Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the danger that Russia’s renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine poses to European and British security; further recognises the threat to the international order and the UK posed by China; also recognises the increasing uncertainty surrounding the reliability of the US as an ally within NATO; acknowledges the current shortfalls in the UK’s ability to deploy a credible fighting force; further acknowledges that this lack of military capability is resulting in the coercion of Britain and its interests in the international sphere; and calls on the Government to begin a programme of rapid rearmament to strengthen the defence of the UK and its allies.

The key word of the motion on the Order Paper today is “rapid”—rapid rearmament, not eventual rearmament or rearmament with an asterisk. The reason it is the key word is that the clock is not ours to choose. Three weeks ago, before the defence investment plan came out, the Prime Minister said:

“it is our intelligence assessment, and the assessment of other countries in NATO, that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030.”

The deadline is not contested. Intelligence confirms it, NATO proclaims it—they are speaking of this in Ankara today—and our Government accept it. We must be ready by 2030.

That is why the defence investment plan is so maddening. I have read it from cover to cover—I am that kind of guy—and I cannot wrap my head around it. It fails the test of its own threat assessment. It does not go far enough, and what it does do, it does too slowly. Large parts of it are also unfunded. It is too little, too late, and there is not enough cash.

It is worth considering how this plan came into being. Lord Robertson, the lead author of the strategic defence review, wanted to have the DIP—that is, the money bit—as an annexe to the SDR. That is really good practice when making strategy: set out a vision, which is the SDR, and then set out the resources, which are the DIP. If a Government do not have the resources to deliver their vision, they need either to downgrade the vision somewhat or to increase their resources. The decoupling of the two documents by a year, with the vision coming a year ago in the SDR, and the money and resources just recently in the DIP, is the greatest failure of statecraft committed by this Labour Government in the two years they have been in office.

First, allow me to speak about the money in some detail. Quite well ventilated in the media is the £4.7 billion that quite blatantly must be found in the next Budget, in the autumn. Although the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has said that he intends to fund defence seriously, he has not specifically said that he will find those sums in that Budget. As the Government repeatedly tell us, defence of the realm is the most important duty of any Government. So why is £5 billion of that sacred duty in the in-tray of the next Chancellor—a person unknown at this point?

Secondly, I would like to talk about these efficiency savings—£10.7 billion of them. Speaking in this Chamber, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), called this the oldest accounting trick in the book. If we dig just one layer below, we can see the detail: £2.4 billion of that £10.7 billion is what the Ministry of Defence calls “high maturity initiatives”. I find that it is always worth really looking into what the MOD says, because the remaining £8.4 billion of that nearly £11 billion of efficiency savings is what the MOD calls “plans at lower maturity”. Lower-maturity plans, Madam Deputy Speaker, is MOD-speak for “we have not worked out how to deliver those savings yet.”

Thirdly, and most egregiously, is a theme that I will keep returning to: the fact that this is a DIP of two halves. The first period is from now until 2030, which is covered by the current spending review, subject to the caveats that I laid out earlier. However, the second part, which covers 2030 to 2035, has to be confirmed in the forthcoming spending review. If the future Chancellor or Prime Minister do not agree to those sums going into the next spending review—due, one assumes, in the spring of 2027—the DIP will then not exist. It will just be an unfunded piece of paper.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. The first four years—the near-term investment period—covers the period until the next election. The second half—the longer-term investment period—covers the next five years, all the way up to 2035. However, the DIP is a 10-year plan, so it should in fact go beyond 2035, and beyond two elections’ time, to 2036, which it clearly does not, because the number “2036” does not appear once in the defence investment plan.

[Mike Martin]

This actually speaks to the delay. Had the DIP come out when it was meant to, in 2025, it would have been a 10-year plan, because it would have gone from 2025 to 2035. However, the Government were unable to get their ducks in a row and the DIP was delayed by a year. If we had waited for them to rejig the plan to go up until 2036, I think we might have waited until 2040 for the plan.

This is a DIP of two halves, and the really worrying bit is that most of the investment is in the second half, which is unfunded. Let me give the House some examples. In the air domain there is £27.8 billion before 2030, and £70 billion after—unfunded. In the maritime domain there is £18 billion before 2030, and £32 billion after—unfunded. In the land domain there is £19.2 billion before, and £36 billion after—unfunded. For weapons and munitions there is £11.1 billion before, and £20 billion after—unfunded. It beggars belief. Why bother publishing a plan when, by my calculations, almost two thirds of the investments that the Government seek to make are in the second half, which is unfunded?

One of the reasons that we have pulled this plan together is to give certainty to industry, so that they know how to invest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca]

My hon. Friend makes the point well. Indeed, in a recent interview my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) talked about how the recent attacks on Iran had destroyed a huge propaganda apparatus, which had contributed to 3% of total nationalist propaganda for Scottish separation from the United Kingdom. It is an important point.

Following on from that, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak made the important point about strength being a foundation of deterrence. We are trying to deter war, not just by having capable armed forces but by having industrial capacity, well-stocked armouries, cutting-edge technology and a properly funded plan—because the stronger we are, the less likely conflict becomes. Every capability we field, every production line we expand and every drone we manufacture add to our deterrence, and that is incredibly important.

At the beginning of the debate we talked about the credibility of getting to where we need to be. To be straightforward, it is my belief that we need to reach 3% of GDP by 2030. That is the minimum needed for us to show that we are committed to our plans and to our NATO allies in having the capabilities that we need. In fairness to the Government, they have made significant progress and we will be at 2.7% in 2027-28, which is the highest defence spend in three decades. The defence budget will also be 27% higher in real terms than it was at the start of the Parliament. Those are significant commitments that need to be recognised, but unfortunately, I am worried that they do not meet the strategic moment that we are at.

The pace at which Russia might reconstitute, the lessons that are emerging from Ukraine over technology, the threats in the far east to our allies and our interests, and the demands placed upon us by NATO to meet certain targets mean that we have to move faster than the Government currently say. A spending review published in 2027 could, in theory, postpone most of the increase until the final year of the period. That would technically fulfil the commitment, but it would not reflect the urgency of the moment. There is a significant difference between spending 2.8% in 2028, 2.9% in 2029 and 3% in 2030, and remaining broadly flat and trying to make a leap—if we can prove that we can do that—at the end of that spending period. The Government deserve credit for changing the direction of travel from what it was in the past, but events have accelerated and so we need to accelerate our rearmament beyond those plans.

There is no shortage of priorities, and the DIP was a significant document, as colleagues have described. I share their concerns about some of the autonomy in the Royal Navy. It is unlikely that we will have the new ships designed, tested and deployed within 10 years, and there will have to be service life extensions for the Type 45s. I worry about the lack or absence of—

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

The hon. Member is making a very important speech. I agree that there should be a life extension plan for the Type 45, but we know that there is not one. It is not costed, it is not in the DIP, and the plan is to take them out of service over several years from 2035. Does he agree that the common combat vessel would be better suited, in terms of putting that capability within the Type 31s that are being built, and that, indeed, that is what will likely happen?

[Tim Roca]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and, eventually, we will have to look at the Type 31 hull as a possibility. Maybe the Minister will comment on contingency plans if continuous capability sustainment does not develop as it should.

On the lack of commitments around ballistic missile defence, we are now an outlier in Europe in terms of air defences. Many countries in Europe—Spain, Germany, France, and so on—have Patriot or SAMP/T—

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I hope that my hon. Friend heard my previous answer, in which I expressed my deep sadness over the innocent victims of war. To confirm, we have already suspended licences for Israel where the items might be used in military operations in Gaza, noting the F-35 components going to the global programme. Licences are kept under continuous review.

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

The defence investment plan is split into two parts: the near-term investment plan, which covers the four remaining years of this Parliament, and the long-term investment plan, which covers the following five years, up to 2035. This is a 10-year plan, but that clearly only adds up to nine years—the plan should also cover up to the 2035-36 financial year. Will the Minister confirm that it is a 10-year plan and, if it is, whether the final part of the plan assumes that we are already spending 3.5% on defence?

Defence Investment Plan

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I never come here with the intention of politicising these matters. It is always my approach to engage on a cross-party basis and in the national interest, and that is precisely why, in my opening remarks, I did not once mention the record of the previous Government. I spoke only about the investment being made by this Government. I think that that is the right approach. I hope that, on these important matters relating to the security of our nation, we can try to have a constructive debate. That is absolutely the way that I wish to proceed, but where Opposition Members seek to critique the Government’s record—and it is entirely their right to do so—it is not unreasonable to remind them of their record.

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

RAF Wyton is in my constituency and I have a huge amount of service housing, both in the RAF Wyton and the former RAF Brampton patches, so service housing is extremely important to me. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he is cutting £300 million from the service family accommodation budget in this Parliament and moving it into the next Parliament?

[Dan Jarvis]

I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman takes these matters really seriously, and I was grateful that he came into the Department for a briefing this morning. He will have heard what I said previously about investment in defence housing and he will understand the priority that we attach to that. He and I both know the value and importance of making sure that those people who serve have the accommodation that they need, not least when they are operationally deployed, and we have a moral responsibility to make sure that their families are looked after. We are investing £9 billion over 10 years with a real-terms increase in each year.

Defence Spending and Readiness

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewin]

I am pleased that the hon. Member takes my point, but I am saying that the circumstances had changed. [Interruption.] I will make the point: that is why I intentionally picked those two dates—2014, the annexation of Crimea, and 2022, the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Those two points are indelibly linked, and our failure to act was a decisive moment in history.

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

I would point out that under the last Government we were the third highest spenders on defence in NATO. The rest of Europe was also not taking defence as seriously. We had all enjoyed the peace dividend and nobody was spending money on defence like they should have. We continued to maintain our presence in NATO though, yet now we are the 12th biggest spenders in NATO. To that extent, is it not the hon. Member’s Government who are not matching their own rhetoric?

[Andrew Lewin]

Is the hon. Member therefore excusing the lack of investment between 2014 and 2022? That is what I am not sure of, because there are Opposition Members who have been clear and consistent—they did not serve in the Conservative Government and they thought it was wrong that defence spending fell. I appreciate that he was not here at that time—neither was I—but I do not know if that was his position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst). He speaks with passion on defence, and he clearly wants to increase our defence presence.

I have listened to the debate and I am sounding an alarm. I grew up in a military family; both my parents were in the military. I left school and joined the military, and my brother served in the military. I spent my entire career in security and defence, and since coming to Parliament, everything I have done, outside traditional constituency engagements, is about backing security and defence. I am delighted to be graduating next month from the Royal College of Defence Studies. It has been brilliant to spend a year immersed in the best strategic command course in the world.

I reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith): we are in a very serious situation, but rhetoric, or party political lines, are overtaking that, and we are missing the fact that we need to rearm to face the current situation. In 2024-25, there were 54 to 55 conflicts around the world—those figures might be adjusted, depending on the source. That is the largest number of conflicts in any one year since the second world war. If we believe that we can stop a major conflict, why can we not stop minor conflicts? There is complete instability, and the whole geopolitical situation has changed. Discussions that we are having now would have seemed impossible—beyond the realms of fantasy—five or even three years ago. We need to put that in perspective and really think about it.

When Government Members start to talk about “14 years of hollowed-out defence”, they make an illiterate defence argument. They are taking a moment in time and comparing peace with war. We need to look at the situation over the past 100 years and learn from history. At the end of the second world war, Clement Attlee demobilised the military, because that was the right thing to do, as we did not need 5 million soldiers. Similarly, at the fall of the Berlin wall, the majority of the world de-armed and reduced the scale of their defence spending. However, the situation has changed.

In 2022, defence spending was 2.22% of GDP, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics, not 2.1% as the hon. Member for North Durham said. There is no denying that the whole world has changed since 2014, or even since 2022, and we are in the most volatile situation. The debate is about whether we should measure from the end of the cold war or the end of the second world war. I firmly believe that we should measure from the end of the second world war. I believe that we will see a global conflict in the coming years, but we are not prepared to defend our nation. I believe that, at this stage, we cannot meet our article 3 NATO commitment to defend the nation for the period of time expected.

Everybody talks about article 5, but there are three things that every Defence Minister and politician must look at when we speak about defence: readiness, lethality and survivability. Everything we must do is there. We talk about numbers, but are we funding the readiness of our armed forces? Are they as lethal as they can be? Do they have the ability to survive any conflict? We are not looking at the expeditionary side of warfare that we have seen in the middle east in recent years; we are looking at how we fit on the world stage, and how we prepare for a global conflict, while hoping that it never happens. We have to look at those three areas, but there is always a debate. Are we are ready enough? Should we spend more money on lethality, or should we look at survivability? The most important of those areas is readiness, but I am not saying that the other areas are not important. We have to be ready. If we are not, we cannot go to war.

In 1999, after I got married—I celebrated my 27th wedding anniversary on Friday—I said to my wife, “See you in six months,” and deployed straight to Kosovo. When we arrived in theatre, there were no Army barracks. We found derelict, flea-ridden accommodation—blokes were covered in flea bites—and we moved into houses that had been abandoned, as people were still being ethnically cleansed. We did not have the kit, but we were about the most lethal bunch of soldiers you could see. We adapted. The readiness came from what Field Marshal Slim described in the Burma conflict as spiritual morale. You can take equipment away from soldiers and break everything, but if they have the spiritual morale to fight, they can get through everything. We are burning out that morale in the military over time, bit by bit.

Let me go back to when I was on the Defence Committee, from 2020 to the middle of 2022. My name is on many reports that absolutely destroyed the Government of the time. That gave me many difficult conversations with the Whips, but calling out the Government was the right thing to do, because we were not able to procure equipment. We were not ready and able to prepare for the world as it was at the time.

The Chief of the Defence Staff has recently said that we will have to cut operational services and training capability. Those are big issues, but he has also touched on something that most people do not mention: the resource spending. We have resource departmental expenditure limit spending and capital departmental expenditure limit spending. CDEL buys the ships, tanks, planes and big items, but they have to be run, and we have to pay our troops, so we have to look at the resources around that. Resource is about 62% of defence spending at the moment, but it is nowhere near enough—the balance is off. We are looking at big projects. It is great to be looking at issues such as how we fund new submarines and the Type 83, but will the global combat air programme be crewed or uncrewed? That is another debate; I have some good views on that that I would love to share another time.

At the moment, the debate is about what war we are preparing to fight. The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) has mentioned that the DIP did not fund enough preparation for wars that we may be fighting in the future. It is always hard to predict the future of warfare. It is easy to take lessons from Ukraine, and just think that that is what warfare will be, and while we should take those lessons, we need adapt and prepare, moving forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) mentioned the 18 defence primes. On the scalability of technology, I believe a disruptive model is coming, or is needed, in the defence industry. Two weeks ago, I was delighted to be at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with NATO, discussing nanotechnology—even though I left school as a lad with no GCSEs, and joined the armed forces as a rifleman. Time has moved on.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Do you know what it is now?

[Stuart Anderson]

No.

Let us look at how technology and innovation are moving forward. In some ways, we need to think differently. We need an understanding of how we prepare for different warfares. It is not a matter of nanotechnology on the one side and aircraft carriers on the other; there is a bit in the middle. We should look at the scalability of new technology, as artificial intelligence develops and quantum computing comes online. The battle space will be completely different, and we have to move into that space. People often say that the nature of warfare is changing, but it is not. The nature of warfare is brutal, and will always be, but the character of warfare is changing, and we have to be prepared for that.

Let me go back to my point about readiness, lethality and survivability. All the things that happened on our watch, on Labour’s watch before us, and on Labour’s watch now, are chipping away at the spiritual morale of troops. I have a son who is a serving soldier, and I am watching that happen bit by bit. He is told, “That exercise is cancelled because we cannot afford it,” “You have to do extra time on deployment because we cannot rotate you through,” and “We are not going to order equipment, because the DIP is not ready.” All those things chip away at spiritual morale.

There is one issue that we are dealing with that cuts to the heart of every veteran. I sat with a load of veterans watching the football last week—I will be watching football tonight with serving personnel, and spending time with veterans and colleagues—and I have heard at first hand what they are saying. I served for 18 months on Op Banner during the troubles, and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 is cutting through. Regardless of the political debate here, serving soldiers believe that they will not be protected by the Government when they go on operations. We can argue the issue, and go back and forth on it, but that is what is landing, and what they believe. A change to what we have in place would be a betrayal to our veterans. It would remove spiritual morale—that British fighting spirit that I have spoken about. It would make us not ready, not lethal and unable to survive. Unless the DIP comes forward with the correct funding for the correct defence products, we will be in a serious situation, and I do not believe that we are ready for what is coming over the horizon.

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

Corona muralis—I wager that few people in this Chamber, if any, have heard that term. Perhaps the odd classicist will have heard it. It was one of ancient Rome’s most coveted military decorations. According to Aulus Gellius, it was a golden crown, shaped like a city wall, awarded for bravery, much like the Victoria Cross. It was awarded to Roman soldiers for being the first up the ladder and on to the enemy castle walls during a siege. Whoever received it found fame, and the accolade could be leveraged as a political stepping stone. Survival might be unlikely, but the prospect of personal and political glory could motivate men to embark on a suicide mission, convinced that they would fare better against impossible odds than those who had tried and failed before them. In “The History of Rome”, Livy wrote:

“The men dashed on in the face of wounds and missiles, and neither walls nor armed men standing on them can restrain them from vying with one another in the attempt to climb”.

With that, I welcome the Defence Ministers to their new roles, and wish them luck in the forthcoming reshuffle.

The new Defence Secretary tells us that he is working around the clock. That is another idiom to add to a lexicon that includes “flat out”, “at pace” and “laser-focused”—the perennial favourite. This Government’s failure to invest in defence, particularly given the high horse that they rode in on, while waxing lyrical about “hollowing out”, is farcical, given that we have already seen two experienced Defence Ministers quit. We now see two more take up the colours—both decorated former officers with an MBE, and each with an MBE for their service. Coronae murales all round.

The defence investment plan has entered the zeitgeist, but our duty in this House is to hold the Government to account. We can talk about top-level budgets and use exciting buzzwords, but unless we are actually talking about what is in the plan, that capability is largely irrelevant. The defence investment plan is not funded properly; it is not even close to being funded properly. An additional £10 billion, plus £3.5 billion of loose change that the Government found down the back of the sofa, will not touch the sides. The new Defence Secretary will need to make damaging and difficult cuts. Much of that will not be truly realised until the publication of the ’26-27 Ministry of Defence accounts at the end of next year—by which point he may be long gone.

There are projects that sit under the major projects portfolio, specifically Dreadnoughts and GCAP. The defence nuclear enterprise takes up 18% of the entire defence budget. To put that in context, it means that we are last in NATO for our spending on conventional forces. We spend less, proportionally, than North Macedonia and Luxembourg. We need to be mindful of the spiralling cost of Dreadnought. If we couple that with the cost of upgrading the Astraea warhead, and of the AUKUS commitment, we see that we are locked into a huge proportion of the available budget being spent on submarines alone. Last week, the Royal United Services Institute wrote that it anticipates the DNE may hit 25% of the budget within the period covered by this defence investment plan. Meanwhile, its aerial contemporary, GCAP, continues to be a costly endeavour—so costly, in fact, that despite the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry informing me last week that a new funding deal for Edgewing had been agreed, my sources at the MOD tell me that the deal is not the multi-year settlement that is needed. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed the duration of the new funding deal.

With the demise of the future combat air system, GCAP and F-47 are the only NATO sixth-generation programmes left in town, yet the RAF is struggling to find the money for the platform, has apparently rowed back on committing to pillar 2, and is in danger of being superseded by events. The new uncrewed fighters currently in development are a fraction of the cost, and will be many iterations developed by the time we see the first Tempest. It will take something special to ensure GCAP is not a relic before it even leaves the drawing board.

Last year, the previous Chief of the Air Staff—now Chief of the Defence Staff—made clear that there were

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

despite the combat air strategy being about to undergo a refresh. What the RAF has planned now is what we will have through to 2040. We have taken delivery of 48 F-35B jets thus far, and the programme of record states that we are committed to 138. Does anyone genuinely believe that the defence investment plan will lay out the pathway to buying another 90, if we have only bought half that number since 2012 in order to fulfil a purpose—being carrier deployable—that now makes little strategic sense? For reference, the US has budgeted for 85 this year alone, at a cost of $21.4 billion.

Analysis by the US Government Accountability Office has shown that the full mission-capable rate of the F-35 is a lamentable 25%. Our own Public Accounts Committee reported in March that

“The UK F-35 fleet achieved approximately one third of the MoD’s target”

for the time it was able to fly all its required missions in 2024, and achieved only two fifths of the level of availability of the global F-35B fleet.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend has yet had the opportunity to go down to Speaker’s Court and meet the armed forces representatives there. I met the very improbably titled Fungus 1, who is an F-35 pilot, and I was appalled to hear that he had spent nine years in training and has only just done three months on the frontline. As well as all the other things we are giving Defence Ministers to think about, surely pilot training has to be one of them, if we are going to be ready.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. The UK military flying training system is on its uppers. I do not necessarily hold this Government responsible for that—there are longer-term issues with the flying training system. I believe the average length of time it takes pilots to qualify is somewhere in the region of six years; most of the pilots who are now hitting the frontline have spent as long in training as I spent in my entire military career, by which point I had done numerous operational tours. Significant work needs to be done in that area, and there are questions to be asked of the company that we have outsourced flying training to, as well as about the Hawk jets—which I will not cover in this debate. The Minister knows that that topic is a hobby horse of mine; I will not speak about it today, but he realises that there is a sense of urgency there.

[Mr Francois]

When I served on the Defence Committee, just before the election, we went to RAF Marham and spoke to two F-35 pilots. We asked them how long it had taken since they first walked through the door of a recruiting office for them to be allowed to fly the F-35. One said he had been lucky, and it had been six years; the other said he had been unlucky, and it had been 10 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the MFTS programme requires fundamental reform?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I do—we need to get more pilots through the door, and I have asked numerous questions about our ratio of pilots to aircraft. I appreciate that the Minister does not want to divulge that information, but I would suggest that currently, it is not as good as it could be.

The joint programme office that should fix the F-35 is undergoing a global support solution reset that will cost an additional $13.7 billion. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether any of that figure will be paid for by us in the UK. As a result, there is no timeline for completing technology refresh 3, which 72% of our F-35Bs still require, and no timeline for the completion of the block 4 upgrade. Talk of the 12 F-35As for the NATO nuclear mission—which the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) mentioned—has gone suspiciously quiet, with rumours that they will be cut, and that is before we talk about the four-year lead times for low rate initial production material required to build them. Crucially, though, there is currently no more money allocated to the F-35 Lightning programme. The departmental budget laid out in the integrated review defence Command Paper back in 2021 only included the procurement of the 48 we now have; all new funding for the F-35 will need to be outlined in the defence investment plan.

That brings us on to drones. We know that the RAF is committed to having the Tempest as a manned platform, but by the time it comes into service, the US will be a decade deep into its collaborative combat aircraft programme. It has just awarded General Atomics and Anduril sizeable contracts for the FQ-42A Dark Merlin and FQ-44A Fury uncrewed fighter jets. The Secretary of the Air Force has stated that the US plans to

“procure over 150 combat capable CCA by the end of the decade.”

The US has budgeted $1 billion for CCA procurement, $822 million for modifications, and another $1.4 billion for research and development. How much of the £10 billion of additional funds available for our entire defence budget do we think we are planning to spend? When the defence investment plan is published, we will need to look closely at investment in those projects that should deliver drones.

How does this all tie together? I have spoken briefly about Project ASGARD before—the Chief of the General Staff, speaking at the RUSI land warfare conference earlier, talked about the need to be able to strike Russia within 30 minutes—but whether or not this is properly resourced in the DIP will be instrumental to our fortunes. We need to move past our current squeamishness and invest properly in both Project ASGARD and its RAF cousin, Project BOYD. I was fortunate enough to visit a demonstration of ASGARD during Exercise Arrcade Strike last month, which gave a glimpse of how the next war might be fought. My takeaway, however, was how desperately it will need to be invested in. We risk being a day late and a dollar short when it comes to an integrated anti-access/area denial and integrated air and missile defence solution. The reluctance of our senior leaders to move from an in-the-loop and on-the-loop approach to the kill chain to an on-the-loop and out-of-the-loop posture concerns me—it is better to have the capability and not need it than need it and not have it. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry confirmed to me last week that the MOD is looking at machine vision for lock-on in the terminal phase of one-way effectors, but we must move further and faster.

For all the talk of defence investment in exquisite capabilities, nobody is suggesting that we increase the mass of the Army significantly. That is before we consider that every single vehicle platform the Army operates, except for Foxhound, is due to go out of service by 2030. Our ability to field an armoured division is at best optimistic; in reality, it is laughable. My own background is in armoured infantry, as is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), and were we to try and field an armoured battlegroup—let alone a division—I would be interested to see what form it would take.

At the front of any armoured push is formation reconnaissance. That role should by now be delivered by Ajax. My views on Ajax are well documented, as I delivered a debate on the topic in Westminster Hall earlier this year, but what progress has been made since then? In the wake of Exercise Titan Storm, the Government commissioned an independent expert panel review. The results of that review have been submitted via a final report, but the Minister appears hesitant to publish the outcome. I would be grateful if he published those findings for scrutiny in the House now that the review has concluded. In his summing up, could the Minister outline when the House will receive an update on that review’s findings?

We know that the first phase of bringing Ajax up to speed will require the restarting of trials with the current version of Ajax, but the Minister has also informed me that the current platform requires a number of upgrades outside the scope of work in upgrading from capability drop 3 to capability drop 4, including improvements to the electrical power generation system, the crew compartment heating and the air filtration system. Although those sound like gremlins that need to be worked through on any new platform, can he tell me which of those modifications, if any, will mitigate the injuries sustained by service personnel on Exercise Titan Storm?

Ajax must be a success—we cannot afford to be stuck with a platform that no other country is willing to buy. The reputational damage to the platform is in danger of being baked in if the Government do not get the fix right first time. All 589 hulls have been built, and the factory will have no further work once those vehicles are assembled and rolled out. What work will the General Dynamics facility in Merthyr Tydfil then have to do? When I raised that question with the Government, they stated that it is an issue for General Dynamics. There is a reason the Government did not include that facility within the scope of the defence growth deal for Wales. Put simply, the Government cannot afford for Ajax to fail, neither from a defence exports perspective—and there are currently no pending orders—nor from a capability perspective. The Government know this, having made no assessment of any potential replacement platforms such as the Combat Vehicle 90, so when will we finally see Ajax realise its potential?

Sadly, though, that is not the only issue. Behind Ajax should be Challenger 3, but Challenger 3 remains in the demonstration phase and, based on reports in The Telegraph last week, is now beset by problems. The turret power traverse gearbox is potentially proving to be a problem that may push back delivery of the tank by years—to put that in layman’s terms, that is the part that makes the turret rotate. The Government have now said that this is not the case, but it is concerning that they are yet to declare the planning assumption for service entry for the new tank, despite all 148 remaining Challenger 2 tanks being in scope for upgrade and conversion.

The Government have also previously told me that they are continuing to explore export opportunities for Challenger 3. What export opportunities? We have 148 main battle tanks; how many are we planning to sell, and who would buy them? We have no plans to replace them. I would be interested to understand the full scope of the Army’s heavy armour automotive improvement programme. In January, the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry told me:

“Manufacturing will begin once the tank’s performance is proven, rather than being tied to a specific deadline.”

By when does he anticipate the tank’s performance will be assessed to have made the grade? Meanwhile, our allies look elsewhere to rearm. With both the Franco-German main ground combat system to replace the Leclerc and Leopard 2 respectively and other fledgling initiatives, what is the future of armour? “Behind the tanks” Warrior is due to go out of service next year, currently with no realistic replacement. Warrior is due to be replaced by a mixture of Boxer and the Ajax-derived Ares, but neither looks set to be ready in time. More concerningly, the Government’s position appears to have shifted once again, with the Minister telling me last week:

“Under current plans, Boxer is initially being fielded as a supporting capability to Armoured Units within 3rd (UK) Division, before being fielded to Mechanised Infantry Units between 2030-2035.”

Warrior goes out of service next year, so what is filling this capability gap? We have not yet seen an order for the Patria 6x6 as part of the common armoured vehicle system. The Government told me recently that they were continuing to monitor the market for potential future platforms, but the defence investment plan is supposedly to be published next week, so why have these decisions not already been made?

From a Royal Navy perspective, it is no secret that the hybrid Navy concept is the direction in which they are sailing. The commitment of the Royal Marines to the High North and potential investment in a joint commando craft or littoral strike craft would illustrate a longer-term commitment to that force posture, but the hybrid Navy concept means that the Type 83 is dead in the water. The decision to gift Type 26 build slots to the Royal Norwegian Navy kicks the can down the road when it comes to the sticky issue of when we need to pay for the new ships, with just eight to be built for us and a further five for the Norwegians. Given our significant commitment to global operations in comparison with the commitment of the Norwegians, do we really think that just three more ships will cover our global commitments?

This has been a whistlestop tour through just some of the myriad capabilities that will need to be detailed in the defence investment plan within the next week or so. [Laughter.] I left a lot out! Members are chuckling, but I could have gone on for another hour.

We need to spend more on defence. We need to resource our military to meet the threats that we face, not the ones that we would like to. If this Prime Minister, this Chancellor and this Defence Secretary will not find the funding required by cutting the welfare budget or changing the fiscal rules, they should make way for someone who will—but perhaps that will happen sooner rather than later.

Armed Forces Bill

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[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 ---

[Danny Kruger]

I will not.

Instead, I would like the United Kingdom to lead European defence by leading a partnership of other countries that have a capable military—most obviously France, Germany, Poland and the Baltics—to defend the Euro-Atlantic from Russia, China and Iran. That is the best role we can play in partnership with our friends in the United States.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

That sounds very much like a European defence force. In what way would that differ from the concept of a European army?

[Danny Kruger]

I absolutely do not believe that we should form a European army, and we certainly should not join any sort of chain of command organised within the EU, but we can act with European partners, as we currently do—most obviously with the northern states in the joint expeditionary force, but also with our other allies in Europe, such as Italy, France, Poland and Germany. We should do that on the basis of a genuine, bespoke partnership for the purpose of defending Europe, particularly the Euro-Atlantic sea border, where the United Kingdom has a special responsibility.

My position is that we should preserve our national sovereignty, capability and independence, but that we can do that in partnership with other countries, in defence of our common interests. That feels to me to be completely consistent with national sovereignty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Scrogham]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. As he rightly says, nobody felt that more than we did in my constituency. I agree that we have to invest properly in the DIP, but we must also ensure that the priorities in the DIP are right. Warfare has changed so dramatically in recent years that we cannot go to the capabilities that we have always looked at, and we cannot continue to fund it in the way that has been done for the past couple of decades. It is about putting the right amount of money in, and about putting it into the right places.

Over time, our armed forces have become hollowed out. Our adversaries will be emboldened, and we leave ourselves at a greater risk of the conflicts that we all want to avoid. Defence is not just a cost; it is an engine for growth in communities like mine. Investment in defence supports skilled jobs, apprenticeships and innovation across the country.

This Armed Forces Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to strengthening our services through improving support for personnel and their families, updating service justice arrangements and ensuring that our armed forces are better equipped to meet the challenges of the modern world. Those are important steps forward, and I am confident that the Bill significantly delivers the improvements that are needed. I therefore oppose new clause 10.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wish to speak to new clause 4, tabled in my name. I thank all those across the House who signed my amendment. Some 10% of MPs in the House supported the amendment. Although that is not exceptional, it is certainly unusual, and I wish to put on record my thanks to all those who put their name to it—particularly those on the Labour Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Most speakers tonight have talked about the duty of care that we owe to those who put themselves in harm’s way for the people of the United Kingdom. Those of us who come from Northern Ireland or represent Northern Ireland know that that is not just some vague form of words. Over the period of the troubles we saw at first hand—this is not abstract—the sacrifices that those who serve in the armed forces made. More than 300,000 people served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner, and 722 of them gave their lives in Northern Ireland.

In the 1970s, I was involved in the reserve police force, going in and out of Army barracks and going out with Army patrols, so I know the conditions we expected people to live in: empty schools and old factories, some of which were surrounded by houses and so easily open to sniper fire, mortar bombing, and narrow streets where people were easily ambushed. We owe a duty to those who made those sacrifices to stop terror in our own streets of the United Kingdom, let alone those who go overseas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

To confirm, where the covenant duty is provided by local government, then it will apply. For example, if it provides housing, it applies. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s question.

I will begin by speaking to the amendment in the Secretary of State’s name making minor and technical changes to the Military Lands Act 1892 that are consequential to the establishment of the reserve forces and cadets associations by clause 38 of the Bill.

New clause 4 would waive settlement visa fees for members of the armed forces and the dependants of serving or discharged members of the armed forces. I acknowledge the concerns raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and recognise that the new clause has been significantly redrafted to reflect the points raised in previous debates, and I also recognise the important role that stakeholders such as the Royal British Legion have played in highlighting this important issue. The Government are committed to delivering the manifesto commitment in full. Work is actively under way across Government and we are determined to bring forward a solution that is clear and works for service personnel and their families.

It is important that we get this right, rather than legislate in a way that is partial or risk creating inconsistencies and, as in Committee, new clause 4 does not clearly achieve the stated aim. It is also important that immigration fee waivers continue to be provided for through the established framework in secondary legislation, rather than be fixed in primary legislation. I know how passionate the hon. and gallant Gentleman is about this issue, and he is right to demand speed and progress. I hope he will recognise that while primary legislation is not needed, our commitment—my commitment—is no less than his and I look forward to when we do deliver this important manifesto commitment.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

The Minister accepts that the new clause has been significantly redrafted to try to make it as watertight as possible. I appreciate what she says about primary and secondary legislation; it seems like a little bit of a convenient get-out-of-jail-free card for the Government. Can she confirm whether there is anything wrong with the new clause as it is drafted other than the change to primary legislation, and if there is not, what changes do the Government plan to push through a piece of secondary legislation in the very near future in order to implement the measures as drafted?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his valiant attempt. I can assure him it is our manifesto commitment, and we will deliver it.

I will now turn to new clauses 21 and 22. These amendments seek to introduce additional statutory reporting requirements on the defence investment plan through both regular updates to Parliament and specific assessments of the impact of any delays. As was set out in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s urgent question last week, the Government are already committed to keeping Parliament appropriately informed, and we do not consider it necessary to add to those commitments. Work to finalise the defence investment plan is continuing under our new Defence Secretary, and we are clear that we will publish it ahead of the NATO summit in July. In the meantime, we are getting on with delivery, having signed over 1,400 major contracts since the election, with 94% of spend going to UK-based companies.

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.