Armed Forces Bill

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

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

[Al Carns]

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

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

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

[Al Carns]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

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

[Mr Francois]

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

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

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

[Mr Francois]

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

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

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

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

[Mr Francois]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

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

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

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

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

[Mr Bailey]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

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

[Mr Bailey]

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

[Mr Francois]

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

[Mr Bailey]

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

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

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He told me:

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

That was a year ago.

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

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

She went on to state:

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

In April, she informed me:

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

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

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

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

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

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

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

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

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

[Mr Francois]

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

[Mr Bailey]

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

[Mr Francois]

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

[Mr Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

No, the hon. Gentleman has had his go.

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

Middle East

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

We are working flat out to finalise the plan, but it has not held up important decisions that we have made. Since the election, we have been able to let over 1,200 major contracts, the majority of which are with British businesses and British firms, creating British jobs, reinforcing the innovation base in this country and demonstrating that defence under this Government is becoming an engine for growth.

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

The availability of Type 45s is a direct result of the severe defence cuts enacted by the Conservatives in 2010, so I am incredulous that they comment on their availability without giving an apology. However, while we recognise that perhaps there is not an Iranian missile capable of travelling the 2,000 km to the Chagos islands, will my right hon. Friend recognise that, were there to be one, that would show a worrying proliferation of technology from North Korea and Russia, and that shows we must continue to support Ukraine in its war against Russia?

[John Healey]

I do indeed. My hon. Friend speaks with the authority of his service experience and his service on the Defence Committee. He reminds the House, as I did at the end of my statement, that with all eyes on the middle east, we cannot lift our focus and deflect our priority from stepping up support for Ukraine, and, as the strategic Defence review encourages us to do, learning the lessons from Ukraine. He is right to remind the Conservative party that during its 14 years in office it cut the number of frigates and destroyers by a quarter, and the number of minehunters by more than a half, and in its first five years the defence budget was cut by fully £12 billion.

Middle East: Defence

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is a military man by experience. He will understand the nature of the requests that nations make of each other, the agreements that they put in place and how those work. Accessing, basing, overflights—that is exactly the request that we had when it was clear that the Iranian response to the first wave of attacks took us into a new phase. It was a request from the US that we allow US bombers to operate from Fairford and Diego Garcia for specific defensive purposes: to take out the Iranian missile positions. That is what they are doing.

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

It was a Conservative 2010 strategic defence and security review and subsequent basing review that took the Royal Navy’s repair facilities from three to one—an utterly reckless decision that was made worse considering that the Conservatives knew of the Type 45s’ power plant problems—creating an internal competition for the limited resource of the Royal Navy. Does the Secretary of State agree that it was reckless Tory risk taking that left the Royal Navy in this precarious situation—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Questions have to be shorter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The biggest security threat facing the United Kingdom is Russia. We are responding to that by deepening our alliances right across the NATO alliance, especially with our European friends, and we will continue to do so. We were not able to conclude the SAFE negotiations in a manner consistent with the objectives we set when we started that work, but we will continue to work with our European friends, because they are also our NATO allies. Their security is our security, and we take that very seriously.

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

Building European strategic autonomy is vital to deterring Putin from making further attacks on us, but that is completely undermined by attacks on NATO—the bedrock of our security—by the Green party. Does my hon. Friend agree that when our alliances are undermined for superficial political gain, the Green party is, in essence, doing the work of Putin?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right. In the space of one minute, the Green party leader veered from reforming NATO to pulling out of it altogether. The era of growing threat is far too serious for this kind of student-union, “make it up as you go along” politics. The only person cheering at the rank amateurism of the Green party leader is sat in the Kremlin. Labour is the party of NATO, and we will stand by our steadfast support for the alliances that keep us all safe every single day.

Armed Forces Bill

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

Wait a minute. That is why Labour is making in-year savings of £2.6 billion at the MOD and has a black hole of £28 billion—because the extra cash it is planning for defence is simply not enough.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) first.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman does not have to apologise for interrupting. He offered to intervene, and I accepted; that is how this place works, and his intervention was entirely fair. To be frank, yes, spending is increasing, but it is not increasing anything like enough in relation to how much costs are going up. When I first became shadow Secretary of State and was calling for 2.5%, I said that that would only stabilise things—I was very open about that. I did not say that it would lead to a much bigger force and all the other things we would like to see, but we can all see what has happened. President Trump has been very clear that he wants to see NATO members spending much more and much more rapidly. We all know what the reality is: the United States is going to be doing less, focusing on its priorities. We need to do more, which means much higher spending.

[Mr Bailey]

In the spirit of honesty and accepting past failures, the equipment plan that you presented this Government with had a gap in it of £7 billion to £29 billion in the MOD’s view, or £16 billion in the view of the National Audit Office. Do you accept that you handed over a hospital pass?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but when Putin invaded Ukraine, something pretty extraordinary happened: inflation went through the roof right around the world. The whole world was trying to buy defence equipment, and it still is. Guess what? That means a higher inflation rate in defence.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I am responding to the hon. and gallant Gentleman’s first intervention. Anyone coming into government should have had some sense that there was going to be inflationary pressure in the system. That is not the only reason that there is a £28 billion black hole, but it is a key factor.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I will make some progress .

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. Member for Horsham makes a strong point. It is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and I, along with other Members, have discussed in the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community. I hope that Ministers are listening and will take remedial action. Will the Minister for the Armed Forces also commit to sharing the draft guidance with the House as soon as possible? It will be issued to organisations subject to the updated duty.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

The Chair of the Select Committee is making a powerful speech. Part of the challenge with the provisions on the armed forces covenant is that delivery requires other Departments to engage and to deliver their responsibilities. Does he agree that this work needs to be loaded on to those other Secretaries of State by all those Members present today?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my fellow member of the Defence Committee. Indeed, he raises a point that we have forcefully made within our Defence Committee deliberations. I am sure that Ministers will be aware and will take appropriate action.

Turning to the service justice system measures, it is welcome to see that the Government have used the Bill to focus on better protection for victims of serious offences. Ministers know full well how much of a priority that is for our Committee. Victims of appalling crimes, such as domestic violence and sexual offences, have been continually failed by the system, and the measures in this Bill can make a positive difference for them. However, we would have liked to see the Government go further and implement our predecessor Committee’s recommendation that cases of rape and sexual assault are automatically heard in civilian courts. That was also the recommendation of the Lyons review in 2018, so will the Minister for the Armed Forces, when he responds to the debate, explain why the Government have decided not to take that approach?

Some of the most significant measures in the Bill relate to the role of the reserves. As the strategic defence review recognises, huge talent is available in our reserves, and defence does not make as much use of that talent as it could. We are pleased that the Bill attempts to change that. However, while the intentions of its measures are clear, their effect is less so. It is not clear how many additional reservists the Government expect those measures to generate, so it is difficult to know whether the Bill will make a meaningful improvement to our defence readiness, which we all know is extremely important, given the geopolitics we face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Some individuals, especially in the media and on social media, have facetiously referred to it as “Dad’s Army”, but there is a role, especially behind the scenes, that older reserves can undertake for the defence of our country.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Dhesi]

I must make progress, but I have to give way to my fellow member of the Defence Committee. I hope that the intervention will be brief.

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend will recognise Warrant Officer Bally Flora who, at the age of 66 and with 45 years of service behind him, was not ready to take to the back room. He has taken great affront at the remarks of those calling it “Dad’s Army”.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend has forcefully made that point, which reinforces what I just said. Some individuals may seek to be facetious about this, but our reserves are our pride. Regardless of their age, their talents need to be included as we defend our nation in future.

I am pleased to see the Government taking action in clause 3 to address the state of service accommodation. The Defence Committee was pleased that the Government accepted the conclusions of our hard-hitting report on service accommodation, and we hope that the new Defence Housing Service will be able to lead the renewal that is needed. It will be important that the new body can act independently in the interests of the forces community and that it is subject to detailed parliamentary scrutiny in this House.

Furthermore, I must draw the House’s attention to clauses 38 and 39, which will remove the existing statutory requirements for Parliament to approve the size of the armed forces. Parliamentary control of the size of the armed forces is a vital and long-standing constitutional principle that dates back to the Bill of Rights in the 17th century. I feel that we must be extremely cautious before proceeding with measures that would diminish that control. The Government say that these changes are necessary to allow more flexibility in how the regular and reserve forces are used. Indeed, my Committee is sympathetic to that aim. However, it is not clear why it requires the removal of the statutory guarantee of parliamentary control. The Government need to justify why the measure is necessary and consider whether there are other ways of achieving their goals that would uphold the rights of our Parliament.

In conclusion—you will be pleased to hear that I am drawing to a conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker—there is much to welcome in this Bill that will improve service life. I hope that the Government will be able to address the issues that the Defence Committee has raised and, by doing so, build strong cross-party support for the Bill as it continues its passage through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I certainly encourage President Trump to apologise. I invite him to listen to the relatives of those who died in Afghanistan, whom I talk with and listen to at remembrance services in Norton Fitzwarren, near 40 Commando camp, on a regular basis. Perhaps he would then understand the sacrifice that people made for freedom—the freedom for which Americans and Europeans died and were injured. His remarks are utterly contemptuous, and he should be ashamed of them. That shows what an unreliable ally he is to our United Kingdom.

I welcome the additional support for the covenant and for those who will be supported by it in Somerset. Through its guaranteed interview scheme, Somerset council has taken the covenant very seriously and is delivering it, but it will be effective only if the resources are there for the public services to stand behind it, as has been said by the director general of the Royal British Legion. He said it is “vital” that those delivering services are

“resourced with funding and training so that they can fully understand the purpose of the Armed Forces Covenant to ensure this change makes a meaningful difference to the lives of all those in the Armed Forces community”.

Our servicemen and women and our veterans deserve that support.

Our veterans certainly do not deserve to be considered as in any way equivalent to terrorists in Northern Ireland who sought to undermine peace and law and order, so it is right that last week’s vote overturned the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that gave immunity to terrorists. We need protections that will stand up in court, unlike the failed legacy Act, and I urge the Government to seriously consider the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), which would put in place far stronger protections for our veterans than are currently in the Bill.

Returning to the Armed Forces Bill, as the Lib Dem housing spokesperson, I was pleased to table an amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill to ensure that service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard. That amendment was ultimately adopted in section 101 of what is now the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, but timelines matter. Given past promises, the importance of meeting that standard is set out in the defence housing strategy:

“Promises have been made time and again…All homes would meet the Decent Homes Standard. That didn’t happen.”

That was under the Conservatives; let us hope that in this new era, this Government’s promises are not empty.

The new duty in the Renters’ Rights Act requires the MOD to report to Parliament on progress towards achieving the decent homes standard for service family accommodation, but the first report does not need to be made until March 2027, and the defence housing strategy contains no targets for how long it will take for service family accommodation to meet the decent homes standard. I urge the Government to give a timeline for this important commitment to our service families—our original amendment would have instituted a duty to upgrade immediately. As other hon. Members have said, we also need timelines on single living accommodation.

The Bill’s new defence housing body comes as part of a £9 billion, 10-year strategy. That is very welcome—it sounds very good—but how much of that £9 billion will be spent on civilian housing, and how much of it will be spent on service family accommodation? These questions matter. For example, the 2025 armed forces continuous attitude survey found that nearly one in three respondents described armed forces accommodation in negative terms, and nearly two thirds of respondents listed the impact on family and personal life of service accommodation as one of the top reasons influencing them to leave the armed forces. One respondent said that

“lack of assistance has significantly contributed to my decision to leave military service.”

In summary, we need to see real targets for when the decent homes standard will be met for service families and when single living accommodation will be upgraded in an organised way.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

One of the critical points of the armed forces covenant is that it extends across Government to all Government Departments, and it particularly requires our local councils to play their part and intervene. Based on the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made, can he provide some guidance on how his council will ensure that the covenant is delivered?

[Gideon Amos]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am pleased that Somerset council is leading on things such as the guaranteed interview scheme and the research it has done recently on how the delivery of NHS services to veterans matches up. There is a whole set of recommendations that I refer him to, and I am delighted that my colleagues at Somerset council are playing such a leading role in delivering the covenant. I believe we are already a covenant county—a covenant village, a covenant town and a covenant county.

We need a firm commitment, not just to deliver on the covenant but to get troop numbers back up to more than 100,000. To make that happen, the Liberal Democrats would create a £10,000 signing bonus and a £20,000 re-enlisting bonus. We also need to see the defence investment plan, so that companies such as Leonardo in Somerset maintain our vital helicopter manufacturing capacity in this country.

[Mr Bailey]

On that point, Somerset is a very important county for defence—Leonardo has a strong history of building helicopters there. Being able to bring about the investment that Leonardo requires is a key part of the defence investment plan. Will the hon. Gentleman give his views on the defence, security and resilience bank, which might be a method of bringing forward that investment without putting it on to the Government’s already indebted balance sheet?

[Gideon Amos]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution about the investment bank. I welcome any commitment that will secure the ability of the UK to manufacture helicopters at Yeovil in Somerset. That is vital not only for the medium lift helicopter, but for unmanned, uncrewed helicopters. Losing that facility would be devastating for the United Kingdom defence industry, as well as for the community around Somerset and the 3,000 jobs involved. It is vital that the defence investment plan comes as soon as possible.

Unless we fix housing, we will be undermining recruitment and retention.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome this Bill as an opportunity to renew our nation’s contract with those who serve and to provide further protections for our personnel and their families. As a veteran who endured the consequences of the 2010 strategic defence review, I am proud to be part of putting this right. Due to time, I will focus on just two aspects: the extension of the armed forces covenant duty and the reforms being made to our reserves.

Under this Bill, the covenant will apply to all Government Departments and policy areas vital to service life. From my work as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community and on the Defence Committee, I know that the covenant’s application has far too often been patchy, leaving people disadvantaged by service life. One clear example is its limited application to the Home Office and to UK Visas and Immigration. About 8,000 members of our armed forces are non-UK personnel—more than one in 20 of all trained regulars—yet too many still face needless barriers to building a stable life in the UK. This Government’s commitment to removing visa fees for non-UK personnel who have served four years or more is welcome, but we can and should go further.

Under the current indefinite leave to remain process, applicants can be left unable to work while their cases are processed, creating real financial hardship at the point of transition and exit from the service. That was the case for Sergeant Richie Lumsden, who, after 20 years of service to this country, found himself worrying about keeping a roof over his head simply because he came from Trinidad. With the MOD increasing the proportion of non-UK service personnel to 12%, more people will be affected unless we act. The Home Office needs to think differently, including about an opt-in system that properly reflects service. If we do not make the path fairer for our Commonwealth service personnel, they will stop coming here, which would be a failure of both fairness and foresight.

Reserve forces are critical to our strategic depth. Reservists serve under NATO command structures and are integral to how we fight wars. However, for too long the reserve offer has been disjointed and inflexible. The reforms in this Bill—increasing the upper age limit to 65, harmonising recall liability and allowing veterans to opt in—are sensible changes that reflect modern working lives.

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Member comes at this not only from having served, but from now serving on the Defence Committee. On that point about the age limit for recall liability, does he know whether any modelling has been done on what impact it might have on recruitment?

[Mr Bailey]

I do not know, but perhaps the Minister could expand on that in his response. However, I do have experience of people such as Flight Lieutenant Mark Raymond, who served under me on the airdrop team that delivered lifesaving aid to the Yazidi people. He was eventually retired at the age of 64, but only after having to apply for annual extensions each year after turning 60. That was not because his capability had diminished, but because the system would not allow otherwise. It was probably also because the Conservatives deleted the C-130, which was a very bad mistake. Reservists and planners have long argued for a more individualised approach to service, recognising experiences and skill rather than forcing people out at an arbitrary age. When war comes, it does not discriminate, and it will require the contribution of the whole of society, so our armed forces must be structured to draw on all the talent we have.

I welcome the fact that this Bill makes it easier for people to move between regular service careers and the reserves. A zig-zag model of service reflects modern careers and helps us retain invaluable experience, rather than losing it altogether. This Bill provides a platform for an armed forces model fit for the future, and one that rewards service, supports families and ensures that the covenant is real across Government. Our service people deserve nothing less, and I commend this Bill to the House.

I hope some of the issues I have spoken about, particularly those about the support of other Departments and the changes those Departments must take on board, are acknowledged by all Members in the House this evening, and that they champion them, and go out and do the work necessary to highlight such cases, particularly the examples I have mentioned. I look forward to hearing how extensions under medical capacity could benefit our service families, particularly for dental health, and how this support can be extended into parts of our nation where service numbers are high but the local populations are low.

[Alex Baker]

My hon. Friend talked about a total society approach to defence, related to the strategic defence review. Does he agree that we need a total Government approach to defence if we are to deliver on both the strategic defence review and these covenant commitments?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend, who represents the covenant town of Aldershot, for her powerful intervention. She is entirely right; it is imperative to recognise that it is nations that fight wars, not the military. In my constituency of Leyton and Wanstead, I look with great admiration at those who service the trains that run into Europe. Those trains will take our tanks and troops, in the moment of crisis, all the way up to Estonia, but that requires the Department for Business and Trade to recognise that necessary contribution, and invest in and understand the permanent structured co-operation—PESCO—offer from the European Union.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) made an incredibly important and powerful point earlier. The military and our defence forces do not just protect us abroad, but help to galvanise us and draw us together as communities, giving people meaningful work and a meaningful existence. If we do that, we will be stronger not only at home but abroad, we will make a meaningful contribution to the EU and to NATO security, and we will be able to meet our commitments far and wide, from the GIUK gap to Estonia and up into Finland. For those reasons, I am incredibly grateful to have had the opportunity to speak today, and I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow]

Absolutely. As well as our reservists, there is a huge role for cadets to play. I am so proud that the Government are committed to expanding the cadets by 30% by 2030, including by ensuring that there are more opportunities for cadets to learn science, technology, engineering and maths skills, as I am hearing they are in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Mr Bailey]

At the other end of the scale, we have seen a significant expansion of the service life that we can offer members of the armed forces. Flight Lieutenant Phil “Popeye” Powell was a special forces pilot for nearly 30 years. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that people like Popeye should be given as much time in the service to practise their craft?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I want to make a bit of progress, but perhaps later if I have time.

Turning to housing, I should declare a different interest, as this was an area I cared about very much when I served as an MOD Minister. When I left ministerial office in 2016, the then Prime Minister Theresa May commissioned me and a small team to write a report about military recruitment, including terms of service such as service housing. We eventually entitled it “Filling the Ranks”, and it was submitted to the Prime Minister, with a copy to the Defence Secretary, in 2017. The report made 20 recommendations for improving recruitment, ranging from better advertising and further expansion of cadet units through to taking a more realistic approach to minor medical ailments such as mild eczema and temporary childhood asthma. Nineteen of the recommendations were accepted and actioned, to varying degrees, but unfortunately the one that was not was to consider sacking Capita—or according to Private Eye “Crapita”. Unfortunately, I never managed to persuade our Ministers to do that, despite the company’s truly awful record on Army recruitment.

The peer review of “Filling the Ranks” was positive. However, as we were making visits to military establishments and interviewing everyone from privates to very senior officers, including on many of the issues contained in the Bill, in nearly every case within 15 minutes of talking about recruitment, we found ourselves involved in a related conversation about retention. In simple terms, we learned very quickly that there was no point widening the aperture of the recruitment tap if we could not put a retention plug in the sink.

We were, therefore, delighted to be recommissioned to undertake a second report specifically into retention, which we subsequently entitled “Stick or Twist?”, as we thought that that encapsulated the serviceman’s dilemma, and which was eventually submitted to the new Prime Minister—one Boris Johnson—in February 2020, a month before the country went into lockdown. This report touched on a number of facets of the armed forces covenant, which are also part of the Bill. I have copies of both reports here with me.

Quite a few of the recommendations in “Stick or Twist?” were adopted, and the then Defence Secretary Ben Wallace used it to persuade the Treasury to provide some extra tens of millions of pounds to improve childcare facilities at a number of bases around the country. It was worth doing the report if only for that. I should like to pay tribute to the small team that helped me to compile the two reports: Colonel—now Brigadier—Simon Goldstein, himself a former distinguished reservist; and my two researchers Mrs Sophie Doward-Jones and Mr Rory Boden, who worked tirelessly to produce two documents written in a Select Committee style, with all the work that that entails, for the attention of the Prime Minister and Defence Secretary.

Again, however, the most controversial suggestion in “Stick or Twist?” was not adopted. It was a proposal to form a forces housing association and thus bring in expertise from the registered social landlord sector to better manage service families accommodation—SFA. Frankly, at the time this was simply too much for the vested interests in the MOD’s Defence Infrastructure Organisation to accept. Nevertheless, I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Defence Secretary, announced a few months ago our intention to introduce such a body if we return to government. The Armed Forces Bill has much to say on this topic—as indeed have many Members this evening—especially in clause 3, which heralds the creation of a defence housing service. This is conceptually similar in some ways to what was first recommended in “Stick or Twist?” six years ago, but with some important differences. I genuinely look forward to debating the respective merits of the two approaches with the Minister in Committee.

The Bill also touches on the issue of the armed forces covenant, which is a matter that we have discussed in this House on many occasions. In essence, the intention is to spread the authority of the covenant to cover other Government Departments, including Education and the NHS. We have a number of suggestions for how this process might be improved—for instance, in special needs education, which we hope to explore in Committee. I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for what she said about the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham. I had the privilege of visiting the military unit there on two occasions—once in the company of His Royal Highness, the then Prince of Wales, now His Majesty the King—and I echo everything she said about the excellence of that department at that hospital in caring for those who have served their country.

The Bill goes into some detail about potential improvements in the service justice system. This touches in part on a number of quite sensitive areas, not least those highlighted by my former Defence Committee colleague Sarah Atherton in what became known as the Atherton report. We shall again attempt to explore the merits and details of those proposals in Committee.

Before I conclude, I want to refer to the remarks of President Trump about the brave soldiers who fought alongside the United States and other allies in Afghanistan. Would that he had not said such things, especially as our troops also fought with the Americans in Iraq and in the caves of Bora Bora in 2001 after the United States invoked article 5 after 9/11—the only nation ever to do that. We traditionally avoid discussing royal matters in this House, but if it is true that President Trump’s volte face on this was in some way due to royal intervention, all I can say is: God save the King.

We should endeavour to take a broadly positive attitude to the Bill, but I must caution that there are two areas where the traditional consensus might struggle. First, the Government claim to be fully committed to the two principles of the armed forces covenant—namely, that no members of the wider armed forces family, be they regulars, reservists, veterans or their loved ones, should suffer any disadvantage as a result of their military service, and that special treatment may in some cases be appropriate, especially for the wounded or bereaved. All that rings hollow, however, when we see what the Government are currently doing to our brave Northern Ireland veterans—a matter we were debating in the House just last Wednesday evening over Labour’s remedial order to undermine the Conservative legacy Act, which protects our veterans. Over 100 Labour MPs failed to back that order on the night, including, interestingly, the Prime Minister himself, who abstained, as did over half the Cabinet, including the Defence Secretary and even the Armed Forces Minister. The Government have performed 13 U-turns in the past few months alone, and we very much hope for a 14th U-turn over two-tier justice and facilitating lawfare, especially against our own vital special forces, allowing our brave Northern Ireland veterans to live out their lives in peace instead.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

No.

Secondly, with regard to readiness, as the international skies darken, we fail to see how we can improve our deterrence posture through the Government’s imposing £2.6 billion of in-year spending cuts in the MOD’s operating budget this year, thus reducing training exercises, sea days and flying hours, all in the name of short-term cash control. The Government constantly claim that they are increasing defence spending while concurrently slashing our own armed forces’ operational spending and also stalling on the defence investment plan, which we were faithfully promised last autumn. Similarly, we have been promised a defence readiness Bill, which is not ready yet. It is like a serious defence strategy turning into “Waiting for Godot”.

With those two important provisos, we welcome the Bill. I genuinely look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply, including on why he abstained last Wednesday.

Arctic and High North

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Downie]

I totally agree. I will cover those points about the challenges that we face in the Arctic from both those powers.

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

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech; I thank him for securing today’s debate. A recent article in The Guardian highlighted how UK-based companies continue, shamefully, to be part of the supply chain for Europe’s imports of liquefied natural gas from Russia. While I am pleased that the UK has committed this year to transitioning towards a ban on the provision of maritime services for vessels carrying Russian LNG, does he agree that the UK should work with its European allies to phase out dependency on Russian LNG entirely and to identify where we continue to have high dependency on an adversarial and unreliable Arctic in the High North?

[Graeme Downie]

I absolutely agree that we must do more on all those points. Russia seeks to dominate the Arctic routes militarily and economically, while China positions itself as a near-Arctic state investing in infrastructure and shipping lanes to secure influence over future trade corridors. We must understand our geography and prepare ourselves to reflect our position as a frontline country in a new, unstable and increasingly violent world.

We must help the British public to understand that what Vladimir Putin chooses to do anywhere will harm their lives on a daily basis. When he illegally and brutally invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was our most vulnerable constituents who paid the price through increased energy bills. Any action he takes in future will hurt the same people the most, and it is the first duty of Government to protect them.

The subsea cables and energy assets in the North sea are not abstract; they are national lifelines underpinning energy supply, jobs and our digital economy. Disruption to those systems would have immediate consequences for households and businesses across the UK. I have asked written questions of both the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero about steps to defend physical energy and infrastructure assets. As a senior member of the energy industry put it to me, “If a Russian submarine appears next to one of our installations, who do I call?”

We know that Russia understands the importance of the High North and Arctic because we are seeing a new and unprecedented military build-up. There have been reports of new air bases in Murmansk, increased deployment of air defence systems and a new fleet of ice-capable vessels for Arctic power projection. Vladimir Putin is not retreating; he is acting deliberately to rebuild what he sees as a large Russian empire.

During a recent visit to Estonia, I heard that Russian land and maritime forces, cyber-capabilities and other hybrid tactics threaten the Baltic nations. Estonians were also clear that peace in Ukraine, while of course welcome and something that we should all be working towards, would not end the threat to Europe. Putin will not exist as a quiet European neighbour. As he sees it, he must maintain Russia’s prestige by joining the global competition alongside the US and China. He will not allow Russia to be seen as a secondary power. He will redeploy and reinforce in what he sees as his sphere of influence.

As the upgrades that I mentioned made clear, one of Putin’s priorities will be in the UK’s own backyard of the High North. The peace that we all want to see in Ukraine would not reduce the threat to the UK; it could increase it, and we must be prepared for that. That brings me to the action in the north Atlantic last week to seize the Russian-flagged tanker, Marinera. I fully support that, and hope that we see additional action in the future over the Russian shadow fleet. That demonstrated the effective co-operation between the US and the UK and the increased capability that we can bring to bear. However, it also comes with warnings. First, the UK must show that it can defend its interests in the area alone as well as with our allies.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

My hon. Friend continues to make an excellent speech. The Trump Administration have shifted both words and power to highlight the challenge in the Arctic and the High North from Russia and China. However, the United States drew down its peripatetic air force deployments across the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap over recent years.

Europe and the UK have not covered the GIUK gap with fixed deployments, despite its proximity to our borders. As my hon. Friend made clear, that is something that we must do independently to protect Europe from Russia and maintain our open sea lines of communications. Given the UK’s nuclear submarine enterprise and our leadership role in the joint expeditionary force, does he agree that the UK and Europe must take the lead in protecting and securing the Greenland and Iceland gap?

[Graeme Downie]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. Those are two points I will come on to, as to why the UK must act independently but also with our European allies in the High North and the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap in particular.

We must always remember that Putin will respond to actions, not words, and we cannot afford to sleepwalk unprepared into a geopolitical High North and Arctic. Secondly, as with any bully, Putin will feel the need to retaliate after the actions last week, but it might not be against the big kid of the USA; he could act against the UK. That is not something that should make us scared, but it should highlight that we must be ready for a response from Russia in one domain or another and make sure that we are able to respond and defend ourselves effectively.

I commend Ministers for initiatives to strengthen our armed forces, including raising the service pay, bringing housing back under public control and strengthening industrial partnerships across the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) mentioned, we have also increased investment in the joint expeditionary force working with High North allies. In both visits to Estonia and the US, that was mentioned as something that the UK should continue to do to implement effective security measures as actions, not merely words.

New Medium Helicopter Contract

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for his questions. He will have heard my first answer, which answers some of his questions, which said that the NMH decision will be made as part of the defence investment plan. That will be announced shortly, so I will not be able to give him an answer today. I continue those conversations with Leonardo, as indeed I have today. It is important that we continue having those constructive conversations because I understand the importance of Yeovil not only to his constituency, but to our wider defence ecosystem and, as a south-west MP, to the wider region as well. Leonardo is expert in not only building helicopters but servicing them, and I am excited about some of the work it is undertaking on autonomous helicopters, as well as its wider business interests across the UK, especially in electronics and other areas. I am happy to continue conversations with the hon. Member about this, as I will do with the company and with the trade unions representing the workforce.

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

It is not only the highly skilled jobs and sovereign capability brought by Leonardo’s investment in Yeovil that are at stake; we must also recognise the opportunities for social mobility that industries such as this create for young people from across the country and from every background. I note that the NMH programme existed in the previous Government’s unfunded £29 billion equipment plan. Their failure to prioritise the programme and deliver the defence funding that such hard decisions need—[Interruption.] It is in the National Audit Office report. That failure means that we need the defence investment plan to make the decisions necessary to secure our country and European security.

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right about two things. First, defence is an engine for growth. That is why we are investing more of the increasing defence budget in British companies. Secondly, the Conservatives left huge swathes of their equipment programme unfunded—a problem that we are sorting out because of the mess that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) left.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s echo of my pride in the way that the UK, under his Government and stepped up again under this Government, has led on Ukraine, and his echo of my pride in the way that Britain remains united behind Ukraine. He is right about his three conditions. They are part of ensuring what this House wants to see, which is not just peace but one that is lasting and secure.

The importance of the discussions and agreements, and in particular the comments from Special Envoy Witkoff yesterday about the US’s commitment to security guarantees that sit alongside and match European-led guarantees through the coalition of the willing, could not be more important. They will form the basis of the confidence that President Zelensky can have in going into the negotiations. We hope that they will add extra impetus to those negotiations, and in the end it will be a matter for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, and the deal that they strike with President Putin. In the meantime, we lend all the support we can to President Trump, who is doing what only President Trump can, which is potentially putting the pressure on Putin, bringing the parties together, and trying to broker the deal that will finally put an end to this terrible war.

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

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the bravery of our service personnel, who will have to consequence-manage the result of such a military action. This ship was part of an expanding global security threat. It was used to fund the war in Ukraine and the nefarious activity that occurs here in the UK, such as the sub-threshold attacks and the payments received by Reform politicians such as Nathan Gill. We must wake up, because these attacks undermine our sovereignty and our way of life. It is asinine for the Opposition to use moments such as this to progress false arguments about the ECHR and rules of engagement for events that we are not at presently. Does the Secretary of State agree it is imperative that the Opposition stand up, show which side they are on and sack the shadow Attorney General?

Oral Answers to Questions

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The Government’s ambition to repair the damage that the previous Government did to our defence will be made clear in the defence investment plan. The roadblock to our safe entry will not change in reality, but to support our ambition we will need long-term financing vehicles that enable multilateral offers and help us to get the best value for public money so that we can protect this country against Russian aggression. Can the Minister provide us with any information about the work he is doing with other Departments to ensure that vehicles such as the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank are brought about?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of defence and security being a whole-of-Government endeavour. It is not just about the MOD, which is why we have a renewed and refreshed working relationship with the Treasury, working hand in hand to increase defence spending. The defence investors advisory group, which will publish its findings in the new year, will look at new financing methods to bring more investment into defence, just as we are working more closely with our colleagues across Government to increase our warfighting readiness, improve skills and make sure that defence can be an engine for growth in every nation and region of the country.

Russian Ship Yantar

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

The hon. Member is correct that Russia does remain a threat. With the ongoing conflict in Ukraine causing over 1,000 casualties a day, it is the biggest threat that the UK has faced in a generation.

As we progress and we hear the Opposition’s criticism of the Government, trying collectively to convince us that we are not doing anything, it is worth noting from my perspective of 24 years of service that we watched the degradation of defence, with the armed forces facing their lowest morale, equipped with equipment that was not fit for purpose, going alongside ships that had not left docks in years, and with families in houses with leaky homes and damp. We had to put up with delay, decrepitude and downgrading of all our defence capabilities.

Now, for the first time in a generation, the military is looking at an increase in defence spending and, with the strategic defence review, integrated missile defence, “NATO first”, and by 2027 running a Steadfast Defender with a whole-of-society approach. We are putting £4 billion into uncrewed systems and £1.5 billion into munitions. The defence readiness Bill is another legislative process to push further changes through by the end of this Parliament.

On elements at the tip of the spear, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, looking into the details, that recruitment and retention is not one. Indeed, we inherited the smallest Army since Napoleonic times due to recruitment and retention issues under the previous Government. Before the Conservatives start lecturing us, a year and a half into our government, on how decrepit our defence is, and downplaying our soldiers, Air Force and those individuals in the Navy, they should take some responsibility for the mismanagement of the defence portfolio for the last 14 years.

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

The Yantar’s presence within our waters makes clear Russia’s threat to our democracy, and I am grateful for the service of the brave men and women of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force who protect us. Within the context of the Defence Committee’s recent report, can the Minister highlight how our Government’s leadership of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group and our treaties with Germany and France are essential in ensuring that we reset our relationships and ensure that democracy is safe within Europe?

[Al Carns]

I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his contribution.

Since coming into Government, we have signed the Trinity House deal with the Germans and renewed the Lancaster House deal with the French. We have done the world’s biggest-ever frigate deal with the Norwegians, bringing in tens of billions in investment. We have done a Typhoon deal with the Turkish, and we have secured a UK-EU security and defence partnership. We have led the coalition of the willing with the French. We have taken on the UDCG, which has generated billions of investment for Ukraine. We have done deals with the EU, US and India. I would argue that this is like an episode—a really bad one—of “Deal or No Deal”.