Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

Jacob Collier Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and I thank the Polish members of her constituency for supporting Poland during these times. We have a multitude of different capabilities in Poland that have rotated through. For example, as mentioned by the Opposition, our NATO enhanced joint air policing stopped just a couple of months ago and was rotated. We also have a light cavalry squadron there working with the Polish and the US. Poland is also a central pillar of the coalition of the willing as we move forward. Everything is done by, with and alongside our Polish allies.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I join the Minister in his condemnation of this clear escalation against our Polish allies. He will know that my constituency has a large Polish diaspora, who are extremely concerned about their country and fearful of further Russian attacks. What assurances can he give the Polish community in my constituency and across the country, and what work will he do across Government to support the Polish community at this difficult time?

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Jacob Collier Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. During an intervention on the Minister for Defence Procurement, I said that he was acting in a “duplicitous” way. I have already been rebuked by Mr Speaker, so you do not have to step in, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would like to say that I misspoke when I said that the Minister was not being genuine. I apologise to him—I never play the man; I always play the ball. It is a shame that he is not present to hear that apology.

However, I welcome the Minister for Defence Procurement—he is a good friend of mine, and I look forward to him serving in that position—but I will say that that career has not started well. The first moment that he appears before the House in charge of defence procurement in this country, he single-handedly starts by advocating disposing of a vital piece of defence infrastructure, which is not only relevant but essential to the national security of the country. He stood here to try to defend the indefensible. I suggest to the Whips Office that they might want to look at some of his decisions in future, if he is in charge of procuring defence equipment on behalf of this country, because so far he has only been successful at getting rid of vital infrastructure. I hope that he does better.

The first job and the first duty of any Government that serve the great people of this great country is to keep their people and themselves safe. I never thought that I would come to this House on a day like today to see a Government, this Government, creating the biggest act of self-sabotage that I think we have seen in generations of elected Houses in the history of our nation. The Government are harming not only our security, but the strategic interests of our people and the security of this country.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

If the deal is harming our strategic interests, why is it backed by our allies, the United States and NATO?

[Paul Holmes]

If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to show up for the entire debate—I think that he has only just arrived in the Chamber—then he would have heard the answer to those questions in excellent speeches given by hon. Members from across the House. In response to his question, why is the deal also backed by so many counties that have malign influences towards the interests of the United Kingdom, such as Russia, China and Iran? If he stays for the rest of the debate, he might hear some answers to those questions too. It is easy for Labour Members to stand in the Chamber and read a Labour party briefing, thinking that if they say things time and again, they must be true, and that people outside the Chamber will expect what they say will be true.

I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton when he was Foreign Secretary. He said to Foreign Office officials at that time that the negotiations that had started and were being explored went past his red line. My right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who was Foreign Secretary when some of the negotiations happened, said to his Foreign Office officials, “As the democratically elected Foreign Secretary, these recommendations go beyond my red lines.” Those negotiations were then stopped by Lord Cameron—I remember him instructing Foreign Office officials to stop those negotiations—so I say to hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), that just because negotiations and conversations have started, we do not have to accept a conclusion that we do not want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jacob Collier]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Had the hon. Gentleman been in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, he would have been welcome to contribute, but given that he has such a passing interest, I am sure he will not mind if I carry on.

The reality is that it is not up to the person who is pursued by law as to whether they will be challenged; it is up to the aggressor, and we know who the aggressor is. We know who has been using lawfare against us. We have seen it time and again, and I am afraid that the effect of this Bill is to concede that point. I am fascinated that so many Government Members feel that they had no choice but to conclude the negotiation. Admittedly it was begun mistakenly by a Conservative Administration and, yes, I did write to the then Prime Ministers—both of them—complaining about it and pointing out the error of their ways. I was a Minister, and I wrote about it and complained about it, as did Lord Murray of Blidworth—I think that is right. I am going to get his name wrong, forgive me—that is one for Hansard. We both wrote, because we both thought it was wrong at the time.

What can I say? We left office. The civil servants re-presented the same offer and sadly, here we go again. The British people feel so disenchanted at the moment because we see changes of Government and no changes of policy. We simply see a continuation and the Whips’ briefings coming out again. We simply see the pointlessness of democracy in this place, because we might as well not bother being here. The Foreign Office stitched this one up. The Minister cannot even change the judgment, and he has sacrificed everything on the whims of an international process with no regard to the interests of the British people.

Royal British Legion

Jacob Collier Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing the debate.

For over a century, the RBL has been a pillar of support for our armed forces community, serving those who have served us and ensuring that no one is left behind. The work of the RBL is deeply personal to my constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter. Our Uttoxeter branch was established back in 1927, and has long been a source of camaraderie, support and remembrance in our local community. In Burton, veterans such as Carlton Wilkin, formerly of the Mercian Regiment, dress immaculately for every civic occasion and organise our poppy appeal. I look forward to joining them again in poppy selling later this year.

The poppy appeal is not just about raising funds—my constituents are always very generous—but about honouring those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. It is a testament to the unwavering commitment of RBL volunteers, who dedicate their time to making a real difference to other people’s lives. I grew up in a generation that remembers the news showing Union flag-draped coffins being unloaded and paraded through Wootton Bassett every day. That always left a strong impression on me, and the RBL was always at the heart of giving our heroes the send-off they deserve.

Beyond the poppy appeal, I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson). I have the honour of having the National Memorial Arboretum just outside my constituency. Every time I visit, I discover something new, whether a new memorial or a chance to reflect. I encourage everybody to take up my hon. Friend’s offer.

I commend the Government for their recent commitment of £3.5 million to support military veterans who face homelessness. As many hon. Members have said, we must go further by ensuring that the armed forces covenant is enshrined in law. The Royal British Legion embodies the very best of our nation of service, sacrifice and solidarity. We owe it our gratitude, but most importantly we owe it our continued support and action. I will always wear my poppy with pride and honour the service of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.

Defence Industries: West Midlands

Jacob Collier Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Edwards]

I absolutely agree. It is almost as though my hon. Friend predicted what I will speak about next, because I will soon tell a story about a visit that I made. The fact that the company has been in his constituency for 130 years shows that Britain has this prowess, and we do not want to lose it. Through this strategy, we have to ensure that such businesses are still going and that that innovation is being incorporated into technology.

The Business and Trade Committee went to Scotland on Monday. Although ships are manufactured in Scotland, it takes a whole country to build them. The Committee witnessed the incredible shipbuilding work taking place at the BAE Systems site in Govan. The commitment to skills development in Scotland is impressive, with competitive apprenticeship programmes open to all ages, allowing career changes and retraining. The programmes are more competitive than gaining a place at Oxford University, highlighting the value of practical skills and apprenticeships. The narrative that university is the only option to success has, in part, fuelled a shortage in skills.

During our visit, I stood onboard HMS Cardiff in its fit-out stage and saw where HMS Birmingham will soon start the next phase of its construction, in a giant hangar that is large enough for two ships to be built side by side. The Type 26 frigates being built in Scotland are world-class and, when used properly, will be crucial for our trade diplomacy strategy, with many countries eager to buy British.

A key theme raised as being important to the success of the defence industrial strategy was the continuity of work to preserve an essential skills base. For example, steel may come from Port Talbot in Wales, making up 4% of the cost of a ship, but 25% of the cost is in the combat systems, requiring digital engineering and design expertise found in places such as Hertfordshire. Fostering innovation across the defence and civil sectors such as aerospace is crucial, as demonstrated by the evidence given to the Business and Trade Committee yesterday by Airbus, which said that more than 50% of the supply chain is both defence and civil.

Our visit reinforced the importance of a collaborative, nationwide approach to defence. From steel manufacturing to advanced digital systems, every region and nation of the UK contributes to defence and innovation, playing a part in our national security. Will the Minister meet me and defence companies in my constituency to talk about how they can continue to play a part—and, indeed, play a greater part—in the endeavour that the Government have set out? To ensure the long-term security and strength of our defence and industrial sectors, we must build that greater resilience in our supply chains.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for the way she is leading it. In my constituency, we have JCB, which is a major employer and manufacturer, but we also have Crestchic Loadbanks, which is an SME that often finds it difficult to get access to Government contracts. Does she agree that, as we look at the defence industrial strategy, we have to ensure that we are backing British business and that all those companies can make a contribution to our shared national defence?

[Sarah Edwards]

I absolutely agree. We have to back British, we have to buy British, and we have to keep the west midlands in pole position, innovating and ensuring that companies working across civil and defence can get the maximum benefit from the new procurement contracts coming from the MOD.

A comprehensive review of the UK supply chain is essential to ensure that SMEs have visibility and fair access to Government contracts. Smaller businesses often struggle to break into large procurement processes dominated by major players, and access to funding is difficult. Again, the annual funding cycles were cited by Flare Bright and Gibson Robotics as problematic for growing SMEs in the evidence we heard yesterday.

Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending

Jacob Collier Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman invites me to make the announcement that I am saying will come in the spring. To answer his concerns, I point him to the fact that the path to 2.5% will be set out in the spring.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

During my recent visit to Britannia Royal Naval College with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I saw the vital role that investment in defence plays in supporting our armed forces and creating skilled jobs. Does the Minister agree that unlike the Conservatives’ inconsistent defence strategy, this Labour Government’s £9 billion investment in Rolls-Royce shows a clear commitment to strengthening our national security and growing our economy?

[Luke Pollard]

The armed forces parliamentary scheme is a brilliant scheme that introduces Members across this House to the important work done by our armed forces. As a Navy brat myself and the proud MP for Devonport in Plymouth, I know the importance of a strong Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The £9 billion announcement last week is an important part of securing our nuclear future, backing jobs across the country and supporting jobs across the entire supply chain—it makes Britain stronger.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Jacob Collier Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I rise to speak primarily in support of amendment 8, but I will also give some broader reflections on the Bill.

We all need to be very clear that the welfare of service personnel is the responsibility of the military chain of command. No other supernumerary bureaucratic organisation can take that responsibility away from the chain of command. Personally, I am concerned that the Bill has the potential to undermine the authority of the chain of command, and I will expand on that theme. However, I also agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) that we have seen too many examples of service personnel being poorly treated in their service. If it were not for the fact that that was the case, arguably we would not have had a need for the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces and, now, for the Armed Forces Commissioner.

Having said that welfare is the responsibility of the chain of command, amendment 8 makes it very clear that ensuring a separation between the authority of that chain of command and the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner will be critical. As I understand it, the provenance of the Bill was that the Government thought the remit of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces was too narrow, so they have added in the responsibility for welfare.

Welfare is a very broad word. It means quite a lot to quite a lot of different people. For some people, it means housing. For others, it means education. It can mean myriad things. We know that, because General Rommel commented that the best form of welfare is better training, because better training makes for fewer widows. That is the way Rommel saw welfare. As I am mentioning Germany, the model for the commissioner is the German armed forces commissioner, which is there to ensure that the inalienable rights of the German armed forces are not impinged on by the giving of illegal orders. That is its sole remit, yet it has grown. In 40 years, it has never had a case where it has found that a member of the German armed forces has been given an illegal order, yet that organisation has grown to a staff of over 60, and its main areas of recommendation and concern are to do with equipment.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

The German armed forces commissioner was the inspiration for the Bill, but the Government’s proposed commissioner is quite different. The German commissioner sits effectively as a Member of Parliament, and has parliamentary staff. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not see the difference between the German legislation and this Bill?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I do acknowledge that important difference. I think that amendment 8 seeks to enhance and strengthen the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner from the chain of command, and I commend it to the hon. Gentleman.

The German armed forces commissioner finds herself reporting and making recommendations on matters such as equipment and undermanning—matters that are well beyond the inalienable human rights of German service personnel not to be given an illegal order. My watchword is that, untrammelled, this proposal will grow arms and legs. Not only have we widened it to cover welfare, which, as I have argued, is very broadly interpretable, but we are giving the Armed Forces Commissioner an “access all areas” pass. We have enabled members of armed forces families—wider families—to be in touch with the commissioner, something that the German model does not follow. While I support amendment 8 and the chain of command, I am glad that I have had the opportunity to put my views on record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

May I say how delighted I am to see the introduction of a commissioner for our armed forces and veterans? It is badly needed, and I am sure that the commissioner will be appreciated and will make vast improvements to the welfare of our people.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for tabling new clause 1, because we have volunteers in the Territorial Army who are highly respected and valued, yet they get rejected when they apply to the Army. They do not feel that they are given any explanation of why they are not accepted by the armed forces, and new clause 1 would address that. It is really bad for morale when people do not get told exactly why they have not been accepted. I truly welcome this Bill.

[Jacob Collier]

I rise to lend my full support to this Bill, and I will shortly speak to the amendments in the name of the Opposition. The Bill represents a long-overdue step towards supporting the welfare and rights of service personnel and their families. I have a brother in our armed forces, and I am grateful to have a Government who recognise the value of being challenged to deliver more for our service personnel and for military families like mine. The introduction of the Armed Forces Commissioner is an opportunity to provide independent and robust oversight to ensure that we in this place, and all parts of Government, do right by all who serve.

Our nation and its armed forces are inseparable. In Burton and Uttoxeter, we have so many military families like mine; we feel immense pride in the service of our loved ones. At a moment’s notice, they stand ready to protect our nation and all that we hold dear. Regardless of whether it is a soldier posted overseas, a sailor patrolling distant waters or a pilot protecting our skies, their wellbeing, and that of their families, should be at the heart of any Government policy. This Bill achieves precisely that by establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner who can investigate, advocate and hold the system to account. The commissioner will not just respond to complaints, but proactively examine the issues affecting service life, from housing and healthcare to the transition to civilian life and the schooling of service children. The role will deliver real improvements, and it will challenge this Parliament and this Government, so I hope that those on the Front Bench are fully prepared for that.

I am mindful of amendments 9 and 10. Although their intentions may be laudable, I think they miss the point. Amendment 9 proposes that the commissioner’s remit explicitly include pensions and death-in-service benefits for serving and former members of the armed forces. That might seem fair at first glance, but I am firmly of the view that the amendment is unnecessary and risks undermining the effectiveness of the commissioner’s work. As defined by the Bill, the commissioner’s role is already expansive, covering the full spectrum of welfare concerns for service personnel and their families.

Amendment 9 risks narrowing the commissioner’s focus, and could lead to a disproportionate allocation of time and resources to one area at the expense of other pressing welfare concerns. The commissioner must have the freedom to determine their priorities, based on the evidence that they receive from service personnel, veterans and their families. The commissioner’s work should not be restrained by this Parliament prescribing specific areas of focus, no matter how good its intentions. Let us trust that the Bill gives the commissioner the independence that they require to do the job effectively. To prescribe excessively is to risk diluting the authority and focus of this legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) said. He was bang on the money, if the House pardons the pun.

Similarly, amendment 10 seeks to explicitly include issues affecting children, family and dependants. Although I fully recognise the importance of supporting the families of our service personnel, this amendment raises several concerns. The commissioner’s role is already designed to allow them to advocate comprehensively for the welfare of service families. There is no doubt that issues such as education allowances, special needs tuition and housing fall squarely within that remit. The commissioner must have the flexibility to address the full spectrum of welfare issues, and must not be bound by a rigid checklist dictated by this House. We must trust that the commissioner will engage with service families effectively, without Parliament micromanaging their work. I am sure that all of us in this House have topics that we would want the commissioner to focus on, but the point is that it is not up to us.

This Bill represents progress, and a move towards ensuring that our military personnel and their families feel heard, valued and supported. It sends a clear message that their voice matters, that their welfare matters and that their service to our country is not taken for granted. We on these Benches have consistently supported measures that champion the rights and wellbeing of all those who serve. The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill aligns with those values, and I urge colleagues to wholeheartedly support it tonight.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill. I came into politics to improve people’s lives, and I believe that the introduction of an Armed Forces Commissioner will do just that by providing a voice to members of our armed forces community who have been ignored for far too long. As the Prime Minister said during the King’s Speech debate last year, this is not just a “name or a role”; it is a way in which we can show our respect for those who have committed their lives to the ultimate service. Indeed, my own father served as a gunner in the Royal Artillery, taking him to Northern Ireland, Germany, Cyprus and Canada, so I have some idea of the sacrifice made by our servicemen and women and their families. This is yet another instance of this Government delivering on their promises. We made a manifesto commitment to strengthen support for our armed forces personnel and the families who support them by establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner, and here we are now, getting on with it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jacob Collier Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

We are dancing on the head of a pin here—the spring is in the first half of the year. I think the hon. Gentleman should take my words to this House and to him, which have been consistent that the strategic defence review will report in the spring. It will report directly to the Prime Minister, to the Chancellor and to me, and I will update the House directly. We will also set out our clear path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to improve support for veterans.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to improve support for veterans.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This Government have already taken swift action to demonstrate our commitment to renew this nation’s contract with those who have served. We have awarded £3.7 million in veterans’ housing grants, veterans will be exempt from the local connection test for social housing in England, and veteran cards are now accepted ID for elections. We have launched a £75 million LGBT financial redress scheme; Op Fortitude, Op Courage and Op Restore are all progressing at pace; and we are currently reviewing how we can make veterans’ support more institutionally resilient. This demonstrates that we have a bias for action, and this Government are delivering for defence.

[Jacob Collier]

Last year, I had the pleasure of meeting Tim Latter, a Royal Navy veteran and owner of Grindhouse gym in Tatenhill. After facing his own mental health challenges, Tim set up that gym and launched Project I Got Your Six, which is an inspiring fitness coaching programme designed for the military, but also a way for people to talk openly about their mental health. What steps are this Government taking to support veterans with their mental health after their service? Perhaps the Minister would like to meet Tim with me, to see the amazing work he does.

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for a really relevant question. It is essential that we cater for both the physical and psychological impacts of service on those who have served. Op Courage has already had 35,000 referrals. I congratulate Tim Latter on the work he has done, and I would be glad to visit his gym—and perhaps do a little phys with him—to see how it helps veterans’ mental progression in due course.

Defence Programmes Developments

Jacob Collier Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

It will be £300 million less than it would have been before. The decision on HMS Northumberland makes no difference to the availability of the Royal Navy ships at sea, because that ship was not capable. Refitting it in its current state, as planned, could have cost hundreds of millions of pounds—that is also behind my decision. The process for the medium-lift helicopters is under way and continues.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

On a recent visit to Commando Training Centre Royal Marines with the armed forces parliamentary scheme we saw the amazing Gordon Messenger facility, which serves Royal Marines, their families and veterans. It is a true community hub, and was valued by everyone in the service. Will the Secretary of State say more about the support that this Government are giving to service personnel, veterans and their families?

[John Healey]

One of the most important things that this House—never mind the Government who introduced the Bill—has done in the past week is to give its full backing to the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. This is an independent champion who will improve service life and will be there for those who serve and the families who support them. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contribution to those debates, and I congratulate him on becoming a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which is a great scheme. I know that he will have inspiring experiences and will make an even more informed contribution to debates in this House.

Remembrance and Veterans

Jacob Collier Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak in this debate ahead of Remembrance Day as we pay tribute to all those who have served our country, and remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Each year, we gather to recognise the bravery of our veterans, but true gratitude goes beyond these moments. It means showing up for them when it counts in real and meaningful ways. As the MP for Burton and Uttoxeter, I am proud to represent a community with a long-standing tradition of service.

Many families across Burton, Uttoxeter and our surrounding villages have stories of loved ones who have served and sacrificed. I see veterans every day who continue to give back, contributing to our communities long after they have hung up their uniforms—people such as Carlton Wilkin, a veteran of the Mercian Regiment, who leads the poppy appeal in Burton every year, helping us to remember the values that our veterans live by. They volunteer, mentor and inspire, quietly setting an example of resilience and dedication for us all.

We are also fortunate to have the National Memorial Arboretum on our doorstep—a powerful place of reflection and a tribute to our armed forces. I would welcome all right hon. and hon. Members coming to visit the arboretum to fully appreciate the courage and sacrifices that are represented there.

Let us be clear that our gratitude must be matched with support. Charities such as Care after Combat offer a lifeline for veterans as they transition into civilian life by providing mental health support and giving veterans renewed purpose. Such organisations show us what it means to truly honour service with action.

I am committed, as are the Government, to ensuring that veterans in Burton, Uttoxeter and across the country have access to the services that they need, from mental health support and housing to employment opportunities. We owe them nothing less. Our responsibility is to ensure that they can thrive, and to meet their sacrifices with practical lasting action. As we come together in this remembrance season, let us promise that our gratitude will be lived, not just spoken. Let us commit to being there for veterans, as they were there for us, by building a country and community in which they are fully supported every step of the way.