Defence Investment Plan

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for how she presented it. She is absolutely right that we need to increase investment. Barrow in her constituency is a really good example of that. There has been a massive increase in employment, with people working in the BAE Systems facilities building the latest generation of nuclear submarines. The commitment is for up to 12 SSNAs to be built in Barrow. That huge investment, not just in our nuclear deterrent but our hunter-killer fleet, shows that when we get defence spending right and we put the effort into skills and communities, defence really is an engine for growth. She will see that writ large when the DIP is published.

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

We already know that the Defence Secretary is going to make an announcement in Swindon on Friday morning. Given that the Japanese Prime Minister is going to turn up on Saturday, I suggest that some of that announcement will probably relate to global combat air programme funding, given that the Defence Secretary is under significant pressure to guarantee that the funding in the international contract will be signed immediately. The issue here is that the announcement will not be the DIP, which is desperately needed. The Minister will know that I speak to defence companies all the time. Over the course of this week, I have been made well aware that the Government have cancelled tens of millions of pounds-worth of contracts in the past few weeks. He talks about signing 1,400 contracts. Will he explain how many of those contracts have either timed out or been cancelled since 1 April?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions, which are typically sensible. I look forward to when he sits on the Opposition Front Bench as the shadow Defence Secretary, if the rumours are true.

We have made very clear our commitment to the global combat air programme. The Secretary of State discussed it with our GCAP partners—our Italian and Japanese counterparts—when he was in Singapore only a couple of weekends ago at the Shangri-La Dialogue conference. We are committed to the GCAP programme. We have signed the first international contract for that. To deliver that, we will continue to work with our GCAP partners. I do not have the precise answers to his questions off the top of my head, but I will be sure to write to him.

Armed Forces Bill

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

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

Further simplifying the reserve liability is fundamental. It enables us to create a clear and modern framework that is easier to administer and explain, and it will enable the Ministry of Defence to plan more effectively for workforce requirements and defence readiness. The amendments will also ensure greater compatibility with a new workforce model—zig-zag careers, as we are calling it—provided for by clause 31. We want to encourage a much more flexible working approach that mirrors civilian society and allows people’s careers to be more flexible, but it is difficult and complicated to calculate exactly when the 18-year liability should start for people who move between the regulars and reserves, and potentially back again.

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

I welcome the introduction of the strategic reserve in the Bill, but I would like clarity on how it will be paid for. Will it be via separate funding or will it come from the money already allocated to pay for the active reserve in the MOD budget?

[Al Carns]

As the hon. Member will know, there is a multitude of different reserves in the system, with different liabilities, different pay and different pensions. Indeed, I have often described it as a spaghetti junction of different policies that have been layered on top of each other over the last 60 years. This is the first move to simplify that, as well as the funding mechanisms and recall processes for it. By removing the 18-year liability, we simplify it at 65 years, which creates our ability to zig-zag those roles within the military so that people can leave, rejoin and leave again depending on their personal circumstances and the liability available within the armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

I commend my hon. Friend’s intervention and join her in extending my best wishes. It is welcome that the Government have published draft guidance on the legal duty, and I am pleased that it includes an explanation of what it means to pay “due regard” to the covenant, because witnesses to our inquiry told us that that phrase can sometimes seem ambiguous. I hope the Minister will consult widely with those affected by the legal duty to ensure that the guidance meets their needs. Our Committee will be watching closely to see whether the expanded covenant is being delivered and is making a positive difference for our armed forces community.

The creation of a new defence housing service in clause 3 is also welcome. I am pleased that the Government have made it a priority to modernise the defence estate and have committed £9 billion over 10 years to support that work. The challenge for the Minister will be to ensure that the funding is delivered as promised; in the current geopolitical climate it is not hard to imagine that the Government might come under pressure to divert scarce resources in response to some crisis. I hope the Government will uphold their commitment to our service families, come what may.

The new powers in clause 4 to counter uncrewed devices are sorely needed. My Committee’s inquiry “Defence in the Grey Zone” examined the many kinds of hybrid threat posed by hostile states, including drones. The armed forces need the power to deal with such threats, to show our adversaries that their hybrid tactics will not work against us.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

The other day I had the opportunity to meet the Ministry of Defence Police and their chief constable at RAF Wyton in my constituency. I was impressed by the counter-drone capability that they are now equipped with; it is vastly in excess of what Home Office policing teams now have, and it is a simple solution to provide the counter-drone capability that we should have at all our bases. I urge the hon. Gentleman to put pressure on the Minister to roll out those new CPM-Wilson and CPM-Watson counter-drone weapons to all our bases, to ensure that that capability is as widespread as possible.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that intervention. The Defence Committee had the good fortune to view some of those counter-drone measures during one of our visits, and I fully concur with his views.

The measures on service justice are focused on better supporting victims of serious offences. As the Minister knows, this subject comes up time and again in the Defence Committee’s regular sessions on women in the armed forces, and I am pleased that it is a focus of the Bill. It is only right that the Bill brings protections available in the service justice system, such as domestic abuse orders and stalking protection orders, into line with those available in the civilian system.

The new reporting requirements and the victims’ code are also welcome changes, but it has been our experience as a Committee—as it was for our predecessors—that new initiatives do not always have the impact we would hope for, because they take place in an environment and culture that does not take the needs of victims as seriously as it should. I know that we cannot legislate for culture, but unless there is proper training on the measures in the Bill, and a message from leaders throughout defence that things must change, it is likely that our Committee will continue to hear stories from victims who feel let down by the service justice system.

The Bill also aims to update the way that defence uses reserves, and I welcome clause 31, which will make it easier to move between regular and reserve forces. That will support more flexible career paths, allowing people with military expertise to move into roles in industry, and vice versa. The changes to call-out and recall conditions in clauses 32 and 33 should help to strengthen the capacity of our reserves. Reserves are a key component of our nation’s readiness; showing that we are ready to respond to aggression deters our enemies and lets us respond more effectively, if needed. I hope that these measures will soon be followed by further steps to improve our readiness, including the promised defence readiness Bill, which is needed sooner rather than later.

While the measures in the Bill will undoubtedly improve our readiness, they are focused on the strategic reserve only. The strategic defence review stated an ambition to increase the active reserve by 20% when funding allows. We do not know how and when that will be achieved. The measures in the Bill are a good start, but there is more work to do.

In conclusion—I see you are giving me a stare, Madam Chair—I believe the Bill will make a positive difference to the lives of those who serve in our armed forces, and I will certainly support it as it continues to make progress through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

The right hon. Member makes a powerful point, and I agree with him entirely. That is why it is so important we make sure that the armed forces covenant works. The covenant will have to do a lot of work and heavy lifting, just as it will in relation to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, but we will have the legal power and we will have recourse to those Departments. We hope to hear from Ministers today that they will press home the legal advantage they now have in that regard.

Finally, this debate reminds us that the Armed Forces Act 2006 was itself forged in the context of its time. It brought together a number of separate pieces of legislation and created a framework suited to an era in which the size and scope of the armed forces were reducing and many of the strategic assumptions underpinning our national security appeared to be settled. The measures in this Bill are all welcome and necessary, but they remind us that much of the heavy lifting now sits elsewhere. Questions about mobilisations, reserve integration, military aid to the civil authorities, the legal protections offered to service personnel acting on behalf of the state, and wider national resilience sit largely beyond the scope of the Bill, yet those issues are becoming increasingly important as the strategic environment changes around us. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that the legal frameworks governing our armed forces continue to evolve alongside those changes. This Bill makes important improvements, but it should also encourage us to think carefully about the work that remains to be done and ensure that future legislation is ambitious enough to meet the realities of the world as it is, rather than the world as it once was.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wish to speak to new clause 5, which I tabled. I start by thanking all Opposition Members—both in my party and across four other parties—who have supported this amendment. Let the record show that not one person on the Labour Benches supported it.

We often speak in this House about veterans, our shared respect for those who have served and how best to support veterans in their post-military life, be it with careers, housing, mental health or simply the frailty of growing old. With that shared sense of society repaying our collective debt to those who have served must come the moral courage to do the right thing that we expect those who have served to show.

During my Army career, I had the privilege to serve alongside and command soldiers from all over the Commonwealth—Australians and Canadians, South Africans and Jamaicans. As a support weapons platoon commander, a quarter of my anti-tank platoon was Fijian. As hon. Members may expect from a fine rugby playing regiment such as the Duke of Wellington’s, it was unbelievably competitive to get a spot on the wing. I therefore know well the courage and the sacrifice shown by our Commonwealth personnel not only today, but alongside me on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and during operations across the globe long preceding that. We owe those men and women the right to make a life in the country they have risked theirs to defend.

Over four years ago, in April 2022, the previous Government implemented a visa fee waiver for those who have served in the UK armed forces. That waiver also applied to eligible veterans who were yet to regularise their immigration status. Having campaigned for that long before I became an MP, it was hugely welcome to see the playing field levelled somewhat for Commonwealth veterans. While that was a welcome first step, I personally felt that it was not enough.

We in this Chamber often recognise the sacrifice and the challenges of those families left behind when service personnel deploy. Being a military spouse or child is not easy. This situation is made even harder for the family of a Commonwealth service member, because while we waived the fees for serving personnel in 2022, we did not extend the right to the immediate family and dependants of that service member. That means many Commonwealth veterans are saddled with significant visa fees if they wish to stay in the UK as a family after leaving the armed forces.

From 8 April this year, when the cost increased once again, the base fee for applying for indefinite leave to remain is £3,226 per person. To put into context the speed of that increase, when we waived fees for service members just four years ago, it was £2,389 per person—a near £1,000 increase. That is just for indefinite leave to remain, not citizenship. In the US armed forces, a non-US citizen can achieve full US citizenship upon discharge for the price of the admin fee—just a few dollars. A service member, their spouse and two children now potentially face a cost of just shy of £10,000 for the right to live in the country they have risked their life to defend. I defy anybody to tell me that that is fair.

It is not until the 12-year point that personnel become entitled to a resettlement grant of £15,047. The purpose of the resettlement grant is to do precisely what it says: to give people a head start, be it through a trade course, a deposit for a house or the funds to set up an entrepreneurial new business. None of those options is available to those who need to spend the majority of the grant on just obtaining the right to live in the country.

What on earth are we doing? Why are we fleecing those who have served this country, saddling them with a five-figure burden? The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland lead the charge on this campaign. They have pushed for these changes consistently. They highlight that in delivering this manifesto pledge, the Government would fulfil their obligations under the armed forces covenant by removing those disadvantages and barriers to family life.

Going into the 2024 general election, the Conservative manifesto looked to correct this issue. As part of our pledge to veterans, we announced that a Conservative Government would:

“extend the visa fees waiver introduced to cover Commonwealth personnel, to include their direct dependants.”

The Labour manifesto, too, made that pledge, stating:

“We will also scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years, and their dependents.”

So where are we with that? I have raised the question on a number of occasions. In November 2024, I asked the then Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), what the timetable was for delivering that manifesto pledge. I was told:

“We are working on that. It is in the manifesto, and it will come out in due course.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 22.]

In June 2025, during the Armed Forces Day debate, I asked the then Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), if he could provide an update

“on the work being done to waive visa fees for families and dependants of our Commonwealth personnel”.

He told me:

“We have a manifesto commitment to deliver that. The Defence Secretary has spoken to the Home Secretory about this, and our officials are in dialogue about it. I hope that the Minister for Veterans and People, who looks after this area, will be able to announce progress in due course. The hon. Member and I share a strong sense that there is a wrong to be righted here, and those people who serve our country for a good period of time should be able to settle here. I think progress will be made, but I recognise his interest in that happening.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1290-1291.]

That was a year ago.

On 5 January 2026, the new Veterans Minister told me in a written answer that the Government are

“working closely with the Home Office to deliver this commitment”.

She went on to state:

“it is not possible at this stage to provide an implementation date”.

In April, she informed me:

“This Government is committed to waiving visa fees for non-UK veterans”.

In total, I have asked the Government for an update on the progress of the implementation of their manifesto pledge seven times and we are no closer to an implementation date after nearly two years than we were when the Government came to power.

I am not seeking to apportion individual blame here. Having spoken to Ministers individually, including the two on the Front Bench today, I do not doubt that the Defence Front Bench wishes to implement this policy, but there is clearly something that is causing it to stall, be that the Home Office or the machinery of government. There is an opportunity here to drive this policy forward. We should bear in mind that the Ministry of Defence does not even collate the information regarding the number of ILR applications submitted by family members of service personnel. It has literally no idea of the impact the failure to deliver this policy is having.

After two years with no timetable for implementation on the horizon, I have little confidence this is a priority on the MOD’s to-do list. I appreciate that the Government measure working flat-out in months, but this could be measured in continental drift. It simply does not appear to be a priority for the Government. However, my greater fear is that rather than do the right thing today, the Government will churlishly and spitefully vote against new clause 5, “because politics”. Not one Labour MP signed the new clause, despite every single one being asked twice. The Government have whipped their MPs not to support it, just as they will whip their MPs to vote against it.

A vote against new clause 5 is not just a vote against the Labour manifesto that each Labour MP stood on. It is a vote against our veterans. It is a vote against those who have risked their lives to defend this great nation. It is a vote that tells Commonwealth personnel that this Government do not have their back, that joining our armed forces will still see them treated as second-class citizens, with limited options post service. Those Labour MPs with a military presence in their constituencies should ask themselves how they will spin it to the service member who has to pay £10,000 to live here with their family, instead of putting down a deposit on a house or launching a business. They should ask themselves whether, for the sake of playing politics this evening, it is worth holding somebody else back.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. He is making a powerful speech, the majority of which I agree with. Does he recognise, however, that the armed forces covenant places a legal responsibility on all Departments to remove those barriers and impediments to service life? As a service member, I engaged with the Royal British Legion and Cobseo from about 2017 to try to address those barriers and impediments and failed to do so numerous times under the previous Government because of the nature and approach of the Home Office in addressing these problems. Perhaps the problem we have today is not whether the Department wants to address the issue, but a wider cultural problem. Would the hon. Gentleman join with the all-party parliamentary group to ensure that we apply and enforce the armed forces covenant in the way it is designed in order to achieve the outcomes on which we both agree?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I do not disagree. I recognise the point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is making and his passion for delivering what he describes. I am a member of said all-party parliamentary group, and I am happy to push in order to try and get this across the line. I also recognise the politics of this. Although I am not sure his party will welcome him apparently somewhat throwing the Home Office under the bus in this instance, I recognise that there are complexities around the ability to deliver from a Home Office perspective. I know that is something that the Conservatives encountered when we were in government, and I imagine it is very much the same situation for the Government now.

I insist that new clause 5 is still a good new clause. It would come in the right place within the Armed Forces Bill. I recognise that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to give the Government some wiggle room to get out of voting for the new clause this evening, but I am convinced that it should be voted on, and that we should push it forward in order to put some pressure on the Home Office.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I just want to amplify what this means for our service people, as I know there is a slight conflation of issues here. As our service people approach the end of their time in service, if they are not a UK passport holder—the majority of those people may be Americans and not Commonwealth personnel—they will not have access to work and to credit during the final six months of their service. This impediment has been in place for decades; as I said, I fought to change it through Cobseo when I was in service, and we are trying to deal with it again now. That is why this matter is broader than the hon. Gentleman’s new clause.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I agree that it is a broader topic than simply covering Commonwealth veterans and their family members from those same Commonwealth countries. There are a number of personnel living here are UK personnel but have spouses and children who may be from overseas, and the same rules apply to them. I do not disagree with the hon. Member; I think we are very much on the same page on a number of issues—it is literally just the technicality of politics that is getting in the way.

We are squeamish when it comes to discussing immigration. No party has yet demonstrated that they have the right answer, but on this specific element of the debate, it is very simple: no matter how high a bar we set for the right to live in this country—whether that is for key workers or high net worth individuals—those who have risked their lives to defend the freedoms that we enjoy deserve to settle here with their families without penalty. That should always be above that high bar. At the heart of our security are the men and women who serve and risk their lives for this country. That is in the Labour manifesto. I urge Government Members to do the right thing today and support new clause 5.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am proud to be a Labour and Co-operative MP for a Cornish constituency with a strong military heritage. More than 30,000 Cornish residents have served or are serving in the armed forces. That is more than 6% of the population—nearly double the national average.

I am also proud to have sat on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. The Committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses, who informed our report, and I am pleased that the majority of the recommendations have been taken forward by the Government. Government amendment 9 deals with paragraph 19 of the Committee’s report:

“We heard concerns that the Bill’s definition of a local authority to which the Covenant will apply does not capture all kinds of local authority”.

Our report recommended that the Government consider whether the definition of “local authority” needs updating. The Ministry of Defence agreed with that conclusion, and an amendment has been tabled, but unitary authorities and single foundation authorities still do not appear to be specifically included in the definition, so I would like the MOD to go back and look at that again.

I am very proud to have contributed a clause to the Bill. Clause 30, which introduces schedule 4, incorporates the proposal in my ten-minute rule Bill to bring Royal Fleet Auxiliary service personnel within the remit of the new Armed Forces Commissioner. I hope this is the start of work on building recognition of the RFA, and on retention and recruitment within the service, which is so valued and valuable.

I would like to speak about housing. I made my home in Cornwall because my then husband was posted to RNAS Culdrose. I know that many families move for the same reason. Even over 20 years ago when I experienced it, military housing was not in a good condition. In 2023-2024, two thirds of service family accommodation was in such a poor state that it was not fit for purpose. Clearly, that is not acceptable.

That is why I am so pleased that this Government are creating the publicly owned defence housing service and providing it with a 10-year investment of £9 billion. That will benefit over 12,000 houses in the south-west, many of which are in Cornwall, by bringing them back into public ownership after the disastrous privatisation in the mid-1990s, after which they degenerated.

I am pleased that the consumer charter includes commitments to improve military housing, such as a better move-in standard, more reliable repairs and a named housing officer. We discussed this on the Select Committee, and our report highlighted that, as private contracts for customer service, maintenance and repairs are to remain in place until 2029, there is a need for robust mechanisms in place to hold contractors to account for their performance.

I turn now to the modernised accommodation offer, which has been promised for many years and would extend entitlement to service family accommodation to those in long-term relationships and those with shared parental responsibilities. It is true—I know it—that a lifetime of service can put a strain on relationships, sometimes culminating in divorce or separation, and in 2024, 5,000 personnel had responsibility for non-resident children. They should have a home where their children can come and stay or live with them some of the time. That was identified as a long-term objective in the housing strategy, but I appreciate that military families will want clarity. The Select Committee brought that up, and the MOD acknowledged it, saying that it will be a commitment for the Department.

Our Committee recommended that within six months of its establishment, the DHS should outline a timetable for widening entitlement to SFA to include those in long-term relationships. The MOD supported the call for the DHS to clarify and accelerate those plans to better reflect the realities of modern military life.

The Committee’s report also covered single living accommodation—in paragraph 52—and recommended that the MOD commit to a costed plan for improving the condition and maintenance of SLA within twelve months of the review’s completion. The MOD agreed with that recommendation too, which is positive.

The Bill extends the armed forces covenant to cover central Government Departments, the devolved Administrations and, hopefully, all councils, as well as new policy areas such as employment and social care, so that no one falls through the gaps. This is very welcome, and I know that the covenant has had a positive impact so far, particularly in Cornwall.

Witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee raised the need for clearer guidance and support, and highlighted lack of consistency in implementation of the covenant across the country. Public bodies are not always clear about what is expected of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I thank all Members who have spoken today for their contributions and for upholding cross-party support for our armed forces. The Bill takes significant steps to improve the conditions of service life, and renews the contract between our nation and those who serve. It delivers on a manifesto promise to extend the armed forces covenant to every area of Government—from three to 12 policy areas. We will go further, backed by a £9 billion defence housing strategy, to build, renew and repair tens of thousands of military homes. We are modernising and improving victim support and ensuring that the service justice system can protect the victims of the most serious offences from further harm. We will expand the reserve pool by changing the maximum age limit at which some personnel can be recalled, so that we would, if needed, be able to call on some of the most experienced volunteer reservists. These are significant but necessary changes to boost preparedness in an era of ever-increasing threat.

I will now address some of the major issues highlighted in the debate, starting with new clause 5. I have served all over the world with Gurkhas, Fijians and broader Commonwealth troops. They serve our country, and they serve it with honour and courage. The very least we can do is help them and their dependants by scrapping visa fees after four years of service. This is not about politics or a difference of opinion; it is about language and bounding the commitment in legislation in the correct way.

There is already a settlement fee waiver in place for serving personnel, introduced in 2022, to recognise the burden of settlement fees at the point of discharge for those who have served for six or more years or been medically discharged due to their service. However, that fee waiver did not extend to dependants or recognise serving personnel who become eligible for settlement after four years of service. That is why this Government have committed to scrap visa fees for non UK veterans who have served for four years or more and their dependants, and Home Office and Ministry of Defence Ministers are working closely together to deliver it; my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People met the relevant Home Office Minister just recently. We remain firmly committed to this manifesto pledge and will deliver it fully.

I understand the intention behind new clause 5 and the desire to make progress quickly. However, as drafted, it would not clearly achieve the intent set out in the explanatory statement, which appears to be narrower. While the explanatory statement refers to “spouses or children”, the new clause itself appears to waive fees for serving personnel, previously serving personnel and “their family members”, using broad and undefined categories that would create significant uncertainty and a lack of clarity about who precisely was within scope. It also contains no clear link to length of service or a time limit after discharge. Taken together, that risks creating a broader and unclear statutory entitlement with unintended consequences, rather than a targeted and coherent measure that families and dependants can easily understand.

In addition, section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014 provides that fee exceptions should be set out in secondary legislation. By introducing a fee exception into the 2014 Act, new clause 5 would cut across that existing statutory framework and reduce clarity in the fee structure by creating an alternative mechanism for controlling fees. The Government are committed to delivering the manifesto commitment in full, and it is important that Ministers retain the ability to determine the appropriate scope, eligibility and delivery approach so that it is implemented fairly.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I recognise that the Minister wants to deliver this manifesto commitment as much as I do. However, after two years we have made little progress, mostly due to the machinery of government within the Home Office. This new clause was tabled some time ago, and the Government have had ample opportunity to refine the detail of it in order to make it acceptable to be voted on this evening and passed by the Government. Why have the Government taken no steps to work with me to get this measure across the line, given that it is a manifesto pledge of the Government? Can he also give some indication of when the pledge will be delivered, if the Government choose wrongfully to vote against my new clause this evening?

[Al Carns]

We need to move this legislation forward in the right manner and as fast as possible. I recommend that the hon. Member continues to push this case. My hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People and I have heard him loud and clear, we have heard the armed forces community loud and clear, and we are committed to delivering this in line with the intent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I completely echo the sentiment of my hon. Friend over how unacceptably our LGBT service personnel were treated. As he will know, the LGBT financial recognition scheme has made significant progress, but it has not yet been completed. If he writes to me with details of his constituent, I will look into it as a matter of urgency.

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

Last month, the Government announced that they had finally taken delivery of the 47th F-35B, thus completing our initial tranche of the order. However, that is not strictly true, because two of those planes, ZM177 and ZM179, are currently stranded in the Azores, where they have been since 9 March, which is nearly three months ago. Can the Minister explain why those planes are stranded there and who holds responsibility for completing their delivery: Lockheed Martin or the Ministry of Defence?

[Luke Pollard]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who asks so many parliamentary questions, has not kept up with those two planes. I will be sure to write to him to give him the full details—or perhaps he will get another PQ in which he will be able to inform himself of the information.

Strategic Defence Review: Funding

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I look forward to being in Northern Ireland next week for the announcement of the Northern Ireland defence growth deal, which is the fifth of our five defence growth deals. I am not allowed to say the total amount of investment, but we have announced £200 million of a £250 million pot, so the maths will hopefully give some reassurance that a big announcement for the hon. Lady’s part of the world is coming shortly. She is absolutely right to talk about the numbers. We have not only addressed the problems in the recruitment system—especially the time of flight between someone applying and getting to a training establishment, which took far too long—but introduced novel forms of entry. The direct cyber entry, through which we recruit people for their cyber skills, not for their skill in running around a muddy field with a heavy backpack on, is a good example. It is one new way in which we are getting the skills and talent that we need into our armed forces.

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

This month marks 20 years since I returned from serving on Operation Telic 7 in Iraq. While I was there, we patrolled Basra in Snatch Land Rovers, and 34 British soldiers died in Snatch Land Rovers. They were called “mobile coffins” and “suicide wagons” for a reason. In 2006, it was highlighted to the Government that those vehicles were unsuitable, and it was not until years later that they were replaced. I would recommend a little caution in blaming previous Governments for their defence inadequacies; I do not think that any of the parties that have been in government in recent years have clean hands when it comes to the scrutiny of those decisions.

I want to ask about defence financing. The Minister has announced a £5 billion uplift for this year. Why, then, is there an exercise to excise £3.5 billion through in-year savings? How much of that is carried forward from last year’s exercise to excise £2.6 billion through in-year savings?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his service. He sends me a lot of written parliamentary questions, but I recognise that he does so because of his service. I can happily confirm to the House that we are replacing our entire Land Rover fleet. I was on Salisbury plain only a few weeks ago to announce the replacement vehicle competition, and I look forward to businesses coming in on that.

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, in a business of £60 billion-plus—that is the size of the MOD budget—it is normal to have in-year budget management. I do not really understand how that can come as a surprise. If a £60 billion business did not have any budget management, which is pretty normal in business affairs, there would be real questions about it. That was normal under his Government, and it is normal under this Government. We are increasing defence spending, with £5 billion extra in our budget this year.

North Atlantic Submarine Activity

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I am in no doubt, and am absolutely clear, that we have one of the best navies in the world. I have served in the Royal Navy for 24 years as a member of His Majesty’s Royal Marines. Operating in the High North is exceptionally difficult. I have only done a little bit of it in my time on the carrier strike group as the chief of staff, but when you are in Sea State 9 on a pointy frigate, yes, you need to have some mettle to continue doing your job, when it is day in, day out for weeks on end. What I can say is that the Royal Navy perseveres; it does a fantastic job. When that is combined with our P-8s in the sky and, of course, the silent service underneath the waves, I have no doubt that our nation is very well protected.

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

The Minister may recall that back in November when we discussed the Yantar, I asked him about the circumstances under which the fleet contingency group would be given the green light to conduct a maritime interdiction operation. He responded that it would need to meet international law. I was pleased on 25 March when the Prime Minister put out a statement saying that the Royal Marines special forces would be given the opportunity to interdict Russian shadow fleet vessels, but subsequently, we have not seen any of that take place. The Minister mentioned that criteria would need to be met. There are 544 sanctioned Russian shadow fleet vessels. Can he confirm whether all of them—by virtue of being sanctioned—meet the criteria for being interdicted, or are there vessels in that list of 544 that are in scope, but have not yet transited through our waters?

[Al Carns]

As is absolutely clear, the maritime interdiction of a Russian-flagged vessel such as the Yantar is very different from one where the vessel either does not have a flag or changes its flag regularly. The criteria must be met to enable those boardings. The MOD is absolutely ready to go, but unfortunately I will not go through the detail here, because it may allow some of those vessels to put in place the mitigations that would reduce our ability to board them.

Defence

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sandher]

To be fair to the right hon. Member, it makes perfect sense to reduce expenditure after the cold war. I take that point, but let us be clear: the world also changed in 2022. The things we depended on for our safety—sacrosanct borders and our force in NATO—were not funded enough. If we truly were to prepare for war, that was the moment to start, and I agree that we have to do more.

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

Will the hon. Member just explain where we were in the standings for NATO defence spending in 2022 and where we stand today?

[Dr Sandher]

My point is not where we stand in the defence standings; my point is about what we need to do to prepare for war to prevent it.

Moving on to the things that we do agree on—and I think it is worth saying what we agree on, because we should not disagree across this House on this fundamental thing—the first and fundamental duty of this Government, of any Government, is to keep us safe at this moment in time. I want to talk a little about what that actually means, because we focus a lot on the percentage of GDP, but a defence economic strategy means far more than that. It is the fundamental question of how we produce more fighting forces, munitions, drones and soldiers. Clearly, that is changing, and at this moment, in a pre-war situation, we have to decide what that means. It means having production lines available, and crucially a supply chain of drones, as the innovation cycle is moving so quickly. It means being able to secure crucial input such as steel and training welders and engineers should we need them. Most crucially, it means the ability to scale up, because if we are to prevent war, we have to show that we are prepared for it. It is not just about spending 3%, 4% or 5% of GDP, although I take the point; it is about showing Putin and any other adversary that we could get up to 10% to 20% and use that effectively.

A defence economic strategy is a fundamentally different economic problem. It is not just about maximising production, as we do now, but about ensuring that we produce the most fighting forces possible. It is a type of economics that we are not used to. It means, first, capital control to ensure that investment goes to the right place; secondly, rationing so that we have the investment that we need; and thirdly, ensuring that we can prepare to fight the war that we face. A defence economic strategy goes far beyond the amount we spend on defence. I would expect the Treasury, the Government and No. 10, who take the defence of this country seriously, to be preparing for that right now. Of course they take it seriously; it is the first and most fundamental duty of any Government.

We stand here today a century on from people who failed on these Benches. In fact, we stand in a Chamber that is a testament to that failure. They did not prepare for war, we ended up in war in Europe, and this Chamber was bombed and had to be rebuilt. That failure should live with us and shock us. We should remind ourselves of it when we look in the mirror every single morning.

Let me share a story. I have a friend who serves in the Army, and I saw him for dinner not too long ago. He said, “Jeevun, here is the thing. I have a 30-year-old Land Rover that was in the Gulf war, in Bosnia and in the Baltics. All I want is a Range Rover that can drive.” This Government will absolutely ensure that we overcome all past investment failures so that our forces have what they need to defend our country. That is what falls to us now.

I say to Conservative Members that we must have the courage to face this moment and look forward. I could criticise them all day—I have done it before and I will probably do it again—but we must have the courage to face this moment, and to look in the mirror and know where we stand, at a moment when we must prepare for war in order to prevent it. History will judge us for this moment, and we should always bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

First, I should note that, for all their chatter outside this Chamber on defence, there is not a single Member of the Reform party here. They are utterly incapable of having a serious conversation when it comes to defence.

I would like to congratulate the shadow Defence team. I did not believe it was possible to reduce their credibility on defence any further, but they have managed to lower the bar once again and slither under it. To suggest that we should restore the two-child benefit limit to pay for defence spending shows such a lack of understanding of what is happening in society. Under their Government, for 14 years, the people living at the poorest edges were working—those people on benefits were working and still could not pay the bills to feed their families and put the heating on. That tells us that the Conservatives do not understand working people. They assume that anybody receiving a benefit is a scrounger or does not want to work. [Interruption.]

I will not give way, because I have heard so much from the Opposition on this. It is outrageous. The shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), was the Defence Procurement Minister who left 47 out of 49 programmes not on time and not on budget. The Tories’ legacy was a procurement programme that was overcommitted, underfunded and unsuited to the threats we now face. They cut frigates and destroyers by 25%. They cut minehunters by more than 50%. There was a lot of pearl-clutching when they were asking where HMS Dragon was, but we know why HMS Dragon was in dock: it was there because it was under maintenance. We could not send it because it is the only one we have, built under the Labour Government, and the Conservatives did not bother to build any more during their term of office.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Michelle Scrogham]

No, we have heard quite enough.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Why not?

[James Cartlidge]

Take an intervention!

--- Later in debate ---

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

I will start with a quote:

“Your path leads to war. You know that. So war is coming. What will you do when you feel its breath upon your neck?”

The answer is: not enough. The defence investment plan was due last autumn, then by Christmas, and then it was to be delivered as soon as the MOD finishes working flat-out. If the MOD spent as much time on the DIP as it has done telling everyone that it is working at pace, maybe it would have been delivered by now.

Let us look at the impact of the delay. In the air, we are yet to see investment in the capability that has been committed to. The Chief of the Defence Staff, in his prior role as Chief of the Air Staff, last year confirmed that the RAF has

“no major equipment programmes planned for the next 15 years. We have what we have for the near and medium term”.

Given the evolution development cycle of current capability, is that really a tenable position? The F-35B is due to graduate as a Government major projects portfolio programme by the end of this month, but will it? Will we see the delivery of the remaining seven F-35Bs by the end of next month, as scheduled?

The Royal Air Force is yet to even place an order for the 12 F-35As that are due to qualify us to join NATO’s dual capable aircraft nuclear mission. That was announced nine months ago, with no orders placed and no progress made. It might as well just be a poster on the Defence Secretary’s bedroom wall. Likewise, the next tranche of F-35Bs has also not yet been ordered from Lockheed Martin. This goes back to my point regarding overstretch. Operation Firecrest will see the carrier strike group deploy with 24 F-35Bs. There are six deployed forward in Akrotiri, seven are awaiting delivery, and one fell in the sea. That leaves us with just 10 planes for training and to cover any other tasks. We are maxed out.

Later this year we may be in a position where we have no realistic spare capacity of our only fifth-generation platform, with no current plans to purchase any more—and if/when we do purchase more, they are years away from delivery. But are we actually going to buy any more? Given our limited resources, putting all our chips on the global combat air programme and inevitably short-cutting our way to never truly fleshing out the accompanying system-of-systems does not augur well. We are already struggling to find the funding for the next phase of that project, delaying the signing of the trilateral contract for the next phase from last September because of the delay to the DIP, creating tensions with Japan and Italy and threatening the 2035 timeline that is crucial for Japan. When I challenged the Prime Minister on the delay, he would not commit to when the contract would be signed.

On the high seas, Britannia most certainly does not rule the waves. HMS Dragon has finally arrived in the eastern Mediterranean, but it was one of only three Type 45s available. I use the term “available” loosely, as it had to be withdrawn from its NATO Maritime Group One commitment—a commitment that starts in a few weeks and for which we currently have no replacement ship available. The Government have no plan to facilitate that commitment and are presumably hoping that HMS Dragon can be recalled.

The Royal Navy has to deliver Type 26 and Type 31, with all ships coming into service, optimistically, within the next nine years. Type 83 will see its outline business case submitted by June, but my understanding is that that programme may not make the cut, which raises serious questions about the future air dominance system. I would be surprised if Type 91 made the cut either, given that it is currently being assessed for feasibility and affordability.

Decisions are pending on: the future cruise anti-ship weapons system; batch 1 offshore patrol vessels; the global decision support system, the maritime aviation transformation programme; Project Beehive; and Project Vantage. Charting a course to a much vaunted hybrid Navy looks perilous at best—I hope the Minister has his sextant to hand.

On land, despite all that, the Army arguably has the most work to do. The Army has a huge transformation programme that will make it almost unrecognisable by the next Parliament. If there is one capability that we should be throwing the kitchen sink at, it is Project Asgard, which the Chief of the General Staff spoke effusively about last year in his Royal United Services Institute land warfare conference speech. He said:

“It’s a project that, through AI-fuelled, software-defined and network enabled capabilities we are confident has made 4 Light Brigade capable of acting 10 times faster and 10 times further than it could last year.”

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

It is an old quote—I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will recognise it, given his service—that while veterans talk logistics, amateurs talk tactics. He is outlining a dire situation, because we are not gripping the logistics problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I concur. There is a huge need to ensure we have the correct amount of logistics, and that includes supply of troops, in particular in munitions and energetics. The Government have pledged to build factories; we are still not entirely clear where they will be, but ammunition supplies will be key to anything we do going forwards.

Project Asgard is the programme in defence that could arguably be delivered quickest and to the most immediate effect, trading space for time and allowing us to develop our most exquisite capabilities with longer lead times in slow time. Alongside its RAF equivalent, Project Boyd, it presents the vanguard of future capability and outlines where the armed forces are going in these domains. There is a painful conversation to be had about the use of AI in the kill chain in the not-too-distant future.

The Government must commit to 3%, must commit to delivering the right capability and must commit to armed forces that are fit to fight the next war, not the current war or the last war.

“Your path leads to war. You know that. So war is coming. What will you do when you feel its breath upon your neck?”

Middle East

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The safeguard is the established system of granting access, basing and overflight. That established system builds in throughout—not just afterwards—the reassurance, checks and controls required to ensure that when the US takes advantage of the permissions that we have given, it does so within those permissions.

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

I pay tribute to all the personnel at RAF Wyton, who are doing incredible round-the-clock work to analyse exactly what is going on in this conflict in the middle east.

The Secretary of State talks about missile defence for the UK. I appreciate that he has had his Weetabix this morning, but can I gently remind him that he was a Minister in the last Labour Government, who halved the number of Type 45 destroyers, meaning that we do not have enough? They also equipped them with WR-21 engines, and as a result, we have only one that is currently seaworthy, HMS Dragon. The Security Minister, who is also sitting on the Front Bench, told me last week that the Government were informed in advance of the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran. Could the Secretary of State confirm how far in advance the Government were informed of those attacks? Was it hours, days, or weeks?

[John Healey]

I am not prepared to disclose that sort of data, but the hon. Gentleman should judge us by our actions, and well ahead of this war breaking out, we reinforced Britain’s defences in the region. Turning to HMS Dragon, we only have it available to deploy to the eastern Mediterranean because it was ordered by a Labour Government, and over 14 years, Conservative Governments did not order a single new destroyer.

Draft Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 General Committees

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

The Opposition support these regulations. This is a straightforward piece of legislation, but we have some points that we would like the Minister to clarify.

When will the new Armed Forces Commissioner will be appointed? In January 2025 the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), then Armed Forces Minister, stated:

“Our intention to have the operation up and running in 2026 remains in place.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 930.]

Could the Minister confirm that that position remains extant? If it does, could she indicate the timeframe within which the Government expect the Armed Forces Commissioner to be appointed?

In the interim, once this legislation comes into effect on 1 April, how will the responsibilities of the Service Complaints Ombudsman be discharged? Will the current ombudsman remain in place until the Armed Forces Commissioner is appointed or will this role, and those responsibilities due to be transferred to the Armed Forces Commissioner, be gapped?

The statutory instrument states in paragraph 3(3):

“For the purposes of this Regulation, references to A’s spouse or civil partner includes—

a person whose relationship with A is akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners;

a former spouse or civil partner of A;

a person whose relationship with A was formerly akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners.”

Could the Minister clarify that long-term relationships are covered in the same way? From the way she described it, it sounds as though they are, but I want to clarify that point. Could she also clarify the definition of

“akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners”?

It would be helpful to know that there is a clear understanding of how this legislation defines a relationship and therefore who is or is not covered by the legislation.

I reiterate that we support this SI, but those are some minor points of clarification that we believe need to be addressed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

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

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

22. When he plans to publish the defence investment plan.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

Before I answer, I want to thank our British personnel who are working 24/7 in the middle east, at home and around the world to protect British lives. For our part, we are working flat out to settle the defence investment plan, which is a plan for the 10-year transformation of Britain’s defence, as laid out in the strategic defence review. We are fixing a military programme that, when we came into government, was over-committed, underfunded and unsuited to the threats and conflicts we now face.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

This is a whole-of-Defence effort; we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan. It will put into practice the 10-year vision that the strategic defence review set out in June last year, as the hon. Gentleman mentions. When we have that completed, we will report that to the House.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

The delay to the defence investment plan is obviously having a huge effect on our capabilities, and the plan is in danger of being overtaken by events. We are waiting for approval on the block 2 procurement of underwater uncrewed vessels and the mine countermeasures, hydrographic and patrol capability programme. The Prime Minister has confirmed that there are autonomous mine-clearing vessels in the Gulf. Are the vessels currently in the region deployable? What support ship will support them, given that HMS Stirling Castle left Portsmouth this morning, and will take at least three weeks to get to the region?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is the last person in the House to expect me to set out the detail of those sorts of operational arrangements in public. The defence investment plan is not holding up important investment decisions. We have awarded more than 1,200 major contracts since the election, and we have seen a significant increase in defence investment in businesses in his region of the east of England. I think the House would expect him to welcome that.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

On the contrary, the strategic defence review placed greater emphasis on the need to step up our homeland security and defence. That includes the critical undersea infrastructure on which we depend.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry mentioned Exercise Titan Storm in the context of Ajax. On 1 January, I asked the Ministry of Defence a named-day question—which was due an answer by 7 January—about how many noise and vibration injuries had been sustained up to Exercise Titan Storm. Before Defence Ministers leave the Chamber, may I ask for your advice on how best to elicit an answer, which is now over two months late?

[Mr Speaker]

Does a Front Bencher wish to respond? No? I will deal with it, then.

This is totally unacceptable. A named-day question should be answered: I cannot believe that something asked in January has still not been answered. May I ask the Secretary of State to look into that and ensure that questions are answered? It is not good enough. Members are representing their constituents, including people who are serving and those who may be serving in this contract. Please, I say to the Government, take this House more seriously. Members of Parliament are having a very bad time from Government, who seem to have a total disregard for us.

Middle East: Defence

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I do agree with my hon. Friend; he speaks with the authority of someone who was serving at the time in 2010. In that first year, the Tories cut £2 billion from the defence budget, and in their first five years they cut £12 billion from defence. They underfunded and hollowed out our armed forces over 14 years.

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

The deployment of HMS Dragon means that we have left a gap in our commitment to be the flagship of the Standing NATO Maritime Group One. HMS Duncan is already tasked to go on Operation Firecrest to the High North, and HMS Dauntless is still in the fleet time support period. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that we will be able to fulfil our commitment to NATO in providing the flagship role, and can he guarantee that it will be provided by a British ship?

[John Healey]

I am not going to announce the deployments of British forces in advance. The hon. Member is right to point to the balance of threats and responsibilities that we have to manage. We are doing that, and we will always fulfil our NATO commitments.