Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Calvin Bailey and Al Carns

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.

Russian Ship Yantar

Debate between Calvin Bailey and Al Carns

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”.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Calvin Bailey and Al Carns

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

Debate between Calvin Bailey and Al Carns

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Remembrance and Veterans

Debate between Calvin Bailey and Al Carns

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

“A distant obligation honourably discharged.”

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

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

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

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