into this chaos. If he does, he and his new Chancellor—whoever that turns out to be—will still have to say how the Labour Government are going to pay for it. Are they going to increase borrowing, which will frighten the bond markets, or are they going to cut welfare, which would probably provoke a Back-Bench revolt?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

In a moment.

I come back to the Defence Housing Service. Ministers have promised us ad nauseum that their plan will include £9.2 billion of investment in military accommodation over the next 10 years—that point has been repeated again and again over the five months that I have referred to. Given that the DIP has still not been published, I ask the Minister for the Armed Forces whether she can still repeat Labour’s mantra on the Floor of the House this evening. Is that £9.2 billion still there? Has it been definitively signed off by the Chancellor of the Exchequer —yes or no?

Moreover, can the Minister advise us when the DIP will finally be published? I see that the Secretary of State has kindly joined us, so he can bob up and answer if he wants. Will it be published prior to the NATO summit in Ankara on 7 and 8 July, as we have been told multiple times? Will it be published prior to the House rising for the summer recess on 16 July? Will it ever be published, or will we have to go round the loop all over again with a new Government? Are they going to publish it, and if so, when? We have now transitioned from frustration to filibustering from Ministers, and from there to farce. Our adversaries can see this as clearly as our friends can.

We have already rightly spent five months on this very important Bill, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House at least some comfort on some of the points that we have raised. Otherwise, we will have to test the will of the House, almost certainly in the matter of the ECHR and potentially on the Defence Housing Service and the DIP as well. Finally, when—if ever—will Labour publish the defence investment plan?

[Alex Baker]

May I begin by congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) on being appointed the Minister for the Armed Forces? She did an outstanding job as the Minister for Veterans and People, and I pay particular tribute to her work with the Gurkha community. I saw at first hand how she engaged with a community that for too long felt ignored and unheard, and she helped many feel that their voices were finally being listened to. I am delighted to see her promoted, and I look forward to her making many visits to Aldershot and Farnborough in her new role.

This weekend, Aldershot and Farnborough will have the privilege of hosting the national Armed Forces Day celebrations. As the historic home of the British Army, it is a huge honour for our community. I thank everyone involved in making it happen, including Rushmoor borough council and our headline sponsors: QinetiQ, BAE Systems and KBR Aspire Defence. Armed Forces Day matters because it gives us an opportunity to say thank you, but it should also be an opportunity to listen.

On Saturday, I was privileged to attend the launch of the Commonwealth military hub in Aldershot, which has been delivered by Op Belonging under the leadership of Samuel T. Reddy, in partnership with Aldershot Town football club. It was an extraordinary event. Serving personnel, veterans, families and organisations from across the Commonwealth came together to celebrate service and support each other. In some regiments based in Aldershot, more than 15 different nationalities are represented, and what struck me most was the theme of belonging. These are people who have served our country, and their families have sacrificed alongside them. They deserve to feel that they belong.

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the compassion and dedication of community volunteers in supporting our veterans is second to none? I certainly extend my gratitude to Lauren Fox and Luther Blissett, who support people in my constituency of Watford with an invaluable level of help.

[Alex Baker]

Like me, my hon. Friend will have many fantastic volunteers supporting veterans right across his community, and we are so indebted to them. We are able to deliver so much veteran support because people voluntarily give their time to make it happen.

I was really proud to stand on a Labour manifesto that committed to removing visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served in our armed forces for four years or more, and for their dependants. This Government are working through such commitments. Having worked closely with the new Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), on these issues before he entered government, I know how passionate he is about delivering meaningful change in this space, but it is for the Government to make these changes. For that reason, although I fully support the principle of removing visa fees, I will not support new clause 4 today. I want to give the Minister the time and space to be able to deliver on the Government’s commitments.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s position and have previously spoken to her about new clause 4, which I tabled. The Government have been in power for two years, and nothing has yet been done on delivering their pledge. Why should Labour Members not vote for new clause 4, given that it will deliver their manifesto pledge?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Baker]

Ultimately, a manifesto is delivered over the period that a Government serve—they do not deliver everything at once. It takes time to deliver these things over the course of a Parliament. These things look hard because they are hard. The previous Government made many things look hard when it came to defence, and I want to give this Government the chance to deliver, throughout this Parliament, on the things that we are committed to delivering.

I really welcome the extension of the armed forces covenant duty in the Bill. The covenant is obviously one of the most important promises that we make to a nation, and it says that no member of our armed forces community should face disadvantage because of their service. I have worked closely with outstanding organisations, including the Royal British Legion, SSAFA and our service family federations. When it comes to this Bill, their message is clear: accountability matters. Families need to know where to go when support falls short, public bodies need to understand their responsibilities, and the Government need to be able to demonstrate that the covenant is being applied consistently and effectively. Judicial review cannot be the only realistic route available when the covenant is not being properly applied.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Member is making a very important point. Judicial review is not an answer for the many people who are damaged or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and so on, because they do not have the capacity to do it, which is why authorities should be held accountable for the actions they take.

[Alex Baker]

That is precisely what I am asking the Government to do. They should look at that, because judicial review cannot be the only option. We must have other options available to make sure that, when the covenant is not being delivered, we can hold those bodies to account.

We need clearer guidance for how services can put the covenant into practice. Earlier this year, I presented my recommendations to the Minister responsible for early years—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey)—setting out how the new Best Start family hubs can properly support military families. The first recommendation we made was simple: services should ask everyone at the first point of contact, “Are you from a military family? Are you from our armed forces community?” If public services do not know whether someone serves or has served, or is part of a military family, how can we connect them to the support they need? Service life often means deployments, frequent moves and dealing with different local authorities and providers. With a clearer record of our forces community, we can ensure that support follows people as they relocate, rather than forcing them to start again each time.

Ultimately, this is not about processes, but about people. At the Commonwealth hub on Saturday, I met a female Royal Navy veteran, and she spoke honestly about the challenges she has faced after leaving service in struggling to secure housing, to find work and to access the support she needed. Then she said something that has stayed with me:

“The Covenant is supposed to mean something. But it means nothing.”

That must change. The covenant must mean something when a veteran needs a home or a military family is looking to settle down. Those who sacrificed so much in service to our country ask one thing of us, which is that we stand by them in return. That is the promise we must keep and the standard we must set ourselves, which is why I support this Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Miller]

I strongly agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, and I see nodding their heads those around the Chamber who, having served in our armed forces, know this accommodation better than me. It is critical that our service personnel, whether they are single, living away from their families or living in family accommodation, have a right to decent housing, and I hope the Government will stand by that commitment.

[Alex Baker]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Calum Miller]

If the hon. Member does not mind, I will make a bit more progress.

Let me now turn to veteran support. Service personnel transitioning out of the forces and into civilian life need vastly more support to ensure a smooth transition. In my own constituency, I have heard just in the last six months from two families deeply affected by the abject failure to link up military and civilian medical records. Two of my constituents were denied, as veterans, the care and support they deserved for physical and mental health damage sustained in fighting for our nation. The Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) has been assiduous in responding to me and I am in no doubt of her personal commitment. However, I think she would agree that such cases highlight system-wide problems that must be tackled.

--- Later in debate ---

Now, with the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence on a go-slow in anticipation of a regime change, the Veterans Minister has a choice: vote the new clause down, despite its widespread backing and his own affinity to the cause, or tell the Whips to let it go through on the nod. There is a grotesque irony that Parliament’s biggest advocate for making this legislative change, having campaigned for it for a decade, will today be a contributing factor to why service families continue to suffer.

[Alex Baker]

The Minister whom the hon. and gallant Member is talking about is not actually in the Chamber. In the APPG, we worked on these issues together. The Minister has had seven days in that job to make progress. Is it fair to put him under this sort of scrutiny after only seven days?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I appreciate what the hon. Member is saying. I am not putting the Minister under scrutiny here; I am merely highlighting the invidious position that he finds himself in and the situation as we find it. I spoke to the hon. and gallant Member, the Minister, earlier today, so he knows full well that I am going to say this. I very much want to put this front and centre as an issue that needs to be resolved, and to put some heat and light on it to encourage the progress that we are yet to see.

The only reason to oppose this new clause is purely political, as the Government choose to play games with people’s lives rather than support our armed forces community and uphold the armed forces covenant. Earlier this year, that same armed forces community was surveyed by the Army Families Federation on the armed forces pathway to settlement in the UK, in response to the 2025 “Restoring Control over the Immigration System” White Paper. It had 1,424 qualifying responses and more comments on reducing the cost of indefinite leave to remain than any other topic.

One of those responses stated:

“the current level of fees for ILR—and the subsequent cost of citizenship—places a significant financial burden on Armed Forces families. Given the service and sacrifices made by Armed Forces personnel, and the vital role their families play in supporting them, these costs are prohibitively high for many. As a result, families who are committed to remaining in the UK long-term face unnecessary financial hardship simply to secure their lawful status and future.”

Another said:

“Speaking from experience it’s a struggle to get us and our kids to join our husbands here in the UK. We have to work 2 jobs in order to pay for the visa and travelling expenses. We have to bring our 3 kids over to the UK. Due to the expensive costs we have to apply for loans to cater for the expenses. With the high living standards and tight financial constraints, we have to save up for our ILR fee once our 5 years contract is done. It’s so hard to save, especially for us. Me and my 3 kids have to apply for ILR together as our visa expired the same date, so that’s a total of £12K we have to fork out to pay the fee. Can the home office look into this urgently? Thank you.”

Another said:

“I have supported my partner’s service to the UK while facing many of the same sacrifices required of military families. This includes frequent relocations, prolonged periods of separation, disrupted employment opportunities, and the emotional and practical challenges that come with military life. For Commonwealth families in particular, these sacrifices are made alongside the added uncertainty of immigration status. Charging ILR and citizenship fees places an unfair financial burden on spouses who have already contributed significantly to the stability and wellbeing of service personnel. Military spouses play a vital role in enabling service members to serve effectively, yet are required to pay substantial fees simply to remain in the country their families serve with loyalty and dedication”.

This last one said:

“the financial burden of applying for ILR and subsequently citizenship is not proportionate to Armed Forces pay, particularly in the context of the current cost-of-living crisis. Many serving personnel simply do not earn enough to comfortably meet these fees, even though they have complied fully with all rules and requirements. It is difficult to understand why those who have shown long-term commitment, loyalty and service to the United Kingdom must go through one of the longest and most expensive settlement routes, while others are supported through different schemes that include accommodation, financial assistance and fee exemptions. This creates a strong perception of unfairness among service members, who feel they are being penalised for following the rules.”

That last one really sticks in the craw. We price our service personnel out of being able to afford to live here as veterans while dishing out ILR to others like confetti, who have done nothing to earn it. There is perhaps no better example of a genuine two-tier system.

Before Labour Members go into the voting Lobby and swipe their pass on autopilot, I ask them to think about why they became MPs—specifically Labour MPs—because if the answer was to clamp down on immigration so hard, with the bar so high that we do not even let the children of people who have risked their lives in the service of this nation live here without fleecing them for thousands of pounds, they will get a slow handclap for achieving their political dreams. If, on the other hand, they have the moral courage to do the right thing, they should not go into the No Lobby. What is the worst that is going to happen? How whip-able do we think the parliamentary Labour party actually is right now, just a few hours after the Prime Minister has resigned?

I ask Labour Members to have the moral courage to do the right thing, to vote in favour of new clause 4 and to deliver on the promise they made to service families when they stood for election. In a matter of days, they will find themselves jockeying for position in the leadership contest. People who are Whips today might not be Whips tomorrow. Nobody is going to lose the Whip as the Government collapse because they did not vote against this new clause. There may never be a more perfect set of circumstances in which to rebel: a Government with no authority trying to whip Labour MPs to vote against their own manifesto pledge and against the wishes of the Royal British Legion. I dare say there has never been safer, more fertile ground upon which to rebel.

If Labour Members cannot vote in favour of the new clause, I beg them not to vote against it. When this issue was voted on three weeks ago, there were 102 abstentions. The Prime Minister has laid out the timetable for his departure. This Administration is in its death throes. How much do those on the Labour Benches feel they really owe the outgoing Administration? They should be asking what the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) would do, because I am not really asking the current Government any more. What is the point?

Today, at the start of Armed Forces Week, I ask Labour Members to consider how they will vote tonight. Do they want to vote against service families, against the Royal British Legion campaign and against doing the right thing in order to prop up a Government who have a lifespan we can now measure in hours? This is now about whether the next Government back this change. I ask them to support new clause 4, not to vote against it. Ministers should think very carefully about what they want their legacy to be. They should have the moral courage to do the right thing tonight.

Armed Forces Bill

Alex Baker Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

On Second Reading, I spoke about the armed forces covenant and the importance of translating our gratitude to those who serve into practical support. Today, I am proud to speak in support of the Government’s housing measures in clause 3 and the associated amendments, which address perhaps the most tangible test of whether we are keeping our side of the bargain with our armed forces community: the homes they live in.

As the Member for Aldershot, the home of the British Army, I represent around 1,800 service family homes—one of the largest concentrations anywhere in the United Kingdom. The success of these reforms will thus be felt directly by thousands of military families in my constituency. For those families, the quality of their accommodation is not an abstract policy issue; it affects family life, children’s wellbeing, retention, morale and operational effectiveness.

For years, too many service families have lived in homes that fall short of the standards that they deserve. I hear from families who face persistent maintenance problems, personnel who are frustrated by repair systems that feel difficult to navigate and parents who simply want a safe, decent home in which to raise their children. I therefore welcome the action that the Government are taking on defence housing. I welcome the £9 billion investment, the refurbishment of nine out of 10 these houses, and the housing officers who will be on the streets of Aldershot as a result of this Government. The creation of a new defence housing service, alongside the wider defence housing strategy, represents a serious and necessary step forward, and the commitment to long-term investment, clearer accountability and better standards will matter enormously to constituencies such as mine.

Welcoming those measures does not mean lowering our ambitions, but rather the opposite. If we are to rebuild trust with service families, the reforms must be felt in everyday life—in repairs completed quickly, damp and mould dealt with properly and a system that listens, responds and follows through. I gently urge Ministers to ensure that the defence housing service has the authority, funding and accountability it needs to succeed, with service families placed at the heart of its design and delivery.

Defence housing is not just about families, however; single living accommodation matters too. For many serving personnel, particularly younger personnel or those living away from their families, single living accommodation is their home. It shapes their daily lives, morale and wellbeing and their sense of whether they are valued by the country they serve. That is why I welcome the Government’s review of single living accommodation and the overseas estate. It is right that we look carefully at the standard of accommodation being provided to those who serve, whether they live with their family or in single accommodation. As the strategic defence review recognised, accommodation is not simply an estates issues, but a retention issue, a recruitment issue and a readiness issue. The test for us now is delivery.

Before I conclude, I want to reflect on a letter I recently received from a constituent who is the father of a serving RAF member. He wrote to me about helping his son move into accommodation at the start of a new posting—his first. As any parent would be, he was proud that his son had chosen to serve his country and proud to see him beginning the next chapter of his career; but when he saw the room that his son had been allocated, that pride turned to concern. The room was small, outdated and in poor condition; there was no heating, and basic facilities were inadequate. His son had to leave behind many of his possessions that made him feel at home, because there simply was not the space. What struck me most was the father’s description, not of the building itself, but of leaving his son behind.

As policymakers, it is easy for us to talk about estates, stock, programmes and investment. Those things matter, but perhaps the best test is a simpler one. When we make decisions about military housing, we should ask ourselves first: if those were our sons or daughters, would we be content to leave them there? Would we feel reassured driving away? Would we believe that they were being treated with the dignity and respect that their service deserved, and would we feel that the nation was keeping its promise to them? If the answers are no, then we must do better.

That is why I welcome the action that this Government are taking and the commitment to improve service family accommodation and review single living accommodation. I hope that Ministers will continue to push forward with urgency and ambition, because those who serve our country deserve decent homes and their families deserve peace of mind. Their service deserves our respect, and our gratitude must be matched by action.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Middle East: Defence

Alex Baker Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about our armed forces and will ensure that they are passed on. I had not realised he was an honorary citizen of Cyprus; I hope he will appreciate that, as I confirmed in my statement, the head of the national guard has confirmed that co-operation between our militaries has never been closer. I hope he will also appreciate that the defensive capabilities and activities that we are running from Akrotiri are part of defending not just our base, but our people right across Cyprus and the island of Cyprus itself. From that island, we can also help to defend regional allies, which we are doing.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for everything he is doing to support all my constituents in the region and to keep them safe. I know that he and I share the priority of getting our serving personnel the capabilities that they need. In the light of the movements we have seen today in the gilt and bond markets, which underline the pressure on Governments to finance increased defence spending, does the Secretary of State agree that we should explore innovative multilateral financing mechanisms, such as the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank, to help to unlock the capital our defence industrial base needs to grow?

[John Healey]

I do, and we are. My hon. Friend will also have noted the Prime Minister’s important speech at the Munich security conference a couple of weeks ago when he recognised that in this new era of threats we face, this is now an era of hard power. He has recognised the need to spend more on defence and to spend it faster.

Ministry of Defence

Alex Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

It is a huge privilege to speak in this debate. I want to use my time to highlight why the UK must join the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank as a critical part of our defence strategy. I have been campaigning for this for over a year, and I feel that this is a moment for us to think about how we support and finance our growing defence capabilities.

This Government are making record investments in defence in the years ahead, responding to increasing global threats, but we must recognise that defence spending and defence financing are two distinct matters. That is where the issue lies: our current financing structures do not support the defence sector adequately. In my constituency, we have a strong defence industrial base, and I have heard directly from businesses about the barriers they face. This is not about the big defence contractors, but rather the tier 2 and tier 3 suppliers and the SMEs. There is a misconception that these businesses are doing well and thriving because of increased defence spending, but in reality they are struggling to get access to the capital they need. British banks are heavily restricted in lending to defence companies due to international regulations, and our businesses often stay silent about these challenges, but they do affect them.

One business leader who has had the courage to speak out is Rob Taylor from 4GD. His company has been able to access the capital it needs to grow despite being based in the UK. The extreme barriers faced include being asked by banks to provide 160% security on loans—an unsustainable expectation for any business. Rob is now considering relocating his business to the United States, where there is a much more supportive environment for defence companies.

Rob is clear that the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank would provide a solution for 4GD and other businesses like it. It would offer sovereign-backed credit guarantees to UK banks, allowing them to lend much more freely to our defence sector. Economists estimate that, with such credit guarantees in place, UK banks could lend £30 for every £1—over 50% more than they can lend today. Furthermore, through its yield curve, the DSRB could enable us to achieve the 3% GDP defence spending target by 2030, which is crucial for our national security. The bank would help us to ensure that every £1 we invest in defence works harder for our country.

If we fail to expand our supply chains and support SMEs, increased spending will lead only to more expensive capabilities and defence inflation. We have already seen the impact of that in the price of 155 mm artillery shells, which has risen over 300% since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Without a solid financial mechanism, those costs will continue to rise.

The DSRB may not fix everything, but it is an essential tool for ensuring the growth and of our defence industry. It is about supporting businesses that are essential to our national security, which are located in every community across the UK. Canada is already paving the way. Prime Minister Carney, a former financier, is backing the DSRB and urging our allies to join as charter negotiations begin. The Defence Committee welcomed a delegation from the Parliament of Canada yesterday, through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and they urged the UK to join the talks.

If we want the UK to lead, this is our moment. This is as significant as when a Labour Government founded NATO 77 years ago. Joining the DSRB will allow us to shape the future of defence finance. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity; let us act now so that we do not miss it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Baker Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for her interest. It is precisely for those reasons that we established the Armed Forces Commissioner, an independent champion for our armed forces and their families. That legislation has now become law, and the recruitment process will conclude shortly.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

Our servicewomen are currently not as well protected by in-service body armour, which is designed around male body types, providing inadequate ballistic protection. With testing of female body armour now under way, will the Minister commend the work of NP Aerospace in improving women’s safety, and commit the MOD to continuing to cultivate vital UK sovereign capabilities such as this?

[Luke Pollard]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been leading the charge for female body armour. NP Aerospace is doing a superb job on this, and I know she will be bringing female body armour to Parliament so we can all see that this can be delivered. We have a strong commitment to investigate—and to support our female serving personnel through—better body armour, and I look forward to working with her to deliver that.

Armed Forces Bill

Alex Baker Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

I am proud to speak in support of the Armed Forces Bill on Second Reading, and I do so as the Member of Parliament for Aldershot, the home of the British Army. In my constituency, service is not an abstract concept. It is lived, every day, by families who accept unique pressures on their time, their family life, their careers, their children’s education and their health. Our duty in return is clear: fairness, respect, and practical support that works in real life.

I will begin with housing. The last Government left defence housing in an absolute mess, with satisfaction levels for service family accommodation hitting the lowest level on record. I hugely welcome the creation of the new Defence Housing Service and the direction of travel the Bill sets. My patch will be one of the biggest recipients of these changes, as there are more than 1,800 service family homes in Aldershot. That is thousands of families who should never have had to put up with the basics being a battle.

For too long, I have had conversation after conversation with service personnel and their spouses about housing that is not fit for purpose, and a repairs system that feels like a maze. People have described the nightmare of trying to get even straightforward repairs done, and the frustration of being treated like the problem rather than the customer. Again and again, families say to me that they miss the days when there was an estate manager on site who could fix problems quickly and take responsibility. I am delighted to see the Bill deliver that, restoring a service that is accountable, visible and on the side of forces families.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I agree with everything that the hon. Member has said about service family accommodation, but the investment in single living accommodation is unlikely to keep up. As we have heard, that is the responsibility of frontline commands that are unlikely to prioritise it. Does she think that there could be the unintended consequence that people want to move out of the block and even enter relationships in order to move into the much better quality service family accommodation?

[Alex Baker]

That is a fair point. I know that the Defence Committee will be holding Ministers to account on single living accommodation as much as we are on SFA. They both need to improve very quickly.

The second and central point that I want to focus on is the covenant. It is absolutely right that it is strengthened and put on a clear legal footing. The covenant is the nation’s promise that those who serve and their families should not be disadvantaged because of service life. If that principle means anything, it must apply consistently across the whole of Government and the whole of the United Kingdom.

The Defence Committee has heard powerful evidence of how inconsistent the covenant can be in practice and how families often feel they are left to fight their corner alone. I will give just one example. We heard evidence from someone serving who moved from Scotland to the south of England while waiting for an NHS specialist appointment. They had been told that their place on the waiting list would transfer under the covenant, but instead they were put to the end of the queue, with the local trust stating that it did not recognise or follow the covenant. That is just one story among hundreds.

The Committee heard that significant proportions of serving personnel feel disadvantaged when trying to access healthcare, education and housing, and that challenge is not limited to service personnel themselves. We also heard how service life affects spouses and partners, from difficulties transferring professional roles to families being denied remote working arrangements when posted abroad.

The most worrying conclusion the Defence Committee reached was not simply that disadvantage exists, but that there is no clear single shared understanding of what the covenant actually means on the ground, either among providers or within parts of our armed forces community itself. That gap in understanding is exactly where good intentions go to die.

While I strongly support putting the covenant into law, I urge the Government to go a few steps further. If we are creating a stronger legal covenant, we should take the opportunity to set out a clear, positive, public commitment: what the armed forces community can expect, what “no disadvantage” actually means in practice, and what will be delivered consistently across the UK. It should include clear standards, practical guidance for those delivering services and proper mechanisms for accountability and learning so that best practice is shared and poor practice is tackled quickly. Legislation alone will not fix inconsistency if the people responsible for implementation do not know what is being asked of them or if families cannot see a straightforward route to challenge decisions that plainly ignore the covenant.

Lastly, we should set out a clear vision for how the armed forces covenant is made real in communities across the UK. This really relates to our commitment to a total society approach to defence, particularly within the strategic defence review. That is why I am campaigning for Aldershot to be officially recognised as an armed forces covenant town. I want to create a national movement of covenant towns, cities and villages committed to delivering the covenant consistently across local services and organisations. I am working with the Royal British Legion on what that looks like. Towns like Aldershot, where civilian and military life are inseparable, already understand what it means in practice. By establishing places like ours as covenant towns, cities and villages, we can kick-start a national effort to ensure that respect and fairness for the armed forces community are not just a box-ticking exercise, but embedded in the beating heart of our communities.

In Aldershot and Farnborough, families do not ask for special treatment. They ask for fair treatment and for a system that recognises the reality of service life. This Bill, with a renewed approach to housing and a stronger covenant, is a major step in the right direction. I welcome and support it and will keep pushing to ensure that its promise is felt by forces families not just in speeches this evening, but in their everyday lives.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

I do not know, but perhaps the Minister could expand on that in his response. However, I do have experience of people such as Flight Lieutenant Mark Raymond, who served under me on the airdrop team that delivered lifesaving aid to the Yazidi people. He was eventually retired at the age of 64, but only after having to apply for annual extensions each year after turning 60. That was not because his capability had diminished, but because the system would not allow otherwise. It was probably also because the Conservatives deleted the C-130, which was a very bad mistake. Reservists and planners have long argued for a more individualised approach to service, recognising experiences and skill rather than forcing people out at an arbitrary age. When war comes, it does not discriminate, and it will require the contribution of the whole of society, so our armed forces must be structured to draw on all the talent we have.

I welcome the fact that this Bill makes it easier for people to move between regular service careers and the reserves. A zig-zag model of service reflects modern careers and helps us retain invaluable experience, rather than losing it altogether. This Bill provides a platform for an armed forces model fit for the future, and one that rewards service, supports families and ensures that the covenant is real across Government. Our service people deserve nothing less, and I commend this Bill to the House.

I hope some of the issues I have spoken about, particularly those about the support of other Departments and the changes those Departments must take on board, are acknowledged by all Members in the House this evening, and that they champion them, and go out and do the work necessary to highlight such cases, particularly the examples I have mentioned. I look forward to hearing how extensions under medical capacity could benefit our service families, particularly for dental health, and how this support can be extended into parts of our nation where service numbers are high but the local populations are low.

[Alex Baker]

My hon. Friend talked about a total society approach to defence, related to the strategic defence review. Does he agree that we need a total Government approach to defence if we are to deliver on both the strategic defence review and these covenant commitments?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend, who represents the covenant town of Aldershot, for her powerful intervention. She is entirely right; it is imperative to recognise that it is nations that fight wars, not the military. In my constituency of Leyton and Wanstead, I look with great admiration at those who service the trains that run into Europe. Those trains will take our tanks and troops, in the moment of crisis, all the way up to Estonia, but that requires the Department for Business and Trade to recognise that necessary contribution, and invest in and understand the permanent structured co-operation—PESCO—offer from the European Union.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) made an incredibly important and powerful point earlier. The military and our defence forces do not just protect us abroad, but help to galvanise us and draw us together as communities, giving people meaningful work and a meaningful existence. If we do that, we will be stronger not only at home but abroad, we will make a meaningful contribution to the EU and to NATO security, and we will be able to meet our commitments far and wide, from the GIUK gap to Estonia and up into Finland. For those reasons, I am incredibly grateful to have had the opportunity to speak today, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Alex Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I really welcome the hon. Gentleman’s response, his question, the way in which he speaks for the House, and his urging that this statement—and, indeed, the declaration of intent signed in Paris yesterday—will be recognised around the world and particularly heard in Kyiv; I am sure that President Zelensky will ensure that. I will play my part in doing that shortly as I visit the country, and I will discuss the further work that needs to be done with Ukraine’s military and political leaders.

On the question of detailed numbers, yesterday was a political declaration—a political statement. The detailed military planning that has been going on for months with the nations that are participating in, and contributing to, the coalition of the willing means that we are ready if and when a peace deal is signed. The deployment that will follow that will clearly depend on the circumstances and detail of that peace deal. I have certainly not been briefing the media at all, because any discussion of details of numbers and very detailed activities only makes Putin wiser and undermines the confidence that the Ukrainians can have in the guarantees we are developing, with them and for them.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to providing security guarantees for Ukraine, which are vital to the defence of Europe and to upholding peace on our continent. However, military resolve alone is not enough; deterrence requires financial guarantees that underpin our security commitments today and in the years ahead. Will the UK join other nations in seeking to establish a multilateral defence, security and resilience bank so that Britain can protect itself, stand firmly with Ukraine, and uphold our responsibility to defend peace in an increasingly dangerous world?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is entirely right that the long-term commitment we and other nations have made to Ukraine is not just about our military support or the deployment of a multinational force into Ukraine; it is about the financial support Ukraine will require for the long term. We are certainly interested in the proposals that she has been championing. Led by the Treasury, this Government have been in discussions with those who are developing such proposals, and we will continue to hold those discussions, because such proposals will potentially play a significant role in contributing the sort of financial investment that we must see in Ukraine for the long term.