Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right that the forces were hollowed out and underfunded, which we are seeking to address by increasing defence spending. We have provided £3 billion in the Budget and the path to moving from 2.3% to 2.5% will be laid out in the spring. The SDR will set out what capabilities we need to have to meet the threat environment, against that pathway to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence.

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

The last Conservative Government did not spend 2.5 % of GDP on defence at any point during their 14 years of power. Unfortunately, the increase that will come will have to address a lot of the damage that that Government did to our Army, our Navy and our Air Force. Does the Minister agree that it takes a Labour Government to deliver those spending commitments?

[Luke Pollard]

It is certainly true that the last time this country spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was under a Labour Government. The Tories cut defence spending as a percentage of GDP over their time in power. It is important that the strategic defence review wins cross-party support when published. I hope that the shadow Defence Secretary will be able to offer the Government a common position, so that what is published will be not just Labour’s defence strategy but Britain’s defence strategy, and we can be strong at home as well as secure abroad.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Phil Brickell]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, but I will not be supporting that amendment. I hope that we will be able to pass the Bill unamended, and I will defer to the Minister to address that question directly.

I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) about the independence of the commissioner, and particularly his comments on amendment 6. We live in a dangerous world, so when it comes to the men and women who are tasked with keeping us safe, we must ensure that we return the favour by making sure that they are treated with respect. We should not delude ourselves by seeing the Armed Forces Commissioner as a silver bullet. I welcome this Government’s commitment to a new strengthened armed forces covenant, which would enshrine in law the respect due to members and former members of our military.

As many Members know, the military estate’s houses, barracks and other facilities are in an appalling condition and, frankly, unfit to house many of our servicemen and women and their families. I welcome measures from the Government to conduct a medium to long-term review, but I would simply urge Ministers not to kick the can down the road on an issue that has persisted for far, far too long. Financial wellbeing, gaps in medical discharge processes, mental health support failures—there is a lot to do, but the initial signs are good.

As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany and someone with a number of family members in Germany, I would like to note that this position has been modelled on its long-established and successful German counterpart, as the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) rightly mentioned. It is refreshing to see a Government seeking to improve life in the UK by drawing inspiration from the successful policies of our closest allies in Europe. I sincerely hope that we can pass the Bill today to provide the support our military personnel and their families so urgently deserve.

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

The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill stands as a critical piece of legislation that will establish an independent champion for our servicemen and women, as well as their families. The Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment and represents a significant step forward in renewing our nation’s contract with those who serve us, so it is positive to see its continued and rapid progression into law. Today, our Opposition colleagues have tabled a number of amendments, and I want to speak to several of them in turn. On new clause 1, the Government are implementing measures to address our current challenges with recruitment and retention. Expanding the commissioner’s scope to include all applicants could overwhelm the office and detract from its core mission of supporting current service personnel and their families.

The previous Conservative Government hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces. Morale in the military is at a record low, and we are facing a recruitment and retention crisis. Many of those who want to join our armed forces wait far too long, and the Government are committed to fixing this through measures such as the new 10-30 provision, under which applicants will be given a provisional offer to join the armed forces within 10 days of applying, and a provisional start date within 30 days.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The hon. Member describes morale as being at an all-time low. Last week, along with a number of colleagues from the Defence Committee, we both had the opportunity to visit RAF Lossiemouth, where we saw a range of service personnel at the top of their game. I am intrigued to know whether he would characterise their morale as being at an all-time low, or whether he thinks the election of a Labour Government in July has had the rapid effect he describes.

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. and gallant Member is correct that we visited RAF Lossiemouth last week, where we saw people at the top of their game, doing what servicepeople do, which is coping, doing their job and putting a brave face on things. However, the continuous attitude survey shows the stress behind those things. The service they are, to some degree, enduring could be made better. Although servicepeople put a good face on their morale when we see them, that does not mean our services are in the buoyant state they could be.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that an easy way to measure morale is through retention rates? We are not recruiting and retaining armed forces personnel to the degree we would wish. Part of the motivation for introducing this Bill to address general service welfare issues—I am making sure that I use the correct language about what the Armed Forces Commissioner role covers—is to have an operational impact by making it easier to recruit people to the armed forces. And once we train them at great expense, we must retain them for the longest possible period of viable service.

[Mr Bailey]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We do not expect service personnel to stand up and openly tell us their problems, as that is part of what makes them resilient. The important thing about having an Armed Forces Commissioner is that they can see through that. The gallant Members of this House will be able to see through those things, and it would be wrong to politicise what people present of themselves during our visits, rather than what we would like them to make known, for political gain.

The truth, as my hon. Friend makes perfectly clear, is that we are not doing a very good job of recruiting and retaining personnel. The objection to new clause 1 is that it is important to focus on the specific needs that will enable us to have better recruitment and retention, because that is where we are failing. Perhaps that is why the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) is now in this House, rather than continuing his illustrious career.

The Government have also introduced a new cyber pathway to bring the best and brightest into our armed forces and to rebuild our defences for the future, particularly given the grey zone threats from Russia about which the Select Committee heard evidence this morning. This is also positive, but with 150,000 applicants attempting to join the military at any one time, if all those individuals were brought under the scope of the commissioner, as would happen if the new clause were enacted, that would vastly increase the commissioner’s workload and, ultimately, impact their efficiency and effectiveness. In proposing the new clause, Conservative Members are attempting to address a genuine problem, but I have concerns that, in practice, it could mean that service personnel and their families would not get the attention they rightly need.

On new clause 2, while the Armed Forces Commissioner’s role is focused on serving personnel, the Government are implementing a broader strategy of support for the entire armed forces community, including veterans, through various initiatives and legal protections. All veterans, including those sitting on the Opposition Benches, make an important contribution to our communities and our armed forces. However, the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit is purposefully defined narrowly to focus on issues currently impacting service personnel and their families. That allows the commissioner to effectively address immediate concerns facing those in uniform, including some of those that most concern me and most seriously affect retention for women and people from ethnic minorities, such as bullying and harassment.

The Bill is just one step in Labour’s plans to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve and have served, and their families. Our Government are committed to strengthening support for the entire armed forces community, recognising that the issue of veteran support is distinct from those issues addressed by the Bill. The Government are working to fully incorporate the armed forces covenant into law, ensuring fairness and respect to veterans and their families. Recent initiatives include a £75 million LGBT financial recognition scheme, acknowledging the historic wrongs experienced by our LGBT veterans; making the veterans card an accepted form of voter ID, crucial to mobile service members, as I know from my own experience; and committing £3.5 million for veteran homelessness support, including wraparound services for at-risk veterans.

While the Armed Forces Commissioner will primarily deal with those affected by service law, they will have the discretion to invite opinion from a broader range of stakeholders, including veterans, when conducting investigations. I would expect the commissioner to regularly use that power, as it is a critical part of their role, as Conservative Members have said. I hope Conversative Members recognise that flexibility is important in the Bill, as it will allow the commissioner to gather comprehensive insight in the exercise of their duties, but does not limit their independence or freedom to lead by narrowing their focus.

On amendment 7, while focused on serving personnel, the role of the Armed Forces Commissioner complements the broader armed forces covenant and existing legislation to support the entire military community. The armed forces covenant recognises the unique obligations and sacrifices made by those who have served in the armed forces, whether regular or reserve, as well as veterans and their families. Our Government are fully committed to the covenant and our election manifesto pledge was to put the covenant fully into law.

The Armed Forces Commissioner’s role focuses primarily on members of the serving community and their families, but they will undoubtedly consider covenant issues related to active service members and their families as part of general service welfare matters, as outlined in the Bill. That aligns with the commissioner’s functions to promote the welfare of service persons and their families, and to improve public understanding of the issues.

It is important to note that the Bill is not standalone legislation. Instead, it amends part of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which already includes part 16A addressing the armed forces covenant. Therefore, amendment 7 is not necessary. By integrating the commissioner’s role into the existing framework, we ensure a comprehensive approach to supporting both current and former members of the armed forces, reinforcing our commitment to the entire military community.

Amendment 8 would require the commissioner to be independent from the Government and the armed forces and from interference when carrying out their duties. In response, the Bill provides greater independence and scrutiny for those upholding the welfare of armed forces personnel. I welcome that role, which will be subject to a full public appointment process and scrutiny by the Defence Committee, as mentioned earlier by its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi).

The commissioner will be established as a corporation sole and will thus be independent of the Ministry of Defence, which is clearly important to give them the ability to hold people to account effectively. The commissioner will have discretion over what they investigate and the proactive power to launch investigations. Those provisions mean that the commissioner will stay focused on general service welfare matters and will be expected to have regular meetings with the chain of command. However, I fully agree that independence for the chain of command is vital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

The hon. and gallant Member referred to the armed forces complaints ombudsman giving evidence to the Defence Committee last week. Her report from 2023 detailed that three complaints were made against the ombudsman organisation itself. Was he as dismayed as I was that she was not able to recall the details of the one complaint of those three that was upheld?

[Mr Bailey]

The ombudsman who came to speak to us the other day gave a clear account of the challenges and issues that she faced and elucidated on a number of challenges around addressing the specificity of any individual complaints that she had been made aware of, due to the distance between the complaint and her appearance before the Committee. I think it is worth reviewing the entirety of her evidence because, for me, it did nothing more than emphasise the need for the Bill to be passed as drafted and to take note of my challenges to the amendment.

On the wider status of the service complaints system, efforts to enhance consistency and accessibility are ongoing. I take this moment to thank the ombudsman, Mariette Hughes, and her team for their work to improve the service complaints system. It was clear from her responses to our questions last week that she was conscious of the need to continue improving the system throughout the transition to a new commissioner.

I am sure the Ministry will continue its work to implement the recommendations of the ombudsman’s office, particularly in ensuring that there is a single entry point for complaints and a consistent approach in the recording of all the grievances across defence, as laid down in successive annual reports.

On amendment 6, the Government are committed to swiftly establishing the Armed Forces Commissioner through a rigorous appointment process, ensuring that the role is filled by a highly qualified and security-cleared individual who can advocate effectively for the armed forces community. Although the Bill does not detail a specific implementation timetable, which colleagues will know is typical of primary legislation, this is a priority for the Government. I believe that colleagues from all parts of the House will recognise that the appointment process must be done correctly. The appointment will be subject to a full public appointments process, regulated and overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This process will include necessary vetting and security clearances, building trust among armed forces personnel that the appointment—[Interruption.] The implementation timeline will also account for the passing of the secondary legislation and a smooth transition from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to the new Armed Forces Commissioner—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Does the hon. Member require a moment?

[Mr Bailey]

No.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Are you happy to continue?

[Mr Bailey]

Yes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Wonderful.

[Mr Bailey]

In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, the creation of an Armed Forces Commissioner will provide a powerful voice for service personnel and their families, ensuring that their concerns are heard and addressed at the highest levels. As we move forward with the Bill, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to improve service life, address systemic issues and uphold the highest standards of behaviour within our military. The success of the new role demands, and depends on, our continued support and scrutiny. I look forward to seeing the positive impact that this Bill will have on the lives of those who serve our nation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

A substantial contribution there. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment.

Indeed, the Forces Pension Society response to the consultation, which I have here, calls on the Government to do just that. However, having given the Minister what I believe was fair notice in Committee, I raised the topic again with him at the last Defence questions on 6 January—although, in fairness, that was the day the Commons returned from Christmas recess. When I asked him what the Government had done about it, unfortunately he did not deliver a particularly convincing reply.

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He is citing a specific example that the Armed Forces Commissioner would have to oversee. That is not relevant to the discussion about the Bill or the amendments. Will he bring up any of the other myriad exceptional circumstances of pain and suffering for our service personnel that your leadership, under 14 years of the previous Government—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. “Your leadership” refers to me, and it is up to the Chair to determine what is in scope. For the benefit of other colleagues, it is up to the speaker to accept or decline an intervention. Do you have more to say, Mr Bailey, or shall I return to the shadow Minister?

[Mr Bailey]

No thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I do not disagree at all. I look forward to visiting the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and to seeing the potential of firms. He is completely correct that clusters of excellence and skill are the way forward. I look forward to visiting his constituency shortly.

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

The defence sector supports one in 60 of our jobs in this country—more than 400,000 well-paid jobs that are central to this Government’s growth mission and to our nation’s security. However, the majority of those jobs are outside London and the south-east. Therefore, growth and—crucially—engagement with defence and security are inhibited for young people in constituencies such as mine. Will the Minister confirm that the key ambition of our defence industrial strategy will be to broaden access to the defence sector in every region, including constituencies such as mine?

[Maria Eagle]

I am happy to accept that point, and I agree. Plenty of jobs and skills will be needed around the country in every nation and region, so that we improve matters everywhere.

Service Accommodation

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dhesi]

I could not agree more with the Liberal Democrat spokesman. It is completely unacceptable that we expect our brave servicemen and women, and their families, to be housed in such substandard conditions. We have instances of damp, mould, rat infestation— I could rattle off so many other things that are completely unacceptable. I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman and look forward to the Government taking immediate and urgent action to remediate things.

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

I warmly welcome the report and I am proud to be part of my hon. Friend the Chair’s team, who have so well encapsulated the witness testimonies and the work that was done by the previous Committee. I join him in warmly welcoming the announcement from earlier in the week and the forthcoming work to bring about a service commissioner to oversee the process and ensure such injustices do not befall our service personnel in future. Does he agree that service housing is the foundation upon which our service personnel serve and commit to our country, and that this is the start of a journey of repairing a very damaged contract that this country has with its service personnel?

[Mr Dhesi]

I concur fully with my fellow member of the Defence Committee. Given his vast experience of having served in our armed forces, his contribution as a member of the Committee will be substantial, and I know he will bring that experience to bear as we look forward to remediating things. He is correct that service accommodation is the foundation on which we must ensure that our servicepeople have the very best facilities that we as a nation can offer.

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Community

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you for allowing me to speak following my late arrival, Mr Dowd. I understand that I have perhaps not followed normal procedure.

I start by acknowledging the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this important debate to support the explosive ordnance disposal community. The work of that community saves lives, enables economic recovery and helps to rebuild societies that have been devastated by conflict. It is a critical aspect of our national and international security and it deserves our utmost attention.

As we have heard, the global threat of explosive ordnance—including landmines, cluster munitions and unexploded bombs left behind in the aftermath of conflicts—results in the deaths of 15 people every day. Civilians account for 84% of those casualties, and over a third of them are children. Those tragic figures remind us of the enduring danger that explosive ordnance possesses long after the fighting has ceased.

Contamination spans 60 countries, affecting regions with recent conflicts such as Ukraine and, in particular, Gaza, as well as those with decades-old legacies including, as we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), Cambodia and Angola, which are particularly afflicted. Those weapons are not just remnants of violence but barriers to progress, safety and prosperity, and they disproportionately impact the lives of women, who have to traverse the terrain to sustain their families. We must not overlook that when we discuss the unexploded ordnance detritus that is left after war.

Mine action goes beyond clearing explosive ordnance; it restores hope and opportunity. Studies show that every £1 spent on mine clearance yields a fourfold return in economic benefits, as well as unlocking land, agriculture, infrastructure and the roots of normal daily life, particularly for women and children in education. For example, in Lebanon, the clearing of landmines has enabled safer farming and access to critical resources such as water, benefiting thousands of families. Explosive ordnance clearance also supports global humanitarian objectives. It aligns with sustainable development goals, fostering food security, economic growth and safer communities. That work exemplifies the transformative power of collaboration between Governments, NGOs and local communities.

The UK has made a proud contribution to that work, which is the subject of this debate. We have a long-standing and distinguished record of mine action. As one of the first signatories to the anti-personnel mine ban convention, and the convention on cluster munitions, our country has demonstrated unwavering commitment to upholding international humanitarian law. Through schemes such as the FCDO’s global mine action programme, the UK has directly supported explosive ordnance disposal in 11 countries, and that benefited more than 1 million people between 2018 and 2020 alone. Organisations such as the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust, which I have been very proud to speak for and associate myself with, are headquartered here in the UK. They are global leaders and they showcase the best of British expertise and values.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for making an important and powerful point about honouring and supporting our veterans and their contribution. As we discuss the impacts of explosive ordnance globally, we must also turn our attention to the incredible legacy of our Afghan veterans, many of whom have been injured by landmines while serving our country. This is not a historical issue: it is an ongoing responsibility. Every day, we see veterans going about their business with prosthetic limbs. They have made a valuable contribution and they are a valued part of our community. The armed forces covenant is essential in reminding us of our moral obligation to support those who have sacrificed so much for our security.

This evening, gallant Members and I will meet Afghanistan veterans to hear at first hand their experiences and the challenges they face. Their courage and resilience reminds us of the importance of addressing their needs, from healthcare to employment and community support. Events such as the Invictus games celebrate and strengthen the determination of our injured service personnel, and they are a testament to what can be achieved when we come together to honour and support those individuals.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Army Benevolent Fund does outstanding work to help veterans and that we all should support it? I tabled an early-day motion yesterday to draw attention to that work. The fund has achieved remarkable things in helping former personnel.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his powerful and significant intervention. The service charities are critical in supporting our veterans. A powerful part of their work is in normalising veterans in the community and ensuring that people treat them as a normal part of our community. Veterans have left a visible and lasting legacy, and it is essential that the service charities continue to support our veterans long into the future. However, those efforts must be matched by real and sustained commitments from the Government. I welcome the presence of the Veterans Minister, who I know has been key to ensuring that these issues are addressed and that no veterans are left behind.

Our Government’s defence industrial strategy enhances our contribution by integrating explosive ordnance disposal into the broader framework of our national armaments. The strategy prioritises UK-based businesses, fosters long-term partnership and drives innovation at a wartime pace. It also ensures that regions beyond London benefit from job creation and economic growth. However, as a London MP I would like to see that opportunity opened up to all people, including the very bright and promising youth of London, as we produce thousands of personnel who are ready to engage with jobs and opportunities in science, technology, engineering and maths.

In addition, our approach aligns with our national security goals and the work of organisations such as the MAG. Its work in Lebanon accounts for the removal of live munitions decades after their use. That is a demonstration of how targeted landmine clearance can transform lives. Similarly, in Ukraine an estimated 1,500 sq km of land remains contaminated. This will increase massively and impact a country for which agriculture is central to its very existence. Our support must not just be humanitarian; it is also vital for global stability and for food-bearing nations such as Ukraine.

The lessons from Ukraine do not end there. On Tuesday, the Defence Committee heard about some of the lessons we were learning from supporting Ukraine. Our defence industry can rapidly integrate and provide the support that is most relevant to the battlefield situation that Ukrainians face. This is ultimately similar to the battlefields we need to prepare to face as NATO allies, given Russia’s ongoing strategy of escalating aggression. Will the Minister set out any thoughts he has on how that point can be applied to the ordnance removal mission that we share with our partners both in Ukraine and around the world? Surely, the broader point is that, whether in supplying military support or explosives removal, UK expertise can only grow in ways that benefit our own interest and those of our partners if we are responsive, and able and willing to learn quickly.

Explosive ordnance disposal is also an economic opportunity. The UK defence sector already supports 434,000 jobs, with 67% located away from the south-east. By aligning mine action with defence investments, we can ensure that UK regions grow and that all parts of the UK, including my constituency, benefit from this vital work. The challenges posed by explosive ordnance require a sustained and collaborative effort. I urge the Government to restore and expand funding for mine action programmes, particularly in heavily affected regions like Lebanon and Ukraine. This is about not just saving lives but demonstrating Britain’s values on the world stage.

We must also strengthen our partnerships with NGOs, industry, and academia to leverage the unique expertise that the UK has to offer. By doing so, we can ensure that our nation continues to lead in explosive ordnance disposal, delivering both humanitarian and strategic benefits. Let us reaffirm our commitment to explosive ordnance disposal and to the global fight against these silent and unseen killers. Together we can save lives, foster development and, most importantly, uphold Britain’s proud tradition as a force for good in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Perhaps I should begin by declaring a personal family interest in this subject. My late father, Stoker First Class Reginald Francois, served on a minesweeper named HMS Bressay from 1943 until the second world war ended, so he was involved in bomb disposal of a sort. Perhaps more accurately it was mine disposal, but nevertheless he personally faced a threat from large explosive devices, albeit in a maritime context. As his son, I am proud to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition on this very important subject this morning.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate and, if I may say so, for introducing it so ably. She made a very knowledgeable contribution, no doubt drawing on her own military experience. In particular, she illustrated the challenge posed to the international community by the sheer scale of this problem around the world.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke powerfully about the threat from terrorist bombs in Northern Ireland, which is a subject to which I would like to return. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Calvin Bailey)—an RAF veteran, if I may call him that—also addressed the international scale of the challenge. Last but not least, I am supported by our shadow Defence Parliamentary Private Secretary this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), who as a former Royal Marine, like the Minister, understands quite a lot about the subject.

I would like to begin my own contribution with a historical perspective on bomb disposal operations in the British armed forces, before moving on to address both military and, increasingly, civilian operations in this crucial field of activity, right up to the present day. Bomb disposal, or, to give it its more formal title, explosive ordnance disposal—EOD for short—can be traced back for over a century. During the first world war, squads of men were assembled to help deal with unexploded bombs left after raids on London and the south east by German zeppelin bombers and their Gotha Giant aircraft counterparts—a bombing campaign that was very well summarised by Neil Hanson in his book “First Blitz”.

In addition, with the advent of truly industrialised warfare in the first world war, teams of engineers were needed to dispose of unexploded munitions, particularly high explosive shells that had fallen among the allied trenches on the western front but failed to detonate. Even at that time, this was highly skilled and extremely dangerous work—a characteristic that has remained true right through to the present day.

By the time of the second world war, although the need for bomb disposal on the battlefield was undiminished, with the advent of the mass bombing of civilian targets, the need for bomb disposal on the home front expanded accordingly. This led to a high death toll among those brave enough to undertake the task of dealing with unexploded bombs—or UXBs, as they were characterised at that time. Juliet Gardiner, in her book entitled simply “The Blitz”, describes the losses in the following terms, which I think are quite evocative:

“Sometimes a UXB might embed itself a few feet in the ground, or fall into a static water tank or a gasometer but many penetrated deep below the surface and were difficult to get at. The defusers’ survival would have depended on staying one step ahead of German technology, since as soon as they learnt how one time delay mechanism worked, it would be replaced by another. By the end of 1940, 123 officers and men of the bomb disposal squads had been killed and 67 wounded. The deaths did not cease with the end of the war, as UXB’s continued to be uncovered. By 1947, 490 had been killed in the battle to extract these great torpid iron pigs from their holes and render them harmless.”

The need for EOD workers continued as a facet of British military operations since the end of the second world war, right up to the present day. For instance, dealing with both republican and so-called loyalist bombs was a key facet of Operation Banner, the British Army’s campaign to support the civil authorities during the period of the troubles in Northern Ireland. A number of bomb disposal officers were killed and many were wounded during the course of the troubles, as the hon. Member for Strangford rightly reminded us.

The scale of the task that they were up against was well summarised by Desmond Hamill in his book “Pig in the Middle” about the British Army’s role in Northern Ireland. He summarised the challenge as follows:

“Over the years the Provisionals have become expert at designing and manufacturing booby-traps. Only the week before, a bomb disposal sergeant had been killed by a bomb within a bomb in County Fermanagh. It had been packed into a milk churn, and when the sergeant had cleared the timing device and was lifting it out, a detonator underneath set off the second bomb which exploded.”

As the author went on to explain:

“The bombs were often very simple and very deadly. The components were readily available—a few pounds of explosives, a detonator, a battery and a couple of feet of wire. The triggering device could either be a plate buried in the ground or even a clothes peg.”

As the Minister will be well aware, hundreds of thousands of British soldiers served on Operation Banner during the troubles. Hundreds were killed, not just in bomb disposal, and many thousands were maimed or had life-changing injuries, from both republican and so-called loyalist terrorism. Perhaps when he sums up, the Minister could say a few words about why the Government still intend to abolish the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which will leave many Northern Ireland veterans open, yet again, to an endless cycle of reinvestigation, much of it politically motivated at the hands of Sinn Féin. Our veterans, who faced the threat of terrorist bombs every day of their service in Northern Ireland, really do deserve better than this from their Government.

Let me turn to the Falklands. Diffusing unexploded bombs is not just a challenge on land, as pointed out by Lord Ashcroft in his book “Falklands War Heroes”. During the 1982 Falklands war, chief marine engineering mechanic Michael Townsend was awarded the distinguished service medal for his role in assisting with the disposal of two bombs that had hit his ship, HMS Argonaut. The principal bomb disposal task with which he assisted was undertaken by Staff Sergeant Jim Prescott and Warrant Officer Second Class John Phillips, both of the Royal Engineers.

Assisted by Townsend and several of the crew, the two bomb disposal experts succeeded in disarming and disposing both Argentinian bombs that had landed on the Argonaut. Unfortunately, however, Staff Sergeant Prescott, from 49 Squadron Royal Engineers, was killed two days later while attempting a similar task with two further unexploded bombs that had landed on HMS Argonaut’s sister ship, HMS Antelope. His colleague WO2 Phillips was badly injured, losing one of his arms in the latter attempt. I mention that particular example not just to pay tribute to the extreme bravery of all three men involved, one of whom sadly lost his life, but also to point out that dealing with ordnance of this type is not purely confined to the land domain.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I would like to link that point back to the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier remarks, when he shared some powerful words about his grandfather—

[Mr Francois]

My father.

[Mr Bailey]

His father’s service—I did not want to age the right hon. Gentleman—in the maritime domain. That example was a powerful reminder that explosive ordnance disposal is not simply confined to landmines or the devices we see as bombs. Building on that, I want to highlight the contributions of the Royal Navy today—its divers in particular and its ongoing mine clearance operations in the Gulf, alongside our US partners and the French navy. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we must ensure that we continue to highlight such valid and brave contributions?

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words about my father. I absolutely agree with him about the very important role played by the Royal Navy in maritime bomb disposal, including by the brave divers he alluded to. For completeness, as the hon. Gentleman is a former RAF officer, we should place on record that a great deal of work was undertaken in the second world war defusing German bombs that had landed on RAF airfields, perhaps most famously during the battle of Britain—so the Royal Air Force played its part in the battle against bombs as well.

I turn to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the involvement of Britain’s armed forces, particularly the Army, switched from Northern Ireland through the Balkans and then into the middle east, including the first and second Gulf wars and the war in Afghanistan, again the threat from bombs—often referred to at that time as improvised explosive devices or IEDs—remained ever present. As General Sir Richard Dannatt, a former Chief of the General Staff, recalled in his memoir “Leading From The Front”,

“Initially the Taliban had taken us on with small arms, machine guns and rocket grenades, but as they tired of being killed in large numbers they resorted to the classic insurgent tactic of avoiding direct combat and attacking us instead with IEDs, in exactly the same way as the Iraqi militias and the provisional IRA had done before them.”

The Minister himself served in Afghanistan, and we pay tribute to him for his service. The need to respond to the IED threat, which was eventually responsible for a large number of casualties—both fatal and non-fatal, but none the less in many cases life-changing—was an important aspect particularly of Operation Herrick, the allied campaign in Afghanistan. As Simon Akam explained in his challenging book “The Changing of the Guard: the British Army since 9/11”,

“The IED became the signature weapon of the Helmand Conflict. No longer could troops move freely; instead they adopted the ‘Afghan snake’, painstakingly walking in a line behind a young soldier holding a Vallon Mine Detector.”

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, a former Milton Keynes MP and a previous Minister for the Armed Forces, worked on EOD disposal during Operation Herrick. We pay tribute to him and all his EOD colleagues for their service.

Even today, the task of explosive ordnance disposal—now carried out principally by 11 EOD regiments of the Royal Logistics Corps—remains as vital as ever, both in protecting our civilian population from domestic acts of terrorism and in permitting the conduct of military operations. Some of the savage fighting in Ukraine has included the widespread use of booby traps and other IEDs, and therefore the threat remains as live as ever on the modern battlefield. Indeed, in its helpful briefing note for this important debate, the Mines Advisory Group highlights that the Ukrainian Government estimate that about a third of their territory, or 156,000 sq km —an area bigger than England—remains potentially contaminated with explosive ordnance.

For the record, the previous Government invested in the latest EOD technology for our own armed forces, including the Harris T7 bomb disposal robot, which is the successor of the iconic Wheelbarrow from Northern Ireland, and, more recently, the T7’s highly nimble little brother, the Harris T4—a programme that was encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) when he was the Procurement Minister at the MOD.

Let me turn directly to the speech by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who summarised very well the challenge still posed by unexplained ordnance in the present day—not just, as she pointed out, in Ukraine, but in a number of other countries around the world, including Laos and Lebanon. We should pay tribute to the work of two UK-led organisations, the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust, which have led the world in seeking to step up and to address the challenge.

Given all this, in addition to responding to my point about the legacy Act, will the Minister answer three specific questions? First, are the Government minded to continue spending at least the same amount on overseas mine disposal in 2025-26 as they are spending in 2024-25? Secondly, much of that spending is deployed via the FCDO’s GMAP and the UK’s integrated security fund; is any of that funding from the MOD budget, and if so, could it be vulnerable to the strategic defence review? The third question is related to the second: when do we expect the outcome of the SDR to be published? I ask that this morning because rumours are now circulating that it could be as late as June 2025. While we have the Minister’s company this morning, could he provide an update about the likely timing of the publication of the SDR? As he knows, it is keenly anticipated.

In conclusion, I pay tribute to all those personnel, be they from the armed forces or civilians, who have had the courage to take part in the extremely dangerous task of explosive ordnance disposal across the decades. It is harrowing work, and not for the faint hearted. In risking their lives, they have helped to save the lives of countless others. Sadly, a number of those employed in that highly dangerous line of work made the ultimate sacrifice, and we rightly pay tribute to them this morning as well. We will remember them.

UK Air and Missile Defences

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for bringing forward this critical debate.

In 1988, The Sunday Times published a formative exposition of the integrated air defence system that protected the UK at the time. I managed to find the article, called “Can the RAF defend us?”, with the aid of the Library. It gave a very detailed analysis of the system in place, some parts of which had not changed since 1938, and it spoke of how an investment of about £10 billion on combined programmes would address that. I enjoyed reminding myself, while reading the article, of the places that were commissioned back then that I finally served in during the early 2000s. The reason for bringing that up is that, then as now, we need a clear understanding of where we are and of the degradation in our services since the 2010 strategic defence and security review.

Defence has three outputs: policy, capability and operations. We must convince ourselves of the need to do some of the things that my hon. Friend spoke about eloquently earlier. On policy, we must recognise that our security problem is inherently European. The European Sky Shield initiative is fundamental, so it is critical that we enhance and recover some of our relationships with our European partners, and that we remain NATO-first. We must recognise that we will not stand alone, and that the solution to our problems and funding must have a European bent. I urge the Minister to do as my hon. Friend discussed and enhance our European relationships —specifically regarding access to funding and partnerships.

I note the article’s clear recognition that our Army was inherently European based. It is largely pointless having tanks on Salisbury plain when the threat is elsewhere. I wonder whether now is the time to reconsider where some of our Army is based. Having a deployed Army that contributes to a security problem will also need an air defence above it. We need to give consideration to the service that, at present, is prime in delivering parts of our integrated air defence system. I also welcome the discussion about Type 45s. It is imperative that we understand that the Royal Navy has a part to play in our air defences, and that Type 45s not just protect the carrier but are fundamental to ensuring the long sea track.

With policy, it is essential that, whatever solutions we come to, we ensure that we are in the grey zone right now. Defence is about deterrence, and it is fundamental that we maintain a posture that deters our enemy. We must understand that this logic has already started: our enemies have already started to encroach on some of the fundamental parts of our deterrence, including damaging the rules-based international order. I urge the Minister to take back to the Department a discussion about a deterrence policy that works around our integrated air defence—something that is discussed incredibly well in the 1988 article.

On capability, I do not wish to politicise the debate, but just as we now reflect openly on the damage that the 1957 defence review did to our industries, we must have an honest discussion about the impact of the 2010 SDSR. Critically, we must recognise what happens when we take capability holidays, and how those create long and lasting impacts on our capabilities. That is why we are in the position that we are in now. Some of the capabilities that were mentioned in the opening speech are not there because we did not support the industries that were enabled to build them. A recovery of our industrial base is essential. Readiness is about availability, capability and sustainability. The greatest damage that has been done to our defence enterprise is in our ability to sustain a response. We must have an industry that is capable of building and sustaining the stocks necessary to counter mass.

On operations, we have circa 10,000 people deployed on 250 operations worldwide at the moment. The Defence Committee was told the other day that we have about 100,000 personnel fit to fight. For it to be sustainable—not using harmony guidelines, which are complex to work out—that is a force of 30,000 people who are committed today to operations. It is also not unreasonable to assume that an amount of our forces above that are in readiness, and they should also be at a ratio of 3:1 or greater, so something upwards of 30% of our fighting force is currently deployed sustainably.

I ask the Minister to foster an honest discussion within the Department about whether that is affordable and sustainable. We need our forces at home, or on European soil, training and getting ready for the coming fight. We cannot erode our defence enterprise by doing what may be considered profligate operations that do not contribute to our future security.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is making a very thought-provoking speech. In an increasingly volatile world where new global threats are constantly emerging, we must ensure that we are at the cutting edge of technology. That is why I was pleased to see recent progress on the new air defence laser, equipping RAF pilots with high tech to defeat missile threats. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that steps are taken to put us at the cutting edge of innovation to enhance our air and missile defence capabilities?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that eloquent and apposite intervention. I agree that to be able to respond and counter mass, we need technology. To align that with the point I was making, it is essential that we have people trained and ready to use that technology, which is why the size and mass of our deployments is critical. If we do not allow our forces to train and recover adequately, they will not be able to exercise and be ready to use those technologies as they come online.

I urge the Minister to address the points that I have made in this honest discussion, particularly about deployment. I also ask her to look at the disparity in some of the policies we are using when our forces are deployed—in particular, those that have an impact on weapons carriage hours. There is a significant disparity in the policies that we use to sustain our stocks, and an alignment with NATO and, certainly, the US would bring significant cost savings and reductions in the size requirements of our stockpiles. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) might be able to talk about that, based on his experience and understanding.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for securing this debate. I welcome the Government’s announcement last week about the removal of costly and antiquated systems. I am hopeful about the SDR, and I am very grateful that the Government value the service of our armed forces.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) on her excellent and evocative speech. I remember those sweeping coastlines and purple-topped moors; I used to fly over them in my RAF C-130. She will be an excellent advocate for her community and all those who come up behind her in the Jo Cox Foundation.

Our forces can defend our country effectively only if the bonds of trust between service people and leaders are strong. I welcome the Government’s action on our manifesto commitment to establish an armed forces commissioner and fix the complaints system, which has been broken for many years. Action is urgently needed. Confidence in the service complaints system remains low, despite the work that the Service Complaints Ombudsman has done. The ombudsman herself has concluded, every year for the last eight years, that the system does not operate in an efficient, effective or fair way. In what other area of public life would such sustained failure be allowed to persist?

Fundamental issues need to be addressed that go beyond performance standards on individual complaints. The biggest problem with the current system is that it individualises complaints and encourages mediation in each instance. In my experience, that can result in abusive or incompetent individuals remaining in place and perpetuating harm over many years, even though they have had many complaints against them. Surely we can learn the lessons from the Letby case, police disciplinary cases and similar cases of very public systemic failures over recent years. The commissioner needs to be empowered to seek out the bigger picture and the pattern behind individual complaints, and escalate them proportionately. As we know, often a small number of individuals wreak enormous damage on not only their many victims but the organisation as a whole because of the hostile and discriminatory environment that they create. Only systems that proactively identify patterns of behaviour and root out abusers will deliver a safer and fairer place for everyone in our forces community.

The commissioner’s work needs to form a normal part of service life. Service people rarely want to be seen as a whistleblower. Rightly or wrongly, many do not want to go outside the system, due to perceptions of letting the forces down, so we need to be clear that when someone communicates with the commissioner about their experiences, they are staying within the armed forces community, and acting in the best interests of all our armed forces. At the same time, we need people to have confidence that their communications will be secure, and that they will be protected from any possibility of reprisals. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about how the Government see such communications with the commissioner compared with whistleblowing in civilian life. It might be necessary to set out in the Bill the protections that are relevant to service complaints to clarify that.

Improving the complaints system will be effective only if we address the experiences of every part of our armed forces community, including women in our armed services, service personnel from ethnic minority backgrounds, non-UK passport holders, and LGBT+ service personnel. There is troubling evidence of differential treatment for service personnel from those backgrounds. It is vital that we address that in the interests of fairness, to ensure that our forces are more representative of the communities they serve and to address ongoing issues of recruitment and retention. The Bill presents an opportunity to effect change, so I would be grateful for anything that the Minister could set out about how he expects the commissioner to establish connections with those communities and work with them proactively to gain an understanding of what is required.

Equally, the commissioner needs to represent the wider armed forces community beyond regular service personnel. Service families are clearly critical to many of the commissioner’s functions, but I hope that it is made completely clear that the bereaved are equally deserving of our continued support, if they wish for it. The Royal British Legion has rightly pointed out the relevance of the Haythornthwaite review, and its central recommendation that there be a move towards a fluid spectrum of service, where people can move easily between regulars and the reserves. Working towards that will surely require action from the commissioner to ensure that the needs of reservists and recruits are being met.

I welcome the Government’s ongoing work to meet our manifesto commitment to put the armed forces covenant into law. I am mindful of the cross-departmental nature of many of the issues that affect service personnel—something that is rightly made explicit in the covenant. I wonder whether, as the Bill progresses, we should consider setting out the relationship between the commissioner and the Cabinet Office, to give a clear point of contact within Government and a way to easily escalate complaints that are impacted by cross-Government working. Surely it would be best to future-proof the Bill by ensuring that the commissioner’s structures fit with the covenant from the outset, although I accept that the Department’s thinking about the best legal form for the armed forces covenant may not yet be complete. Will the Minister set out any early thoughts on that?

Ultimately, the Bill represents very welcome action from the Government to give the people who keep us safe a more effective guarantee of safety and fair and decent treatment in return. It is equally welcome that we are learning from our European partners about the design of the institution, and placing emphasis on transparency and accountability to Parliament. My hope is that the Bill will form part of a wider shift in how the armed forces community works to deliver on the promise of defence as a truly rewarding career of service. If we can achieve that, our country will be safer for it.

Remembrance and Veterans

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)]

It is indeed 360 years since the formation of the Royal Marines and they are still going strong. I will refuse to take advice from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) on face cream but it was a privilege to take the salute just the other day from both the Commandant General Royal Marines and the Commandant of the US Marine Corps, which demonstrates the strong ties across the pond with the US between those Marine units.

I am grateful to Members for their thoughtful reflections on remembrance and the contributions of veterans to this country. We have heard moving contributions from Members reflecting on their personal experience of service, and as I am sure they would testify there is an unspoken oath of allegiance between service personnel. Indeed, it knows no bounds; it is the glue that holds the forces together, and that oath has always extended to the fallen on the battlefield and beyond. For serving personnel and veterans, remembrance is an enduring reflection of that oath, and on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day I will remember the individuals who have gone before us but also those I have stood next to who have been killed or wounded—after five tours of Afghanistan, one of Northern Ireland, and multiple of the Arabian gulf, eastern Europe and Africa, there have been many.

Importantly, we must remember those who will never see that smile again or see them laugh or hold them close once more. It is a time for them, and those that did not come home to see their children, their partners, or indeed their loved ones or their friends. It is our duty to remember them all.

But remembrance is not only about fallen comrades and veterans; it is a rare moment when the nation comes together, from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. And it is a reminder to everyone in every generation across the whole country that the freedoms we all enjoy—the freedoms of speech, of equality, of quality of life—were all hard fought for and hard-won. Freedom is not free, and it is something in the fractious world we live in today that individually or collectively we should not take for granted.

Those freedoms are forged from the sacrifice of the young men and women of the Army, Navy and our Air Force who stepped forward when the country needed them: the sacrifices of the few who are still owed so much by the many; the sacrifices on the high seas, in the air, on the beaches and the landing grounds and in the fields, and in the streets from world war one to Operation Overlord, where they secured a beachhead in Normandy that would free a continent from Nazi tyranny and usher in the rules-based international system; and the sacrifices of 80,000 British service personnel who fought in the forgotten war on the Korean peninsula to uphold the rights and freedoms enshrined in that rules-based international system. All are memorialised in stones outside the MOD, of which one says,

“A distant obligation honourably discharged.”

There were the sacrifices in the south Atlantic, on the open water, in the skies and on the windswept heaths, for the right of the Falkland Islanders to choose their own sovereign future. And the sacrifices of service personnel in desert fatigues who liberated Kuwait and fought in Iraq, and those in the operational areas whom I served alongside in the long troubles of Northern Ireland, the middle east, Africa, Afghanistan and eastern Europe who sacrificed so much to uphold the right to self-determination and give freedom and democracy a chance to take root. And the sacrifices we cannot talk about because we do not comment on certain issues.

It is thanks to all those who have served and sacrificed and whom we honour on Remembrance Day that we can sit here, as democratically elected MPs, and debate the future of this wonderful country. Few, if any, outside the armed forces sign a contract that puts their life on the line and those who have served or continue to serve often pay the price for that service, through the long-term mental or physical scars, the impact on families and on their children, or through the painful memories or indeed the longing for the camaraderie and service they left behind. It is my opinion that those who serve through one way or another serve until the day they die. That is why this Government of service are committed to standing with members of our armed forces and their families long after they leave the services.

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

Syd Little was part of the team which delivered life-saving supplies to Mount Sinjar on 9 August 2014, in the operation now known as Operation Shader. Flight Sergeant Little lost his life this weekend to cancer. Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that service people face some of their greatest challenges on their exit from service and that the veterans strategy is essential to ensuring that those challenges are not equal to those they faced while serving?

Ukraine

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I will indeed. At no point during the two days of NATO Defence Ministers’ talks was there any indication of the sort of views that the right hon. Gentleman suggests that some in America may hold, or that President Macron might have previously expressed. Indeed, in the good bilateral meeting that I had with the French Minister for the Armed Forces, Sébastien Lecornu, it was clear that the French commitment to supporting Ukraine is as strong as the UK’s. I am glad to say that the determination of the French to work more closely with us on security and defence is equally strong.

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

I welcome the statement and the announcement of further funding. To ensure that we sustain the pace with which we are providing aid to Ukraine, and that we energise our own logistical enterprise, what action is my right hon. Friend taking to boost UK defence industrial production to support the Ukrainian armed forces and defence supply chains throughout the UK?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend knows this territory as well as anybody else in the House. He will know that over the 973 days the UK Government have changed fundamentally the way in which we go about procuring what is required. British industry has responded magnificently to that. It has been able to respond more quickly, innovate more rapidly and devise what it can produce to meet the needs that Ukraine says it has on the frontline. The UK Government’s task is to be the middle man to ensure that that can happen at greater volume and speed. We will continue to do that.

Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is trying to get to with his question. It is difficult for me to comment on special forces, for reasons that he will appreciate. I am also really keen to see the output of the Afghanistan inquiry and to understand what lessons Lord Haddon-Cave can identify from that. That might be the moment when that conversation is more appropriate, but it is not one that I can have now.

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

I praise my hon. Friend for his pursuit of justice with regard to the Triples, and not only in opposition but since he has entered power. On lessons learned, one of the tenets behind a number of the Bills that the Government have pursued—in relation to the Hillsborough inquiry, for example—is a duty of candour. Might that be considered as part of the Afghanistan inquiry as a whole?

[Luke Pollard]

The Government certainly intend to bring forward the Hillsborough Bill, which I hope will enjoy cross-party support, particularly in relation to a duty of candour. What we have discovered with the Triples review—I await the final report—is more a failure to organise and record properly, rather than a deliberate attempt to disrupt and not share information. It is that essential plumbing that failed, but also the grip and leadership of the programme, and we need to learn from this to ensure that it never happens again and that all those people who had an eligible case get the support and sanctuary that they need.