Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.

On 22 May, the Prime Minister signed a landmark treaty with the Republic of Mauritius that guarantees the continued UK operational control of Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Luke Pollard]

So soon!

[Mr Bailey]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent appointment. It is important, right at the outset, that we understand that there has been almost no change in position. I refer him to the comments of the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) in 2023, when he stated that his

“primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 151.]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that that has not changed?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that the hon. Member also wants to make a speech. I would not like him to use up his whole speech in an intervention in the first 10 seconds of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

rose—

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

rose—

[Luke Pollard]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman and then to my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I will return to the Green Book in a moment, but will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). I am trying to be fair to everyone.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the Minister place that £101 million in context? Perhaps the US or other nations have entered into such agreements. Will he make reference to the value for money that we received for the deal?

[Luke Pollard]

The deal represents broadly 0.2% of the defence budget. The total deal represents less than the cost of the unusable personal protective equipment acquired by the previous Government and burnt during the first year of the pandemic. A helpful comparator useful for the House to know about is the French base in Djibouti. Recently, France agreed a deal with Djibouti worth €85 million per year to rent a base. Diego Garcia is a larger—15 times larger—more capable and more strategically located military asset and, importantly, it is not next to the Chinese naval base that sits next to the French one in Djibouti. As a comparison, that is useful for people to understand in terms of present value.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie]

rose—

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

rose—

[Priti Patel]

I will return to that point in a minute.

On top of what else is wrong with this surrender deal, it is a fundamental betrayal of the British Chagossian community, whose rights have been ignored and neglected. I pay tribute to them. They have joined us today in the Gallery. If I remember rightly, this is the fifth or sixth time they have joined us to show how strongly they feel about the deal.

The deal undermines the defence and security interests of this country, and it brings a risk of the destruction of the unique marine environment and a failure to protect the future of the marine protected area. From refusing to grant this House a meaningful debate and vote on the treaty when it came, to the scenes in the Mauritius National Assembly—I hope Labour MPs watched the debates in the Assembly, where the Prime Minister was gloating about how easy it was to secure concession after concession from the Labour Government—and the deceit, misinformation and gaslighting of the British people through to the £35 billion cost to hard-working British taxpayers, which will be used to fund tax cuts in Mauritius.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I met our Five Eyes partners at the weekend and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they are not paying for this deal and they are not gloating about it. They see it very much as a failure of this Government. He can go and justify that to his constituents.

I congratulate the Minister on his new post and his promotion, and I welcome him to this wider discussion. He has tried his best to sell the surrender deal to the House, but the choices made by his Prime Minister, the former Foreign Secretary who is no longer in post, the Attorney General and Labour Ministers will leave Britain weaker and poorer, humiliated into giving away the sovereignty of our British territory and paying a fortune, £35 billion, to lease back a base—the point has been made a number of times—that we already own. While Labour has spent months trying to hide the details of its Chagos surrender deal and the scale of the financial cover up, it has been the Conservatives holding Labour to account constantly, exposing its shameful decision.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I come back to the right hon. Lady’s point about security. I must have misread our colleagues in the US Department of Defence when they told Defence Committee members, some of whom are sat behind her and heard the same words, that they did not understand her consternation about the deal—but let us assume that she has not put that in an incorrect way. If there was not a problem, will she please explain why her party started the negotiations?

[Priti Patel]

For the benefit of the House and everyone, to provide absolute clarity again, it was the Conservative Foreign Secretary who ended all discussions on this matter. I say it again: in all respect to Lord Cameron—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend has summed it up: the whole process is completely inadequate, with no transparency and no dispute resolution mechanisms. This is just too messy, given that we are talking about the defence and security of the country. Again, this is exactly why we should have been able to debate the treaty on the Floor of the House and give it the scrutiny that is required. Let us hope that the Prime Minister and his lefty lawyers are not involved in the dispute resolution mechanisms, because Britain will come out worst. As we know, when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.

At the press conference announcing the signing of the treaty, it was interesting to hear the Prime Minister almost gaslighting critics of the treaty by comparing them—that is, us—to China, Russia and Iran as he arrogantly declared his views and position. On 4 and 11 June in the House, he said that the treaty “has been opposed by our adversaries, Russia, China and Iran”. We know that 6,000 miles away, at the celebration party press conference in Mauritius, China was singled out by the Mauritian Government for praise. According to the press release, Deputy Prime Minister Paul Bérenger noted that China’s

“unwavering support played a critical role in the international recognition of Mauritian sovereignty.”

A few days later, the Chinese ambassador issued Mauritius with “massive congratulations” on securing the surrender of the Chagos islands. This summer, the Mauritian Government published a press release saying that the President expressed “gratitude” for China’s “unwavering support” for Mauritius’s sovereignty claim over the Chagos archipelago.

Iran has also been supportive of the Mauritian claim for the Chagos islands, with its ambassador saying earlier this year:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has always supported Mauritius’s position regarding the Chagos issue. So, Chagos belongs to the Mauritian people. We support its return and have made many efforts in the past toward that goal.”

As for Russia, when meeting Putin, the former Mauritian President Vyapoory stated:

“We appreciate the support of Russia in our claim for our sovereignty on Chagos.”

Ministers have been asked in parliamentary questions for the evidential basis of the Prime Minister’s claims about the apparent opposition of those three countries who threaten our interests, but they have not come forward with it. When the Minister responds, will he finally explain the grounds behind the Prime Minister’s malicious, almost spurious, remarks, or apologise for those claims? All the evidence shows that, far from opposing the surrender treaty, our enemies actually back it, which means that Britain is weaker.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will not. I know that the hon. Gentleman will speak later.

I turn to the British Chagossians. As well as undermining our security and defence interests and ripping off British taxpayers, Labour has betrayed the British Chagossians. Members on both sides of the House have recognised and acknowledged that the Chagossian community has faced injustice and hardship. Their removal from the Chagos islands is a source of great and profound regret. I pay tribute to the Chagossian community in Britain for their campaigning, and to Henry Smith, our former colleague as Member of Parliament for Crawley, who kept pursuing and raising the issue, and who fought in the House for their rights. As a result, we gave the community new rights in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which Labour voted against. I hope that the Minister can give assurances that those rights will not be undermined by the citizenship measures in clause 4 of the Bill. Because of that past, it is so important that any decisions made about the future of the Chagos islands are made with the community in mind, and that their needs are fully respected.

Ten years ago, when the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), was the Opposition’s spokesman, he said:

“The people of Chagos must be at the heart of decisions about their future…the UK Government have a fundamental moral responsibility towards the islanders that will not go away.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2015; Vol. 601, c. 192WH.]

But this treaty fails them. I have met the community many times and heard their concerns and frustrations; I think everyone in the House will acknowledge their frustrations. They feel that they have been ignored throughout the process, and that the treaty has no guarantees for them. There is a £40 million Chagossian trust fund that UK taxpayers will capitalise, but the UK and the British Chagossians will have no control or say over how it will be used or controlled by the Government of Mauritius. I highlight that point because the Chagossians feel strongly—they fundamentally know—that they cannot trust the Government of Mauritius. The Bill and the treaty make no provision for the British Chagossians to benefit from the trust fund, or be involved in its governance; nor are they guaranteed any right to visit the Chagos islands. Those decisions will be controlled by Mauritius once sovereignty is surrendered.

Hon. Members across the House who have spoken up for British Chagossians know of their fears. It is right that I amplify those fears, or at least raise them in the House, because their voices have not been heard. Now is the time for them to be counted, for their voices to be heard, and, importantly, for their rights to be defended.

Another damning indictment of the Bill and the treaty is the way in which they fail to safeguard the 640,000 sq km marine protected area. Its unique biodiversity enables important marine research to be conducted. In just the last few weeks, a study that included researchers from Exeter and Heriot-Watt universities and the Zoological Society of London was published. It noted:

“Our results provide clear evidence for the value of the Chagos Archipelago VLMPA for protecting a diverse range of large and mobile marine species.”

Yet all we have heard thus far from the Government is warm words about intentions to continue with an MPA. No details have been published.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is willing to give explanations, will he please explain why his party chose to start the engagement but has at no point explained the rationale for doing so?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I promise that I will come to that, but I wish to deal in a logical order with what Ministers have themselves said to justify their actions.

On 5 February, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office answered another urgent question. In answer to my plea to give us more clarity on exactly what legal basis the Government were acting on, he said:

“We currently have unrestricted and sole access to the electromagnetic spectrum, which is used to communicate with satellites and which is guaranteed and governed by the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations body based in Geneva. If we lose it we can still communicate, but so can others.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 760.]

I understand the point that he was making, but he did not explain how that issue might lead to a binding court ruling against the UK, and he did not even take a second opportunity to do so when asked about it again by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp)—those interested can find that answer in column 762.

Luckily, however, my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary called a debate on this subject in Opposition time on 26 February, which was answered by the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds).

She repeated:

“Without a negotiated solution with Mauritius, it would pursue its legal campaign…That would lead to an inevitable, legally binding judgment,”.

She was then interrupted, but went on to say that

“in that kind of situation”—

presumably that is the delivery of a binding judgment against the UK—

“we would unfortunately see international organisations following that determination, such as the International Telecommunication Union.” —[Official Report, 26 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 874.]

If we put all those ministerial utterances together, we are going round in circles.

The Government say that they have to act because of the inevitability of a binding court judgment against the UK. They mention the ICJ, but the ICJ cannot make a binding judgment against the UK on this. They hint at ITLOS cases, but those refer to ICJ decisions. The Government then say that they are worried about the actions of the International Telecommunication Union, but when pressed that seems to mean actions that would follow a binding court judgment. We are back to square one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

If I might just answer my hon. Friend before doing so. Admiral Lord West has immense experience and knowledge. If the Defence Committee should decide to look at this, it might well ask him to give evidence on the basis of his considerable experience in the area.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the right hon. Member explain how UNCLOS enables intelligence activity, and then perhaps why we have represented the views that we have on the basis of our experience and understanding?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I will come on to UNCLOS. As the hon. Member knows, it is an organisation that has expressed a view, but not one that is binding on the United Kingdom. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the former Attorney General, set out very clearly the various international opinions that have been expressed but which are not binding or mandatory for the United Kingdom to follow. That is critical to this debate.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the right hon. Member please explain, then, what the limits of UNCLOS are on the sovereign space—sea, land and air—around Diego Garcia, as they stand and as they are extended in the agreement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

It could have been any Sir Keir —there are so many of them. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This Government have decided that instead of fighting for Britain’s interests, all they will do is turn around and capitulate.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will not. The problem is that this case is not just about these islands, or the issues we are debating today; it is about the way in which Governments approach these debates.

Just in case we are in any doubt about the changed nature of the use of law against us, it is worth looking at the timeline of these events—which is completely coincidental. We know, because colleagues have mentioned it, that in the 1960s a deal was done, a payment was made, Mauritius accepted it and we moved on. Just after the Falklands war, a legal action was begun, using Mauritius and extending a claim. Just after the Falklands war, the KGB started to fund the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. By the way, it is not me saying this—it is in the Mitrokhin archive; it is all public. Just after the Falklands war, when the Soviets realised that they did not have the military power to defeat NATO, they started experimenting with lawfare, and we have seen them do it again and again. If Members would like to read reports on this issue, Policy Exchange very kindly published a report by me in 2013, and another one in 2015—“Fog of Law” and “Clearing the Fog of Law”, for those who have trouble sleeping.

Since then, we have seen lawfare grow. We have seen states using the power of lawyers against the interests of the British people time and again, and the trouble with the capitulation we are seeing today is that it is not just about Diego Garcia, these islands or this interest; it is about the question of whether or not this Government will stand up for the British people, and for our security and our interests. Let me sketch out a hypothetical situation for you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is possible, although I hope it is not necessary, that British troops will be asked to do some peacekeeping in somewhere like Ukraine. It is possible that they will have to leave at a moment’s notice with the equipment they have, without the ability to re-equip—simply to go with the best that they have. It is possible that countries like Russia will object.

We know, because we have seen it happen in the late 1990s and all the way through the 2010s and 2020s, that the Russian Government and others have encouraged legal action against our armed forces. To be honest, Governments have been poor on this issue since 1999—Labour Governments initially, and then Conservative Governments—so it was very welcome that Lord Cameron stopped this, recognising that a different position could be taken. Sadly, this Bill reverses that position. It reverses the presumption that our Government, the British Government, will represent the legal interests of the British people and fight these cases. Instead, they will capitulate. The problem is that capitulation is what got us into this problem in the first place. We can look at the Bici case in Kosovo in the late 1990s, where we settled rather than fought, or at cases in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we settled rather than debated—rather than going to court and seeking a judgment. Those cases created precedents, and I am afraid that this Government are creating another precedent.

I know that the Minister will say that the Governments of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, and many other places have correctly said that this case has no connection to them. I am delighted that they have said so, and they are right, but they are sadly mistaken in thinking that that means nobody will test that point.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I rise today not to upset a Speaker or Deputy Speaker—let us see how this goes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Let us succeed.

[Mr Bailey]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am proud to speak in favour of the Bill. I do so as a proud former member of our armed forces, having devoted 24 years of my life in uniform to the safety and security of this nation, particularly in intelligence gathering, where UNCLOS is a tool of the trade. That experience shapes my view of the Bill. I find it rich to hear lectures on national security or faux patriotism from the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), whose party spent 14 years hollowing out our armed forces.

The Bill exemplifies the forward-looking, effective and patriotic approach that this Government have taken to our security and our place in the world. It is a major achievement to be implementing an agreement that will ensure that our base on Diego Garcia can operate securely in conjunction with our allies—notably the US—until at least 2124.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Not yet.

Allied naval, aviation and communications assets will be able to protect UK interests across a vast area of the western Indian ocean and beyond throughout the next century, no matter the change, turmoil or insecurity that the coming decades may bring.

The agreement provides the UK and our allies with the freedom of action necessary to guarantee the security of the base. This is detailed in a great many ways by the treaty, but I will highlight just three. First, we will have joint control over the electromagnetic spectrum communications and electronic systems. Secondly, we will have joint control over whether any security forces—military or civilian—will be permitted, except for our own and those of the United States and Mauritius. Finally, we will have joint control over any land development and any construction of sensors, structures or installations at sea. These are very broad and flexible rights; they apply not just to Diego Garcia, the 12-mile boundary within which territorial sovereignty extends or the 24-mile boundary surrounding it, but to the entire Chagos archipelago of 247,000 square miles.

What the Opposition have missed is that it is not what UNCLOS precludes but what it allows that is the threat. When it comes to the activities of third parties, control will be joint between the UK and Mauritius. This joint control will give us the ability to veto decisions if, after engaging fully with our Mauritian partners through the joint commission, we are ultimately unsatisfied about the security risks in a way that we cannot now. Within 12 miles of Diego Garcia, our control will be unrestricted, not joint; the same will apply to our rights, and those of US forces, to access Diego Garcia by air and sea. This will deliver the control that our armed forces need to keep the base secure over the decades to come.

In achieving the agreement, we have bolstered our relationships with key allies and partners, including India, as I will come to later, but first and foremost with the United States. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) has left the Chamber, because I have some questions for him.

We need to be clear about the games that Opposition parties have been playing over this issue. Reform and the Conservatives have attempted to undermine this agreement at every stage, damaging UK interests and trying to drive a wedge between the UK and our allies. We saw the same approach from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in his anti-UK PR campaign on Capitol Hill last week, and I note that I can see none of the Reform party present.

As I have told this House from personal and professional experience, the United States military and its allies value written agreements and long-term guarantees. Our allies rely on the same kind of lease agreements to underwrite their own bases, so they see that this model can stand the test of time despite huge geopolitical shifts, and all of us can see that too.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge said that we should save the base for our unilateral action, but he did not once explain how we would pay for operating and maintaining a base unilaterally. Instead of recognising the benefit of these negotiations, as a way to bolster our cross-Atlantic alliances and increase the value of our contribution to Indo-Pacific security, the Conservatives have repeatedly tried to undermine the process that they themselves started. Thankfully, they have failed. Our international partners have welcomed this agreement, and it now falls to us to ensure that the necessary changes are made in law so that the treaty can come into force and we do not let down our allies.

By far the strongest international advocate for this treaty is India. India is, as we know, an utterly indispensable partner in ensuring that the region remains free and open for navigation and UK trade. India is already a geopolitical force to be reckoned with, and her power and importance as a balancer preventing Chinese domination will only grow over the decades to come. The continuation of the UK and US forces on Diego Garcia, while resolving the question of sovereignty, aligns our strategic interest more strongly with India’s and helps to counter anti-UK rhetoric from the likes of Russia, which can still have influence by playing on the legacy of the anti-colonial struggle. The Conservatives conceded that by starting negotiations about sovereignty. I have asked them all repeatedly about that, and not one of you—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. You were so close to succeeding. Let us try to get the language right.

[Mr Bailey]

I did not receive a single response from any of them, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I have mentioned colonial history, which is going to get some Conservative Members very excited and make them want to use patriotic-sounding rhetoric about the concept of sovereignty, which, as I have just explained, they do not themselves understand. I will take the issue head on. The simple fact is that despite its name, the British Indian Ocean Territory has never been British in the way that Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands are. It has never had a resident population who were British and said with one voice that they wanted to remain so. Perhaps the Chagos islanders could have had such a population if history had gone differently, but they were robbed of that opportunity when the territory was created.

I welcome the apology from the Minister earlier, and I was grateful to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) speak so powerfully about this matter. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response shortly. Sadly, we cannot turn back the clock. What we can do is what we are doing: giving the Chagos islanders a pathway to permanent citizenship and integration here if they choose it, while supporting resettlement options within the agreement reached with Mauritius.

The absurdity of making a big song and dance about sovereignty is reflected in one simple fact. As the explanatory notes to the Bill point out, the UK has always committed to returning the islands to Mauritian sovereignty when they were

“no longer needed for defence purposes.”

That was part and parcel of the decisions made when the British Indian Ocean Territory was created. All that is happening through the treaty and the Bill is the creation of a more secure and durable solution that safeguards those defence purposes; and we are making good on our promise that the UK’s sovereignty would be continued only temporarily, not forever.

When the flag of the British Indian Ocean Territory—the flag of a tarnished endeavour—is lowered on Diego Garcia, the Union flag will be raised in its place: the flag of a modern, forward-looking nation of which Government Members are proud. By passing the Bill, we will not only address the growing vulnerability of a vital military asset, but entrench our alliances and our position in the Indo-Pacific, furthering Britain’s interests across the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

When we came into Government, the covenant covered three different Departments. We have made a pledge to armed forces service personnel, those who have served, their families and, indeed, those who have been bereaved that we will open that covenant—that duty—to 14 different Departments. Over time, that commitment will result in a step change in the Government’s relationship with those who have served, and it is a commitment that we will deliver.

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

More than 200 service families lost loved ones during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister set out how the forthcoming legislation will enable closure for those families, who have had their wounds continually reopened for too long?

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his question. It is not lost on me that during the troubles there were major explosions in key cities all over the country. From Brighton to Brimingham, individuals from both sides of the House had to take the precaution of checking under their beds and their cars, and ensuring that the lights were on before they went into certain rooms, because the chance of close-quarter assassination by terrorists was ever present. Some service personnel who were deployed to secure the peace paid the ultimate sacrifice and 200 families lost loved ones. That means that mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters had the truth denied to them as soon as the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 came into place. As a service person, I would always want my family to know what happened to me if I were to be killed in a conflict. Repealing and replacing the legacy Act will enable that, but we must ensure that the process does not come with punishment for veterans. We will ensure that protections are in place to allow us to get to the truth, and to ensure that no one can rewrite history or make veterans suffer any more.

Oral Answers to Questions

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I had one of the best days in this job so far with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) in his home town of Cleethorpes—they were there together. Behind the event was Alex Baxter, the absolutely formidable figure who organised the armed forces major events team that staged the Cleethorpes Armed Forces Day. Some 300,000 people were expected over the weekend. It was a great boost to our armed forces, to veterans and to the people of Cleethorpes.

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

Cadets are a wonderful source of social mobility in our country, and played a key role in last weekend’s Armed Forces Day celebrations. I want to recognise my brilliant local air cadets: 12F Walthamstow and Leyton squadron, and 241 Wanstead and Woodford squadron. Will the Minister set out the Government’s approach to increasing the size of cadet forces in communities like mine so that everyone can benefit from the opportunities that cadets have to offer?

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for all his support for cadet forces and the armed forces. It would be remiss of me not to say that cadet forces provide an excellent social mobility platform for young children across the country by giving them hope, priorities and principles, and pushing them to be determined. This Government have committed to raising the cadet force by 30%, and to giving more children across the country better opportunities.

Armed Forces Day

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I would. I may go on to develop this point, but that role creates for members of the Royal Military Police a unique duty and a serious responsibility that puts them in a slightly different position from their comrades, which must be quite difficult. That is why I wanted to highlight the role of the RMP.

Members of the RMP can also find themselves in incredibly dangerous situations. A friend of mine, who is a member of the RMP reserves, highlighted to me the role of Royal Military Police officers during the second world war and in other conflicts in managing traffic points. Those fixed grid reference points are vital in managing the traffic flow of equipment and personnel appropriately for our logistics, but they also mean that RMP personnel are easy to target by artillery and aircraft. They carry out that role with great bravery; I commend them for that.

As I have mentioned, policing puts individuals in a difficult and unique position. That is also true for the civilian police force, but I think there is a particular additional burden on members of the Royal Military Police in how they discharge their duty. I was struck by the story of Royal Military Police veteran Kate Green, which she told 20 years after the lifting of the LGBT military ban. When she served in the Royal Military Police, the thing that she feared most was being asked to investigate those suspected of hiding their sexuality from the Army. If an LGBT serviceperson admitted their sexuality, they were out and that was the end of their military career. Eventually, Kate decided that she could not continue with her service anymore and that she did not want to continue to live a lie herself, so she handed in her one-year notice. The LGBT ban was lifted on 12 January 2000, just a short time after her career ended. Kate now works with the Royal British Legion and maintains a strong connection with the Army, despite no longer serving. This is an opportunity for us all to welcome the lifting of the LGBT ban and to recognise the service of LGBT veterans.

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

Nearly 30 years ago, when I was at the University of Exeter, I argued vociferously to make sure that our armed forces were allowed to recruit from our campus and that they got people like us into the military, so that we could create a military that was receptive and reflective of our society, so that people from LGBTQ+ communities could serve alongside us, without any impediment. Does my hon. Friend agree that inclusion comes from being part of an institution and helps to change it from within, and that it is necessary that we do not put in place impediments to armed forces recruitment on campuses today?

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his service and his continued advocacy in this place for the armed forces. He spoke powerfully, and I agree with him. It is no small task to change the culture in an organisation; it starts and ends with leadership, so we must thank the leaders in our armed forces, who have done exactly as he said.

I will share the story of Rachel Webster. She is a Royal Military Police veteran from the north-east, and she is another example of how it is possible to break down barriers and overcome some really quite entrenched stereotypes. Rachel chose engineering over cookery when she was at school—that was her interest—but she was told that she would not be able to weld because she was a girl. I do not know if any hon. Members have ever had a go at welding, but I have; I am a boy, and I am terrible at it.

Rachel was unable to pursue welding at school, but, like me, she left school and joined British Steel. It was better at teaching her welding than it was at teaching me, because she took a four-year apprenticeship programme and learned how to weld. But her ambition was to enter the armed forces; she wished to join the Royal Engineers, where many of her compatriots on the British Steel apprentice scheme went, but when she applied she was told that women could not be in the Royal Engineers at that time.

Undeterred, Rachel joined the Royal Military Police in 1989. She trained with the Women’s Royal Army Corps, and then with the RMP, and she was deployed to Germany. Her career took her across the world, from Northern Ireland during the troubles to Afghanistan in 2001, but one of her proudest moments came in Iraq in 2003. She was helping to build a girls’ school and impressed the local men, who did not realise it was possible for women to weld—so she was able to use her welding skills on behalf of the Army.

Both Rachel and Kate have really powerful stories. They show us that courage does not know any gender or sexuality, and I hope that their stories will inspire my constituents in Stockton, Billingham and Norton and people across the country. Let me take this moment to very much thank all our armed forces—particularly the Royal Military Police and its reservists in my constituency, across the north-east and across the country—for their valuable service to our nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

It is a great privilege to speak today to mark Armed Forces Day 2025—a moment for our country to show its deep and enduring gratitude to all the men and women who serve and have served in our armed forces. Their service underpins our national security, our values and our way of life. Whether it is on the frontline or behind the scenes, at home or abroad, those individuals commit themselves fully to something far greater than themselves, and they do so not for recognition but out of duty.

Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Mansfield, I have had the opportunity to meet veterans, serving personnel and their families. I have seen at first hand the strength of character, discipline and resilience that military life builds. It is clear that those who serve bring with them skills that enrich every part of our society once they return to civilian life, but we must be honest about the reality that many of them face after service.

By its very nature, military life is unique. It often means frequent moves, long separations from family and sudden transitions. Although the vast majority of veterans make successful moves into civilian life, there are still far too many who encounter disadvantage, whether in housing, employment, access to healthcare or mental health services and so forth.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I served for 25 years. At times—for almost 10 years at a stretch—I had month-on, month-off deployments, where I was away from my family. During this Armed Forces Week, we must remember, give praise to and celebrate our armed forces families, who, as my hon. Friend describes, suffer unseen pressure and burden.

[Steve Yemm]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Certainly, when I speak to the families of serving personnel in Mansfield, that subject is always very close to the top of the conversation. It is very important to recognise those issues, and it is for those reasons that it is so important that we recognise the armed forces covenant—our collective promise across government, society and public services that those who serve should not be disadvantaged by virtue of their service. That is not just a principle; it is important that it be recognised in law, but the covenant can be effective only if those in positions of responsibility understand it and implement it properly.

That is why, earlier this month on 4 June, I was proud to host the first ever all-party parliamentary reception for the armed forces covenant here in Parliament. That event was held in partnership with the Royal British Legion and the Ministry of Defence’s covenant team, who do outstanding work to support veterans and promote awareness. I formally put on record in this House my thanks to the Royal British Legion, and to the Minister for Veterans and People for his attendance at that event. Its aim was really simple: to help Members of the House and their staff members better understand how the covenant operates and the support it provides, and how we can use it to serve our constituents more effectively. I found it very encouraging to see Members from across the House and across the political spectrum in attendance, absolutely united in their belief that no one who serves this country should face barriers when their service comes to an end.

Armed Forces Day and Armed Forces Week are not just about parades and flag-raising, important though those things are; they are really about recognising and reaffirming our commitment to the people who defend our freedom day after day. As we rightly thank our armed forces today, let us recommit ourselves in this House to ensuring that their support is matched by our support, that their sacrifice is never met with silence, and that their families are never left behind. Let us move forward on this day, not just with gratitude but with purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

It is with immense pride that I rise today in Armed Forces Week, particularly as the national celebrations are returning to Cleethorpes this weekend. That will be a moment of real honour for our community in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, nearly 10 years after the last time we hosted such an event, in 2016—and my, hasn’t a lot happened in those years? To have it return under a Labour Government is an incredibly proud moment.

My constituency may not have garrison towns such as those that my colleagues represent, but our ties to the military run deep and proud. From American GIs camped in Grimsby’s People’s park during the second world war, to the brave men and women who gave everything to their country to support the war effort— including our towns’ fishermen, as well as my great-grandma May and my great aunt Kathleen, who both took roles as wartime wardens in their village of Healing—our towns have long stood shoulder to shoulder with our armed forces.

Those connections continue today, with the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment, a reserve battalion, operating out of Westward Ho in Grimsby, and training and serving with distinction across our area and further afield. Their commitment really does reflect the values that define our area: resilience, solidarity and service. Every Remembrance Sunday, they open their doors to the whole of the local community in order to provide refreshments to the young cadets—the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) just mentioned cadets—who will be out parading this Sunday.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

We must be very proud of our cadets. I was a cadet myself, and it kept me on the straight and narrow and out of trouble. In my constituency I have two amazing squadrons: 12F, based in Waltham Forest and Leyton; and 241, the best air cadet squadron in the country. Behind them is a corps of volunteers who really do not get the recognition they deserve, and it is really important that we recognise the people who prop up these organisations in our community. Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising their service and commitment?

[Melanie Onn]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Members have said today that we will not have a future pipeline of young people who want to participate in the armed forces, who already have the training and the discipline, and who understand the lifestyle if we do not have the adults who are prepared to give up their time to support that. It is incredibly time-consuming and takes them away from their families, and it really does show a commitment not only to young people, but to their communities and the armed forces more widely.

Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

On the in-service date, as the Secretary of State said this morning, we are hopeful that the aircraft will start delivering before the end of the decade. On the tranche being ordered that will now include 12 F-35As, yes, we will still be ordering the remaining F-35Bs, so there will be 15 extra F-35Bs in the next tranche. On refuelling, this is a NATO mission, and NATO will of course be able to do the air-to-air refuelling. It is quite normal for different allies to contribute their different capabilities, whether nuclear capable or conventional, to NATO’s nuclear mission.

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

I welcome the announcement and, on behalf of the Defence Committee, I welcome the additional detail that has been added to the SDR. It is imperative that we recognise and close some of the gaps in our national defence, including the size and shape of our combat air force, and this announcement does part of that. But 14 years of under-investment mean that some of the choices about basing and complementary capabilities will bring some challenges; will the Minister provide additional detail on how some of them may be addressed?

[Maria Eagle]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend is supportive of the announcement. As the House is aware, this Government have increased our defence spending by more than at any time since the end of the cold war. The increase is fully funded, unlike some of the fantasy plans of the previous Government.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Yesterday’s strategic defence review rightly put our brave service personnel at the heart of defence plans, and this Bill is a fundamental part of renewing the nation’s contract with our armed forces. It was an honour to serve on the Public Bill Committee, and I am pleased to see the amendments made in the other place, which improve the Bill. However, I support Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 3.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 would introduce a new general function for the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and relevant family members, but the House will know that the commissioner can already investigate any general service matters that they choose, and the Bill already allows anyone who wishes to raise such issues to do so. While the Lords amendments have been important in raising issues around anonymity for whistleblowers, Government amendment (a) would go further by ensuring genuine protection for people who raise an issue that later features in an investigation and report by the commissioner.

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

I rise to speak to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 3. We have seen time and again how important it is to allow our service personnel to speak up in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our armed forces and the success of critical missions. The 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash, the 2005 loss of the C-130 Hilton 22, and the 2006 loss of Nimrod XV230 serve as stark reminders of what happens when concerns are not openly reported. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to maintaining anonymity by ensuring that no identifying information, or information that could lead to identification, is included without the explicit consent of service members. I also welcome the Government’s assurance that they will update the MOD’s “raising a concern” policy to reflect civilian protections and ensure that all individuals who come forward can do so with guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that referencing such awful disasters really brings into focus the lack of public awareness of the lack of support for our armed forces in previous years, and that this landmark Labour Bill will transform the culture in our forces in a positive way and is long overdue?

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. This Bill marks a culture change in how the Government go about interacting with our armed forces, and provides them with a sense of pride but also the necessary process to ensure that their service is protected and treated with dignity and respect.

Ultimately, whether it is reporting on ongoing cultural issues of bullying and sexual harassment, poor quality housing or equipment safety concerns, every service member should feel empowered to do so and feel assured that they can and should speak up. We have seen how the armed forces ombudsman has consistently been unable to ensure that the service complaints system does not disadvantage or discriminate. Such findings raise serious concerns, highlighting the critical need for the new and empowered Armed Forces Commissioner to regain the trust of service members. Building that trust is more important than simply enacting new legislation; it is essential that service members feel confident that their complaints will be handled anonymously and fairly.

Ultimately, fostering a culture of trust in the armed forces must take precedence over the specific language of the legislation. It is the practical implementation by the chain of command, and commitment to the fair treatment of all, that will truly make a difference. I recognise that this Government are committed to renewing our country’s contract with those who serve, and the introduction of an Armed Forces Commissioner is an important step. The success of the Armed Forces Commissioner largely depends on the effective implementation of this Bill, and on the willingness of the chain of command to work with the commissioner. However, the Government must ensure that the service complaints system tackles the deep-rooted systemic issues that persist in the armed forces, recognising that the establishment of the Armed Forces Commissioner is only one part of much-needed broader reform—not that Reform—

[Mr Francois]

They are not here!

[Mr Bailey]

Indeed they are not.

We need to restore trust and deliver meaningful change for all of those who serve.

Strategic Defence Review

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I reject that characterisation completely. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the SDR is going in the right direction; it certainly is. He will recognise that it is a complete break from what the Government of whom he was a leading member, less than year ago, presided over—14 years of hollowing out and underfunding our armed forces. It was defence with no vision for the future, and it has ended now. This is a plan to use the very best innovative technology to reinforce the strength of our armed forces and the traditional hardware that we have. The SDR will deliver that vision, and we will deliver it.

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

This SDR underpins the reason that I left the Royal Air Force: to be part of a Government who take their commitment to defence and security seriously and will bring about the end of the hollowing-out of our armed forces that took place under the last Government. The measures taken within this SDR reverse fundamental and damaging delays caused by the previous Government within our defence programmes, supports our personnel and provides a clear and credible path to meeting the challenges presented to us by Russia. But as General Barrons has said, the greatest threat to this SDR is in its delivery, so can my right hon. Friend provide us with an understanding of what measures are being put in place to ensure that we deliver the SDR and the defence proposition that underwrites our defence, our security and our prosperity?

[John Healey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the contribution he makes to debates in this House and to the determination of the Labour Government to deliver this SDR. I said in my opening remarks that there cannot be investment without reform, and from day one reform was a top priority for me as Defence Secretary. It does not bring photo opportunities and front pages, but it potentially brings the results that we need in the future. We have set up a military strategic headquarters; we have the Chief of the Defence Staff now commanding the chiefs for the first time; we have a new national armaments director; we have a single investment budget; and we now have budgetary control that was not there before. These reforms are in place, and we will drive further reforms that the SDR reinforces and endorses. This is how we will give ourselves the best chance to deliver the vision set out by the reviewers so ably in the strategic defence review report.

UK Nuclear Deterrent

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

This Government have a “NATO first” defence policy, so it is vital that we support and are enabled by our allies, especially those in NATO, and we will continue to do that. The strategic defence review may set out words in that regard. I do not want to get ahead of the Defence Secretary’s statement, so I will not give the full details here.

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

There is a consensus in this place about the importance of an independent nuclear deterrent to keep us safe, but there is far less understanding about the need and use of tactical nuclear weapons. Does the Minister agree that we need to foster a much better understanding of how the logic of deterrence works, and how it can be and is being undermined by countries like Russia? Only then can we explain why our nuclear deterrence needs to change to remain effective in protecting us.

[Luke Pollard]

A fundamental part of the conversations about the strategic defence review that Lord Robertson and the review team have been having since the Labour Government came to power is how we reinforce the concept of deterrence, and why the concept of deterrence is so important to our security. Our armed forces—some of the best in the world—have capabilities that should deter any aggression, and we will be further enhancing that through the measures set out in the strategic defence review, as the Defence Secretary will announce shortly. We want to deter aggression but, if necessary, we need to have the capabilities to defeat it, and that is what the strategic defence review, which will be announced shortly, will detail to the House.

UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Well said. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that standing behind our armed forces and the ultimate professionalism that they display is a large cadre of civilian and military personnel who make operations successful and possible. He would be wrong to say that this is a sustained campaign. This is the first UK strike on Houthi positions since May last year, and Parliament will be kept informed in the event of any future military interventions like this.

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

Freedom of navigation in the Red sea and the gulf of Aden is essential to the global economic system, and anything that impinges on it impacts the global economy, increases the cost to the environment and impacts the poorest people in the world. It is for this reason that I am proud to be the former commander of the expeditionary air wing whose Typhoons and Voyagers were launched last night to carry out these strikes. Does the Defence Secretary agree that this action forms part of the joined-up international strategy to end the attacks and defend freedom of navigation?

[John Healey]

I do indeed. It is part of a longer-term programme to degrade the ability of the Houthis to hit international shipping, to defend and protect freedom of navigation, and to recognise that conflicts in the middle east have a big impact on business and prosperity in this country. The British Chambers of Commerce recently published a survey that said 50% of businesses in Britain report that they have now been impacted by conflicts in the middle east.

Oral Answers to Questions

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I have met a number of my equivalents bilaterally, but it is important to say that we welcome the ReArm initiative and that it is in all our interests for SAFE to allow member states to partner with the UK. We will continue to emphasise the need for EU defence financing and wider defence industrial initiatives to include third countries like the UK. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in answer to an earlier question, we want to conclude a UK-EU defence and security pact that will give us access to that scheme.

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

I thank the Minister for her response. Last week, the Defence Committee met the Chief of the General Staff, who highlighted the challenges of supporting our troops in Estonia. I highlighted the Rail Baltica project, which received significant funding from the EU’s Connecting Europe Facility and NATO, and which links my constituency, via High Speed 1, right through to the Baltics using British steel. Will the Minister meet me to discuss supporting the expansion of HS1 capacity, as it is the type of opportunity that would support growth within our defence industrial capacity, improve our deterrence and increase our commitment to our European allies, while bringing high quality jobs to east London?

[Maria Eagle]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I hope hon. Members from around the House are starting to realise, if I am asked for a meeting my general answer is yes. I am very happy to meet him.