Armed Forces Bill

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

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

[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.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

This weekend, just over two years after leaving the military, I received my recall notification. I managed to update the details within it. At the same time, I was presented with nearly 60 pages-worth of forms to complete just to take on a reserve service commitment. Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that there is still some way to go and that the amendments should perhaps speak of movement between reserve forces and regular forces, rather than the other way round?

[Al Carns]

That is one of the reasons for these amendments and other provisions in the Bill. In the past, personnel had to leave the regular forces to join the reserves and leave the reserves to join the regular forces. We want to create a seamless transition, which will reduce the 60 pages of administrative burden that my hon. Friend had to fill in to a much more seamless transition between regular and reserve services, mirroring other nations across the world that do it quite well.

We need a system that is fair and equitable and that does not discriminate against anyone who wishes to exercise that flexibility. It is worth noting what that will provide for the UK in the current geostrategic environment. It will likely take us from a strategic reserve of 95,000 that could be mobilised up to 150,000 over the next 10 years, which is a significant step forward.

All the other Government amendments tabled in my name are either consequential to the amendments I have just covered or are minor and technical, simply to improve the drafting of the Bill.

I turn to the Opposition amendments. On amendments 2, 3 and 4, I am aware that the Minister for Veterans and People recently met the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) to discuss the concerns behind them. We continue to work across Government on the best way to address those issues in practice. The better route is not a rigid statutory fix but practical improvements through existing systems. The statutory guidance on the covenant legal duty already gives public bodies a flexible framework to take account of the particular challenges service families face when on the move. Let me be clear: considering the statutory guidance supporting the duty is not optional; once it is in force, public bodies that are subject to the duty must have regard to it in their decision making and policy development.

Special educational needs, adoption and fostering, and NHS continuity are exceptionally important issues, but they are not well addressed through rigid legislation. The systems are different, the legal frameworks are different and the decisions involved often depend on professional judgment, safeguarding or clinical need. A blanket duty to transfer plans, arrangements or treatment automatically could create confusion, cut across devolved responsibilities and in some cases delay the support families need. Instead, our focus is on improving continuity in delivery so that service families get better support without unintended consequences.

Amendment 88 would require the Secretary of State to review current practices for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements. The MOD maintains a comprehensive and ongoing programme of communication with both serving and former personnel, supported by established governance, regular data analysis and targeted engagement activity. The Department already monitors take-up and traces unclaimed entitlements 60 working days after pension due date. When a positive address is identified, individuals are contacted. That approach has resulted in over 10,000 pensions being brought into payment. Mandating a further statutory assessment would add process without delivering meaningful additional insight, diverting resource from delivery at a time when the focus is rightly on implementing pension remedies and strengthening frontline pension support.

Amendment 89 would require the Secretary of State to review current practices regarding the transfer of the medical records of armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. I reassure the Committee that no transfer of military healthcare records is needed when transferring from regular to reserve service because Defence continues to hold and manage healthcare records for reservists in the same electronic system, which will also be simplified by some of the reserve forces amendments I mentioned earlier. It is worth noting that we send out 425,000 quarterly digests to those receiving pensions across the system.

Amendment 90 seeks to make sure that all investigations and prosecutions of service persons for sexual offences and domestic abuse in the UK take place in a criminal justice system. Since the prosecutors’ protocols were published in 2023, there have been no cases where a victim wanted trial in the criminal justice system but the case was instead prosecuted in the service justice system. The amendment would, however, override the victim’s preference in cases where they would prefer the service justice system. That risks increasing the victim withdrawal rate in civilian police investigations which, for adult rape-flagged cases in 2024, was 59%, while the withdrawal rate for the Defence Serious Crime Command was 24%. Furthermore, the amendment could lead to the loss or erosion of golden hour evidence and the safeguarding of victims, as there is no duty on civilian police to accept the case. A case-by-case approach that takes into account the views of the victim is better. Clause 25 therefore strengthens the provision of information to victims when asked for their preferred jurisdiction. That will help prosecutors take into account the victim’s view when making a decision on jurisdiction.

Amendment 5 would extend eligibility to sit on a court martial board to retired officers. The Government do not consider the amendment to be necessary, nor do we believe that it would improve the current arrangements. First, there is no shortage of eligible board members. The court martial already draws from a broad and sufficient pool of eligible personnel. In 2025, for example, 447 service personnel were sworn for 263 trials, and there has been no difficulty in constituting boards. Secondly, it is important that board members bring current knowledge and practical experience of the latest single service policies, procedures, values and standards. An individual who has left service, even relatively recently, may no longer be sufficiently connected to the pace of change across the service. I recognise the valuable contribution that veterans continue to make, but service on a court martial board is not the appropriate means of drawing on that experience. It is also worth noting that, when we are court-martialling higher rank, there are over 331 one stars in the British military and therefore ample opportunity to sit on court martial boards.

Amendment 1 would ensure that persons undertaking vital civilian work are exempt from a recall order under new section 69A of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Section 73 of the Reserve Forces Act already provides powers of exemption to recall. That existing provision allows the Defence Council, by regulations, to exempt individuals from or relax recall liability in total.

Amendment 6 aims to increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army reserve group A from 180 days to 90 days. I reassure the Committee that all Army readiness levels are subject to annual review, and to effectively fulfil its obligations the Army must review and adjust readiness levels across all elements of its force, responding to the evolving demands of the nation. It is essential that defence maintains the necessary flexibility to respond swiftly and appropriately to changing threat levels. Embedding such provisions in primary legislation would impose rigid constraints, creating an obstacle rather than a suitable mechanism for setting and reviewing readiness levels.

Hopefully, I have given the necessary assurances, and I ask that the Opposition amendments be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Anecdotally, some service parents have left the armed forces in order to protect the EHCP for their child rather than risk the delay that might be incurred by having to go round the loop all over again if they were transferred for operational or other reasons. In short, they put their children before their service, and I think anyone can understand why, morally, they might make that choice.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

The right hon. Member is making a powerful point, and it is something I hope that I can expand on as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community. We have worked extensively with the Department for Education on this matter, and I hope to be able to address the right hon. Member’s concerns in my speech later. Does he recognise that special educational needs and disability policy should fall under the Department for Education, and that the point of the armed forces covenant is that we can have some leverage over the Department for Education rather than placing this detail in the Bill?

[Mr Francois]

There has been a leak: the hon. Gentleman has clearly had access to my speech. He has put a lot of work into this issue, so perhaps I can meet him halfway with what I am about to say.

In fairness, there are already DFE guidelines that can facilitate the portability of an EHCP from one local education authority to another. The crucial point, however, is that that is by voluntary agreement, and there is no guarantee that if service personnel are transferred at the behest of their commanders, the LEA into which they will move will accept the EHCP on transfer. The essence of amendment 2 is that it would ensure that that process does take place, rather than leaving it as a matter of discretion for the receiving LEA, which itself may be under considerable pressure to meet the demand for SEN support.

Amendment 3, which relates to adoption and fostering, is similar in spirit. It would mean that service personnel who have begun the fostering and adoption process under one local education authority would not have to go again to the back of the queue, as it were, if they were to transfer to another. The spirit of both amendments is the same.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend is bearing out the point that there are real-world examples of this issue coming into play, and he has done the Committee a service by reiterating that.

The Minister for Veterans and People kindly met me and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) last month to discuss whether the Government might be able to do more on this subject, and in fact the Minister for the Armed Forces referred to that meeting in his remarks a few minutes ago. During the meeting with the Minister for Veterans and People, we suggested—here is the leak—that, given the announcement in the King’s Speech that there would be a new Bill on the whole topic of special educational needs, one way of achieving the aim of the amendment might be to include such a provision in that Bill—in a DFE Bill, rather than an MOD Bill. That would still, at the end of the day, achieve the same desirable outcome. The Minister undertook to go away and look at the matter, including potentially in consultation with colleagues from the DFE. Having received her letter of yesterday, I have to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that I was extremely disappointed in its tone. It was a classic civil service boilerplate reply that bore little relation to the discussion that we had in the Minister’s office. I can only ask her to look at this again, perhaps in the context of the new DFE legislation, as I have just suggested.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Rather than the shadow Minister extending his speech, I urge Members concerned with this area to perhaps listen to what I will explain, which is the work that we have been doing with the DFE. We have had members from the armed forces community from across the country liaising directly with the Department for Education and the Minister for Veterans and People. I will try to put that across in my speech.

[Mr Francois]

I do not want to pre-empt what will no doubt be an erudite speech, but the key point is that there is a mechanism for doing this—we are halfway there.

If service parents get a transfer order a few months in advance, then unless they can be certain that the receiving LEA will accept their EHCP, which they may have gone through a bureaucratic minefield to achieve—I am sure we all have individual examples from our constituencies—are they going to risk it? Will they stick or twist? Or will they leave the service and try to find somewhere local to live, but at least keep the precious EHCP? The nub of the matter is whether we can make it mandatory that the transfer takes place. Having made the point, I will rest, and wait for the contribution from the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey).

Amendment 4 is similar in spirit to amendments 2 and 3, but relates to the national health service rather than to education. The essence of the amendment is that military personnel who are already on a waiting list for treatment in one NHS integrated care board area should not suffer any disadvantage relative to the civilian community if, again, they have to be transferred for operational or other service-related reasons. In plain English, they should not lose their place in the queue.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

As I am sure the hon. Member is aware, this was a recommendation of the Atherton report, and there was good reason for it. That inquiry took a lot of evidence on this subject, and the view was that this change would increase confidence. Serving personnel bringing complaints against senior officers may feel pressure to keep their complaint within the service, and so may not receive the justice they need. We have looked at the findings of the Atherton report and agree with them, so we have included that recommendation in the amendments that we tabled to the Bill.

We ask the Government to go one step further and convert general commitments into specific duties, and provide the structures, standards and oversight that will determine whether those duties are genuinely met. Our armed forces are held to the highest standards in everything they do; it is not unreasonable to expect the same of the legislation that governs how we treat them. I hope that the Government and this Committee will take these amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are meant, and will support them.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I welcome the many amendments tabled to this Bill, the first of which is the Government’s amendment to include the Greater London Authority among bodies that must apply the covenant duty. As a London MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community, which has supported the campaign to ensure that military compensation is not treated as income for the purposes of welfare means-testing by local councils, I strongly welcome this step to ensure that the covenant applies to all local and regional authorities. I also recognise the changes that both Redbridge and Waltham Forest councils made to their treatment of military compensation last year as a result of that work.

The GLA has responsibility for critical aspects of everyday life in London, including transport through Transport for London and oversight of the Met, and it plays an important role in skills development and housing. We must ensure that all levels of government, including combined and mayoral authorities, have obligations under the covenant duty, so I welcome the GLA’s inclusion. However, I am concerned that some policy areas that—as our casework shows—intersect with local government, such as immigration, citizenship, pensions and armed forces compensation, are excluded from the local government scope. This risks current and future inconsistencies in the application of the covenant duty. Likewise, I remain concerned that the current draft of the statutory guidance makes it clear that non-ministerial Departments such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Ofsted and HM Prison and Probation Service are not covered by the covenant. Those institutions have critical roles in taxes and income support, education and the justice system, so I would welcome it if the Government could explain why those Departments are not included and say whether they will make changes to include them.

I turn to some of the Opposition’s proposed amendments. I understand and welcome the intent behind the amendment dealing with special educational needs and disabilities, but this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for such changes. SEND policy falls within the remit of the Department for Education, which is now rightly covered by the covenant extension, including in this legislation.

The APPG on the armed forces community has contributed to the Department for Education’s SEND consultation, with particularly notable contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), who has been leading on this area for members of the Army and her local community. Drawing on a number of meetings that the APPG held with the Minister for School Standards, we hosted a roundtable involving civil servants from the Department, researchers from Oxford Brookes University and Edinburgh Napier University, the three armed forces family federations, the Royal British Legion and the SSAFA. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot raised the well-evidenced and distinct challenges faced by our service children arising from frequent relocations across borders—challenges that the SEND White Paper did not adequately recognise. However, the solution is not the automatic transfer of plans. Our devolved education system means that an education, health and care plan in England is not equivalent to a co-ordinated support plan in Scotland. In England, around 5% to 6% of children with additional needs qualify for an EHCP, but only about 0.2% qualify in Scotland.

Making one legislative change in this Bill will not automatically make our disconnected SEND systems conform to the needs of our service children. Instead, we need the standardisation and timely transfer of records. Children’s SEND documentation must move with them. Records from devolved Administrations and overseas postings must properly be considered and accepted by receiving authorities, and this must be accompanied by a greater understanding of the different education systems from which service children may arrive, including overseas systems. The amendment does not address that. We have raised that issue with the Minister for School Standards.

Training about armed forces life should be embedded in mandatory SEND teacher training. There must be stronger cross-nation co-ordination between the four Education Departments to establish shared principles for the transfer of support, particularly as all four systems are undergoing reform. That work must be led first and foremost by the Department for Education. The repeated and genuine engagement we have had with Education Ministers gives me hope that these changes will come forward.

New clause 5 would waive fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses and dependants of serving or discharged members of the armed forces. I strongly welcome the intent of the amendment. As its author, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), knows, this policy was included in the Labour manifesto in 2024, and it must be delivered by the Home Office. While I understand that the Home Office is working on the issue with the Ministry of Defence, we are nearly two years on from the general election, and there is still no clarity on when this change will be introduced. In the meantime, the families of service personnel are struggling to afford to stay in this country, and that is plainly wrong.

As many members of the armed forces community APPG know—they support this amendment—we have repeatedly sought clarity from the Home Office on how the new immigration rule changes will affect service personnel and their dependants. I have repeatedly requested meetings with Home Office officials over months, but—this is in contrast to the position with the Department for Education—I have made little or no progress. I am therefore pleased that I have been granted a meeting on this matter next week. Responses to my letters state that the views of the armed forces community will be considered, but that does not mean that they are being heard.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am grateful to my fellow member of the Defence Committee for giving way. If he supports new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), will he vote for it?

[Mr Bailey]

I hope to provide the detail on why new clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, is not appropriate in this Bill. The Home Office must take on this work and responsibility, which is why the armed forces covenant has been put in place. We must make sure that all Departments take their responsibilities seriously, but this Bill is not the mechanism for doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I fully acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s point about education being a devolved matter, which makes the SEN issue more complicated. He is quite correct about that, but does he acknowledge that amendment 2 allows for that and specifically refers to it? Secondly, there is no cross-border issue in England. If I agree with him that this would best be done via an education Bill, will he agree with me that in England there is no impediment whatsoever to making the transfer of EHCPs for service children mandatory?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. One thing that came up very strongly in the APPG’s discussions with the Department—we had military families from all three services, and representatives of all the service organisations—was that this problem is faced by all people; it is just that service families and service children manifest the issue most specifically. The problem has to be fixed for all people in the United Kingdom, which is why the changes were taken on board as part of the SEND work. We received a great amount of care and support from the Department, and I hope that the work will prove beneficial. Where I see a bit of a failing is that, in taking that on, the Department could perhaps have noted that work, so that service families could have seen that it had been part of the considerations. That was a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot made to the Minister, and I hope that it will be addressed in the next iteration of the SEND work.

[Mr Francois]

The difference is that, while people in civilian life sometimes have to move jobs at the behest of their employer, service personnel are ordered to go. They really have no choice: once they have been posted, they have to go. Therefore, in ordering them to go, the state should have a moral obligation to deal with the consequences for special needs children. Does the hon. Member accept that that is a difference between service and civilian life, and that under the principle of “no disadvantage” in the covenant, the state should do the right thing?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment. The plan allowed industry to make rational decisions about where to invest, helped to improve the morale of our armed forces by letting them know about the new equipment they could expect to come into service, and had an important deterrent effect on our potential adversaries by laying out exactly what we intended to buy for the defence of the realm. All those things have now been put at risk by a year of the Government’s endless prevarication and inaction.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that on Labour’s arrival in government, the National Audit Office stated that the previous Government and the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) had left an equipment plan with a £7 billion to £28 billion gap? Is that correct?

[Mr Francois]

As a matter of fact, that is not how I interpret what the NAO said—not at all.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

No, the hon. Gentleman has had his go.

The Committee may remember that we were promised that the DIP would be published in the autumn; then, we were faithfully promised it by Christmas; and then we were absolutely, definitely going to get it in the new year. But here we are in June—and, incredibly, still no DIP.