Iran

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend is a campaigner for the personnel at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the things that the Department stands for. He understands the importance of soft power and the relationships he refers to. It is important that we advocate for the Department and the wonderful work that it does, so it is a great privilege to open this debate alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, who is one of its most powerful servants.

This is a complex and fast-moving conflict that has the potential to escalate. We should not be distracted from our fundamental priorities: to encourage the resumption of negotiations and a ceasefire; to restore freedom of movement in the strait of Hormuz; to deliver the agreements set out in the memorandum of understanding; and to protect British people and interests and stand firmly with our allies. These measures, I believe, are the right ones to dial down hostilities and help us find an enduring, secure solution. I look forward to hearing the contributions of colleagues across the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady raises the JCPOA and the negotiations with Iran 10 or so years ago. Do you think we are closer to a nuclear negotiation today than we were back then? Do you think that negotiating at the start would have been a better approach in this conflict?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before the shadow Minister answers the question, may I remind the hon. Gentleman that “you” is not used in the Chamber because that is directed at me? I am sure he is interested in what I think about these matters, but he may be more interested in what the shadow Minister thinks.

[Wendy Morton]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is interested in what I have to say on these matters. He makes an important point, but in 2026 we are not dealing with what we faced 10 years ago, hence my asking the Minister what guarantees Britain has secured on ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programme will be dismantled.

What commitments have been obtained on curbing Iran’s support for Hezbollah, the Houthis and other terrorist proxies? What mechanisms are there for monitoring and enforcing any agreement? What role has Britain actually played in shaping those outcomes? A ceasefire is not in itself a strategy. Peace is not measured simply by words on paper; it must be measured by whether Britain’s security is stronger, whether our allies are safer and whether Iran’s capacity to threaten the world has genuinely been reduced. On every one of those tests, Ministers have serious questions to answer to this place.

The Iranian regime has already demonstrated how fragile any pause in fighting remains. The regime has continued to threaten international shipping in the strait of Hormuz and to menace our allies across the Gulf, where, I remind the House, there are also thousands of British nationals. When British assets were placed at risk, what was the Government’s response? When commercial shipping came under threat, where was Britain’s leadership? When our allies looked to one of their oldest security partners for reassurance, what practical support did the Government provide?

Britain has historically played a leading role in Gulf security. We have built partnerships, provided reassurance and helped shape the international response to threats in the region, yet throughout this crisis there has been a growing sense that Britain has been reacting to events, rather than helping to determine them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Sandher]

I have every confidence that we will prevent war by preparing for it, and that we are going to fund that, but beyond the funding, which is important, how do we ensure that we can achieve the scale-up that we need? How do we show that we can defend this country? The hon. Member and I may have a back and forth, but I think we agree that we need to help to defend this nation. There are Members of this House, however—they are obviously not in their seats today—who do not feel the same way. There are Members of this House who want to divide us, who are far too pally with Putin and who want to see us become weaker and more divided, because that is how they get what they want. They are part of an unholy alliance of ethnocrats and, as we are seeing now, cryptobillionaires. They want to see anger and division on one side and tax cuts for their billionaire mates on the other. Those are the people that all of us in the House today stand against, whether they are arguing with a bin or not. This is where we are.

A House divided against itself cannot stand, and nor can our nation. The only way we can ensure that we meet the moment presented to us by this war in Iran, and indeed by all conflicts around the world, is by first making life affordable for every single person so that they have a stake in this nation, and also by securing our nation and making it safer, in order to get costs down here at home. We on the Labour Benches know now what we have always known: that the only way we can meet this moment is together, that we are more than the sum of our parts and that can we achieve affordability and security through our common endeavour. Together we will, but divided we absolutely will not.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

I would come to the Chamber to answer questions from Parliament.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Chris Vince.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

You are absolutely right, and if you want to put forward your—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman keeps saying “you.” In this Chamber, “you” means me. Please do not ascribe those views of the Iranian Government to me.

[Chris Vince]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I get really annoyed when others do that but I have just done it as well. I will move swiftly on and get to the main point of my speech.

Since the beginning of the crisis, the Government and Prime Minister have been clear that our approach has been guided by what is in the best interests of the British people and our country’s security. Unlike some Members across the House, the Prime Minister was clear that we would not be dragged into a US-led war with no apparent plan and without reflecting on the impact.

I am also proud that the Foreign Secretary convened more than 40 countries to help build international pressure to open the strait of Hormuz. I was chatting to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak prior to this debate. It is hugely important that we build those international alliances because we cannot do that on our own. I ask the Minister to address in closing the economic impact on the UK of not getting the peace process back on track and trade flowing through the strait. This recent conflict shows the regime in Iran has no scruples about hijacking the world economy by blocking the strait, and we have seen the consequences. And, again, we should of course condemn the Iranian regime.

I said that I would mention Raytheon UK, based in my constituency, and I am proud that it is leading the consortium that has won a £20 billion contract to build the British Army’s new AI training systems. Training like that is now key to the nature of war and how we fight war, and I am very proud that my town is going to play its part in that endeavour.

Finally, I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his leadership, which has put Britain back on the international stage. Working with our allies is the only way we can deal with these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his—as usual—erudite explanation. The point he is making is fundamentally correct: this was not done to help liberate the people of Iran from an oppressive theocracy. It was done for American security, and because of an American belief that they had some kind of God-given right to the mineral wealth that is below the ground in the middle east and beyond. That is what this war is about; it is not about liberation. Even yesterday, having U-turned on his latest plan for the zillionth time, Trump announced:

“We’re going to knock out all their power plants.”

Even after all that has happened—even after all that this man has said—he is still planning to knock out power plants, the power plants that supply the electricity that keeps the lights on in the houses of the people he is supposedly determined to liberate. As we all know, targeting civilian infrastructure is a breach of international law, but sadly, what regard has either Trump or Netanyahu for international law as this year develops?

This reckless and illegal action has set back the cause of human rights in Iran by decades. It has strengthened the position of the regime in Tehran, allowing it to portray itself as the victim, rather than being made to account for its appalling human rights record. America and its allies have sacrificed international law and have once again shown that their doctrine of “might is right” will somehow prevail. That has brought financial hardship to every single home in every single community, in every single part of the United Kingdom, and for what? The world is less safe, the Iranian people are suffering more, and the Epstein scandal has not gone away.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I now have to announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.

On the draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026, the Ayes were 330 and the Noes were 109, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots, the Ayes were 330 and the Noes were 109, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the broader point, which is the lack of detail on reserves, other than to say that it is all being parked until the next Parliament. That is a wasted opportunity. Reservists also need clearer communication from the Government, including on the training days and reserve service days this year. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate, he will say a bit more about that.

Finally, we know that a Government reshuffle is coming, and if issues such as national resilience are to be addressed, they quite rightly require an all-of-Government response. Yet there is very little detail. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar said regarding the answer to his written question, the MOD is often reluctant to answer on national security grounds, and there is very little detail on how other Departments will prioritise their budgets and what the key performance indicators are, particularly when new Ministers are likely to be coming in. Will the Minister clarify whether there will be KPIs relating to the defence investment plan for those Departments, and if so, when will they be set out?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Kevin Bonavia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

It has been around for 50 years; it is not novel.

The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) referred to £45 billion for the nuclear enterprise. I think the figure in the DIP is £64 billion. That is an important point, because the Government and the one before it have refused to publish the rolling 10-year nuclear enterprise budget. If the Minister could clarify what the nuclear enterprise budget is over the rolling 10-year period, that would be helpful. I am a supporter of defence—there are a few people in here who will testify to that—but the MOD does have a case to answer. It increasingly looks like if we want £1 million of output, we need to put £2 million into the MOD pot. If we look at any Public Accounts Committee report on defence, we can see what a troubled enterprise it is. It needs root and branch reform.

I have heard people say quite a lot that we have not told the public about the threat we are under. I agree with that. I think that is a true and an honest assessment, but we need to see beyond the transmission of the threat and be prepared for the response that we might get back. I am not making a constitutional point; I am not talking about Scotland. I am talking about housing schemes and communities up and down these islands. If they are asked to put their families and their own lives on the line for the United Kingdom, they might well not be quite as enthusiastic as we might wish. They might think, “What has my country done for me?” If they are 25 years old and have grown up over the last 20 years they might think, “What has the UK done for me, because I see myself and my generation getting poorer than the generations that went before.” I might be wrong—I hope I am wrong—but we do not know it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing this extremely valuable debate.

Much has been said about rearmament and defence in this House in recent months. It is widely accepted that successive Governments have allowed our nation’s defences to decline to a perilous extent. This debate should therefore be an opportunity for the House to come together to address the first duty of any Government, the defence of the realm. It is a conversation that cannot be limited only to this building; it needs to be had in every corner of our great nation.

The Prime Minister and others tell us that the point of maximum threat from Russia is in 2030. That is just over three years away. If that is the case, we must show urgency and clarity. It is for that reason that the long delay in the publication of the defence investment plan was so serious and so damaging. That delay cost us precious time, which our adversaries have spent building their own forces and probing our vulnerabilities. The Public Accounts Committee has already told us what that delay cost us. It called the resulting bureaucratic drift damaging to Britain’s international credibility and warned that it has created deep uncertainty across our defence industrial base while sending a weak signal to allies and adversaries alike.

When the plan finally arrived, what did we find? The Secretary of State told the House that he had secured an extra £1 billion, yet it has come to light since then that most of that money has simply been taken from cancelled transport and energy projects or clawed back from funds that were meant to improve military housing. Worse still, £4.7 billion of the £15 billion promised increase is, in the Government’s own words, still to be “confirmed at the Budget”. That, I am afraid, is not a funding plan.

Defence chiefs have been explicit that anything below £28 billion would leave this country vulnerable and force Ministers into hard choices about capabilities that we simply cannot afford to lose. The figure the Prime Minister has now settled on falls well short of that warning. Nowhere is that more alarming than in air defence. The strategic defence review recommended that we spend at least £1 billion in this area. The people of this country rightly assume that they are safe from missile and drone attack. We must urgently work with our NATO allies to build up our collective integrated air defence. It is folly to spend billions on equipment if it can all just be destroyed in an instant by Russian ballistic missiles.

The SDR was also clear that we needed pace in investing in the capabilities needed to deter Russia. That is why the Liberal Democrats have argued for issuing defence bonds to make £20 billion available in the next two years—before 2030—to spend on plugging those gaps. We have also urged the Government to explore multilateral efforts to fund rearmament, such as the defence, security and resilience bank or leading on the establishment of a European rearmament bank.

The threat is real and the money is needed now, not years down the line, and we need to spend not only more, but better. Around 5% of the defence procurement budget currently reaches SMEs and 42% of contracts remain concentrated among the same 10 suppliers. These smaller firms are the source of much of the flexibility and innovation the sector needs, and they support skilled jobs in every part of the United Kingdom. The long delay to the DIP left them in limbo for over a year. Some went out of business in that time or even moved overseas, and with the £4.7 billion gap still to be resolved at the Budget, uncertainty has not been lifted from their shoulders. To make their funding numbers add up, the Government have also started chipping away at their previous commitment to fix mouldy military homes and crumbling barracks. The Liberal Democrats have supported the Government’s efforts to sort out that mess, so to hear that hundreds of millions have been trimmed is bitterly disappointing.

The Liberal Democrats changed the law so that service family accommodation must now be assessed against the decent homes standard—we forced the Government to concede that principle in the House of Lords. We went further still, and sought to extend that same standard to single living accommodation, so that no member of our armed forces is left living in substandard conditions, but the Government voted that down in Committee. If Ministers are serious about retention and persuading talented people to stay in uniform, they must reverse that decision and bring all military housing under a single, decent standard. They must also stop backsliding on their commitment to fully fund the recovery of our military housing stock.

We cannot meet this moment alone. Our security is bound up with that of our European neighbours, because geography has not changed, even if American commitment is growing less certain. The Liberal Democrats want the Government to show real ambition to restart negotiations for Britain to join the Security Action for Europe programme, to work with partners towards a European rearmament bank, and to help build a European security council that can co-ordinate our allies’ efforts to meet NATO’s requirements, even as Washington draws back.

Our alliances are one of our greatest strengths, and should the worst ever happen, we are far stronger standing with our friends than on our own. That is why squandering soft power through cuts to international development aid and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are an entirely false economy. Those cuts diminish our standing in the world and create issues for which we will have to pay far more down the line. It is always cheaper to prevent a war than to fight one, which is why our hard and soft power must go hand in hand.

I will end where I started: it is time that the Government and the new Prime Minister, when he takes office, lead a serious national conversation with the public. We hear endless rhetoric about tough choices, and those will not get any easier without public support. The parties represented in this Chamber will come up with different answers to the question—we can debate that here—but every party will find it harder to justify those choices unless they are part of a real national conversation on defence, and that conversation is simply not happening right now.

Just this week, the United States warned of a possible imminent attack by Russian forces on Poland to test NATO defences. The threat is not abstract; the threat is real, and it is to the safety of our children and our nation’s future. I urge Ministers and the incoming Prime Minister to be decisive, issue defence bonds, take the conversation on defence out into the real world, and show the urgency that the moment deserves before it is too late.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)]

I am pleased to have been a signatory to the application for this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing it. [Laughter.] Therein is a lesson.

The subject of the debate—rearmament and readiness—could hardly be of greater importance to our constituents, our military and the future security of our nation. I thank Members of all parties who have contributed to a compelling discussion, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the points that have been raised. You can enjoy the confusion of my moving between my speech and the notes I have taken.

I will attempt to explain how the Ministry of Defence is working to get our armed forces warfighting ready as an urgent priority. However, I will start by responding to the principal criticism of the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that there is no new money. I emphasise that £300 billion is new money; £15 billion is new money. I will never, ever let you forget the cold water that I endured in the messes of the bases on which I served—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Please can I remind you that saying “you” is not acceptable in this Chamber, because it refers to me?

[Mr Bailey]

The removal of funding specifically in 2010 resulted in the removal of Nimrod and the reduction of our shipyards and boatyards, which has led to the risks that are manifesting today. The Opposition cannot deny that is the reason that we are in the position we are in now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. Perhaps we should have a discussion about it outside, because of its ambiguity—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member and I will speak afterwards.

The programme of rapid rearmament mentioned in the motion of this debate has not only begun; we are well on our way to delivering it, with significant and further increases in funding to come. That means an unprecedented investment in new technologies, new munitions, new factories and new jobs. It means creating a path to 3% and then 3.5% of GDP, and having honest public conversations about the very serious threats we face. As a fellow veteran, I know how committed the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is to strengthening UK defence. I hope we get behind this national endeavour, which represents an historic upturn in support for our military and for our brilliant service personnel who keep Britain safe in an increasingly uncertain world.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Mike Martin to wind up very quickly.

Defence Spending and Readiness

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I will keep going. Rather than debate the issues constructively, we have a motion urging orderly government from the party that gave us five different Prime Ministers and five different Defence Secretaries in 10 years—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The Minister has made it clear that she is not taking any more interventions.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

We have a plea for defence spending to hit 3% by 2030 from a party whose manifesto committed to spending just 2.5% by that date, and calls for a fully funded defence investment plan fit for the modern battlefield from a former Government whose fantasy equipment plan was overcommitted, underfitted and unsuited. They left 47 out of 49 major defence programmes delayed or over budget.

It is a motion that claims to understand the delicate legacy issues in Northern Ireland, from a party whose own plan was struck down as unlawful—it protected nobody. We have had many debates on the issue that the Government are reflecting on. I have set out my position many times, and in partnership with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, we will progress the Bill in due course. As I have said before, I am mindful of the responsibility to get it right.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

No, I am going to finish. Armed Forces Week is a moment to give thanks. But the best thanks a Government can give our servicemen and women is not warm words from these Benches, but our full backing. There are more officer-cadets, lieutenants, and Captain Joneses serving today—we are a big family. I say to them that the Conservative Government failed me; this Labour Government will deliver for them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Point of Order

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a point of order in relation to my answer to the urgent question on 15 June in this House. In my answer, I said that the Defence Secretary was

“currently with His Majesty the King”,

as that was my understanding from the Defence Secretary —[Official Report, 15 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 571.]

Although the Defence Secretary was indeed summoned by His Majesty on Monday 15 June, he arrived back in London from Windsor earlier that day, prior to the UQ. I was unaware of this fact when I spoke in the Chamber; I believed him to be with the King and therefore unable to take the question himself. However, at the time of my answering the urgent question, the Defence Secretary was no longer with His Majesty. I wish to correct the record on that point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for prior notice of his point of order. He has now corrected the record and put his remarks on the record.

Armed Forces Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Dual nationals serving in foreign armed forces: war crimes risk—

“(1) This section applies to a person (‘the individual’) who is—

(a) a British national or a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and

(b) a member of the armed forces of a foreign state.

(2) Where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual has participated in, ordered, or failed to prevent conduct that constitutes a war crime within the meaning of Article 8 of the Rome Statute, the Secretary of State may—

(a) refer the matter to the Attorney General for consideration of proceedings under the International Criminal Court Act 2001,

(b) direct that the individual’s British travel document be suspended pending investigation, subject to section 41C, and

(c) notify the International Criminal Court of the individual’s British nationality and last known address in the United Kingdom.

(3) A suspension of a travel document under section 41B(2)(b) must not exceed 90 days without renewal.

(4) The individual to whom section 41B applies must be—

(a) informed as soon as reasonably practicable of the grounds for any action taken under section 41B(2), and

(b) afforded a right of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

(5) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance to the armed forces, relevant intelligence agencies, and border authorities on—

(a) identification of British nationals serving in foreign armed forces,

(b) information-sharing arrangements with the International Criminal Court and relevant foreign jurisdictions, and

(c) the circumstances in which action under subsection (2) is appropriate.

(6) For the purposes of this section—

“British national” has the meaning given by section 50(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981;

“Rome Statute” means the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998 (2187 UNTS 90).

(7) Nothing in section 41B or this section limits the protections afforded to an individual under the Human Rights Act 1998.”

NC1 and NC2 ensure that the United Kingdom does not extend the immunities and privileges afforded to visiting forces under the Visiting Forces Act 1952 to forces from states whose commanders are subject to ICC proceedings, and creates a framework for referring dual nationals suspected of war crimes to prosecutorial authorities.

New clause 3—Veterans: housing and employment data duty—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, in each calendar year, collect and compile data on the following matters in respect of persons who have served as members of the regular forces (‘veterans’)—

(a) the number of veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness within the meaning of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 and Part 2 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014;

(b) the number of veterans who are unemployed and claiming Universal Credit or Jobseeker’s Allowance, disaggregated by—

(i) length of unemployment;

(ii) age and gender; and

(iii) service branch and rank on discharge;

(c) the number of veterans in contact with local authority housing or homelessness services;

(d) the number of veterans placed in temporary accommodation by a local authority;

(e) the number of veterans who have presented themselves as having suicidal ideation and those who have committed suicide;

(f) trends in the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) over the preceding five years.

(2) For the purposes of collecting data under subsection (1), the Secretary of State—

(a) must request and receive data from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, local authorities, and such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate,

(b) may require local authorities in England to provide data as to veterans within their area who have approached them for housing assistance, and

(c) must consult Veterans UK and any other bodies the Secretary of State considers appropriate in designing the data collection methodology.

(3) The Secretary of State must, not later than 31 March in each year, lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) the data compiled under subsection (1) for the preceding calendar year;

(b) a comparison with data from the two preceding calendar years;

(c) the steps taken or proposed to be taken by the Secretary of State, or by public authorities subject to the duty in section 343AZA of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (as amended by section 2 of this Act), to reduce rates of homelessness and unemployment among veterans; and

(d) an assessment of whether those steps have been effective.

(4) The report under subsection (3) must include, in respect of veterans who have left the regular forces within the preceding three years—

(a) the proportion who entered employment within three months of discharge;

(b) the proportion who were provided resettlement support under a scheme administered by the Ministry of Defence; and

(c) the proportion who were provided with suitable accommodation within one month of discharge.

(5) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for a person independent of the Ministry of Defence to review, and report to Parliament on, the methodology and reliability of data collected under this section at least once every three years.

(6) In this section—

“homeless or at risk of homelessness” is to be construed in accordance with sections 175 to 177 of the Housing Act 1996;

“regular forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act);

“veteran” means a person who has served as a member of the regular forces for a period of not less than one day and who is no longer serving as such a member.”

This new clause imposes a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to collect, compile, and annually report to Parliament data on rates of veteran homelessness, suicide and unemployment, including trends, actions taken and their effectiveness.

New clause 4—Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or children of serving or discharged members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years—

“(1) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 is amended as follows.

(2) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 after “Forces” in paragraph (b) insert—

“(c) in a case where the application is made by a person who is a spouse or child of a member or previously serving member of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.

(3) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 in paragraph (b) leave out “(a) and (b)” and insert “(a), (b), and (c)”.”

This new clause would amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.

New clause 5—Review of mental health support for veterans—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passage of this Act, conduct a review of the adequacy, accessibility and effectiveness of mental health support available to veterans of the armed forces.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must assess the extent to which mental health support available to veterans meets their needs, including specific information about availability of such support based on—

(a) age,

(b) sex,

(c) service branch,

(d) rank,

(e) length of service,

(f) time elapsed since leaving service,

(g) operational deployment history,

(h) conflict or operation in which the veteran served,

(i) geographical location within the United Kingdom,

(j) whether the veteran resides in a rural or urban area, and

(k) any other characteristic the Secretary of State considers relevant.

(3) A review under subsection (1) must examine—

(a) levels of provision of specialist and non-specialist mental health services for veterans;

(b) waiting times for assessment and treatment;

(c) access to NHS and charity-provided mental health services;

(d) barriers to accessing support, including those arising from geographical isolation, transport availability, digital exclusion and workforce shortages;

(e) rates of referral, treatment completion and clinical outcomes;

(f) rates of suicide, self-harm, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety and other mental health conditions among veterans;

(g) differences in outcomes between veterans who served in different conflicts or operations;

(h) the effectiveness of arrangements for identifying and supporting veterans most at risk of mental ill health;

(i) reliance on charity support.

(4) In conducting a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) veterans’ organisations,

(b) service charities,

(c) NHS bodies,

(d) devolved administrations,

(e) local authorities, and

(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) Upon completion of a review under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament indicating the findings of the review.

(6) A report under subsection (6) must include recommendations for improving mental health support for veterans, particularly those groups identified as being at elevated risk of poor mental health outcomes based on the review on which it is based.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the adequacy and effectiveness of mental health support available to veterans.

New clause 6—Review into reservist facilities—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review into reservist facilities in rural areas.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider the quality, accessibility, and refurbishment of reservist facilities.

(3) The review under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into reservist facilities in rural areas.

New clause 7—Digital archive of Armed Forces Standing Orders—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must put in place a plan for the digital archiving of all Standing Orders issued to Armed Forces personnel, to be completed within 12 months.

(2) Once the digital archives under subsection (1) are established, the Secretary of State must carry out a review every six months to ensure they are up to date.

(3) Under this section, “Standing Orders” means the body of permanent regulations, issued by units or formations, which govern the conduct, administration, and procedures of personnel.”

This new clause would add a requirement for the Ministry of Defence to ensure the indefinite digital archiving of all standing orders issued to the Armed Forces.

New clause 8—National Veterans’ Commissioner (England)—

“After section 366 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert—

“366A National Veterans’ Commissioner (England): establishment

(1) Within 6 months of the passing of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England (“the Commissioner”).

(2) The Commissioner shall act independently in carrying out the functions of the office.

(3) The Commissioner’s functions shall include but are not limited to—

(a) promoting the interests of veterans in England;

(b) monitoring the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England;

(c) reviewing the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families;

(d) identifying barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services;

(e) making recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans.

(4) In exercising the functions under subsection (3) the Commissioner may—

(a) carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans;

(b) consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations;

(c) publish reports and recommendations.

(5) The Commissioner shall prepare an annual report on the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.

(6) The Commissioner may at any time prepare a report on any matter relating to the interests of veterans in England.

(7) The Secretary of State must lay any report prepared by the Commissioner under this section before both Houses of Parliament.

(8) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for—

(a) the provision of staff, accommodation, and other resources as they consider necessary for the Commissioner to carry out their functions, and

(b) the publication of the Commissioner’s reports under this section.

(9) The Commissioner is to be appointed for a term of three years and may be reappointed for one further term.

(10) The Secretary of State may remove the Commissioner from office only on grounds of—

(a) incapacity,

(b) misbehaviour, or

(c) failure to discharge the functions of the office.

(11) In this section—

“public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998;

“veteran” means a person who has served in His Majesty’s armed forces.””

This new clause would require the Government to appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England and sets out its functions.

New clause 9—Exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights for Deployed Members of the Reserve Forces—

“A member of the regular or reserve forces who has been deployed for operations under this Act may not be subject to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of that deployment.”

This new clause would make provision for the members of the regular or reserve forces who have been deployed under this Act to be exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights for that period of deployment.

New clause 10—Laying of the Defence Investment Plan—

“Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament, if they have not already done so.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament within 3 months of the passage of this Act, if they have not already done so.

New clause 11—Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights—

“After section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 insert—

“(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must authorise for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1) of the Convention.

(2) In this section —

“overseas operations” means operations of Her Majesty’s forces outside the British Islands in the course of which members of those forces may come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance;

“Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).””

This new clause reinstates a duty, removed during passage of the Overseas Operations Act 2021, requiring the Secretary of State to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights during significant overseas operations.

New clause 12—Feasibility study on a Forces Housing Association—

“(1) Within 6 months of the passing of this Act , the Secretary of State must publish report on the possibility of establishing a Forces Housing Association (FHA).

(2) The report must examine the proposals in Chapter 5 of the 2020 Report “Stick or Twist – A Report for The Prime Minister into Retention in HM Armed Forces – and how to improve it.”

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the merits of establishing a Forces Housing Association (FHA) as opposed to the proposed Defence Housing Service.

New clause 13—An armed forces retention strategy—

“(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State lays before Parliament the Ministry of Defence Votes A paper seeking Parliamentary authority for the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for service with the armed forces in the following financial year.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay alongside the Votes A paper an armed forces retention strategy.

(3) The retention strategy must include—

(a) an assessment of the current rates of retention across the regular and reserve forces,

(b) an explanation of the steps the Ministry of Defence is taking to improve retention to meet the maximum numbers of personnel set out in the Votes A paper, and

(c) an assessment of the findings of the most recent Armed Forces Continuous Attitudes Survey and its findings regarding satisfaction with service life.”

This new clause would require the Government to lay an armed forces retention strategy alongside the annual Votes A paper on the maximum number of personnel to be maintained in the Armed Forces.

New clause 14—Independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention—

“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the processes for recruitment and retention across His Majesty’s forces.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider—

(a) the efficiency and consistency of recruitment processes across the Royal Navy, the regular army, the Royal Air Force and the reserve forces,

(b) the effectiveness of steps being taken to improve diversity and inclusion within His Majesty’s forces,

(c) the impact of the quality of defence housing (including single living accommodation) on the retention of service personnel, and

(d) the impact of the medical discharge process on retention and transition to civilian life.

(3) A report of the review must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause requires the Government to commission an independent review into recruitment and retention in the armed forces and lay the report of the review before Parliament.

New clause 15—Duty to provide medical records on discharge—

“(1) This section applies where a person ceases to be a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a complete copy of the person’s service medical records to be provided to the person no later than one month after the day on which the person is discharged or otherwise ceases to be a member of those forces.

(3) Those regulations may specify the manner and form in which service medical records are to be provided under this section, including provision for records to be transferred directly to a civilian health body with the person’s consent.

(4) In this section—

“health body” has the same meaning as in section 343AZB;

“service medical records” means any records relating to the person’s physical or mental health care and treatment created or maintained by or on behalf of His Majesty’s forces during the person’s period of service.”

This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that all service personnel leaving the military receive a complete copy of their medical records within one month of their discharge date.

New clause 16—Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer—

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 343C (Establishment and functions of veterans advisory and pensions committees) insert—

“343CA Establishment and functions of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer

(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to be the Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer.

(2) The general function of the Officer is to oversee the mental health care and treatment provided to veterans by the health bodies specified in section 343AZB.

(3) In exercising their function, the Officer must, in particular, monitor and assess the extent to which health bodies are complying with the duty imposed by section 343AZA (Duty to have due regard to the covenant) in relation to the mental health and well-being of veterans.

(4) The Officer may require a health body to provide such information as the Officer considers reasonably necessary to discharge their functions under this section.

(5) The Officer must prepare an annual report on the exercise of their functions and the general state of veterans’ mental health care and treatment in the United Kingdom.

(6) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Officer’s annual report before each House of Parliament.

(7) In this section, “veteran” means a person who has at any time been a service member.””

This new clause establishes the statutory role of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer.

New clause 17—Personal independence payment reassessment exemption for amputees—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for persons who have experienced an amputation as a consequence of their membership in the armed forces to be exempt from personal independence payment reassessments except in instances in which such persons have requested a reassessment.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “personal independence payment” has the meaning given by Part 4 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that persons who have experienced an amputation as a consequence of their membership in the armed forces are exempt from personal independence payment reassessments.

New clause 18—Report on disregard of armed forces compensation in means-tested benefits—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare a report on the potential merits of disapplying consideration of compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in calculating entitlements to other means-tested income benefits.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(3) The report under subsection (1) must consider compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in calculating—

(a) Pension Credit entitlements, and

(b) any other means-tested benefit where compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme is not currently disapplied in entitlement calculations.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the potential merits of disapplying consideration of compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in calculating entitlements to other means-tested income benefits.

New clause 19—National Standards, Funding and Monitoring of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty—

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After Section 343AE (Sections 343AA to 343AD: guidance) insert—

“343AEA Armed Forces Covenant Duty National Standards

(1) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance establishing clear and consistent national standards for the discharge of the duties imposed under section 343AA to 343AD (“the Covenant Duty”).

(2) The national standards must—

(a) set minimum requirements for compliance by relevant public bodies,

(b) promote consistency in the quality and accessibility of services provided to members of the armed forces community across England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and

(c) require relevant public bodies to demonstrate due regard in a manner capable of objective assessment.

(3) Relevant public bodies must have due regard to the standards issued under this section.

343AEB Funding and Support for Delivery

(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that sufficient funding is made available to support the effective implementation of the Covenant Duty.

(2) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain a dedicated Covenant Duty Training Programme, which shall—

(a) provide accessible training and guidance to relevant public bodies,

(b) promote awareness and understanding of the purpose and scope of the Covenant Duty among staff and decision-makers,

(c) support the sharing of best practice between relevant public bodies, and

(d) include provision for capacity-building where required.

(3) In determining the allocation of funding under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to variations in local demand and the particular needs of the armed forces community.

343AEC Reporting and measuring framework

(1) The Secretary of State must establish a framework for the monitoring and evaluation of compliance with, and impact of, the Covenant Duty.

(2) The framework must include—

(a) defined performance indicators and outcome measures,

(b) requirements for relevant public bodies to collect and report data relating to the Armed Forces Community in a consistent manner,

(c) annual independent review of the effectiveness of the Covenant Duty, and

(d) mechanisms to identify and disseminate learning and best practice.””

This new clause would create a requirement for guidance that sets national standards of Covenant Duty delivery across the country, for funding and resources to support delivery and to require monitoring of compliance with the duty.

New clause 20—Armed Forces Covenant report: required content—

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 343A (Armed forces covenant report), after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) An armed forces covenant report must—

(a) include an assessment of compliance with armed forces covenant duty national standards under section 343AEA,

(b) include analysis of outcomes for the armed forces community, and

(c) include recommendations for improvement.””

This new clause, which is consequential on NC19, would require the Armed Forces Covenant report to include detail on compliance with national standards, outcomes for the armed forces community and recommendations for improvement.

New clause 21—Reporting on the Defence Investment Plan—

“(1) Every six months after the passage of this Act for the duration of this Parliament, and every year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would compel the Government to publish and lay before Parliament a regular report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan every six months during this Parliament, and annually thereafter.

New clause 22—Report on the impact of Defence Investment Plan delays—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment of the delays to the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of such delays on—

(a) small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) within the UK defence supply chain,

(b) military procurement, equipment capability timelines, and operational readiness, and

(c) the financial sustainability of defence sector businesses.

(3) In preparing the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) representatives of small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence sector, and

(b) the Defence Suppliers Forum.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a one-time report within six months of the Act’s passage assessing the impact of Defence Investment Plan delays on military procurement and defence businesses, with particular focus on SMEs.

New clause 23—Assessment of the reserve forces estate—

“(1) Six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the conditions of the reserve forces estate.

(2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of—

(a) catering provisions,

(b) personal hygiene provisions, and

(c) support for existing and new reserve forces.

(3) The Secretary of State must consult the RCFA in conducting an assessment under subsection (1).

(4) Under subsection (1) “reserve forces estate” refers to all properties managed by the RFCA.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the reserve forces estate six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter.

New clause 24—Review of Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must review offences included under Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider whether any offences pertaining to domestic abuse which have been classified under Schedule 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 may be instead classified as an offence under Schedule 2 of that Act.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the classification of offences under Schedule 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006; it would create a specific requirement for the classification of domestic abuse offences to be considered.

Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 4, line 15, at end insert—

“and to the district and borough councils of Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would add the district and borough councils of Northern Ireland to the meaning of “local authority” in relation to the armed forces covenant.

Amendment 3, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Continuity of plans for special educational needs

(1) Within a year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations to make provision for a plan for special educational needs awarded to a person who—

(a) is a child of or dependent upon a person serving in the Armed Forces, and

(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when posted.

(2) The regulations made under subsection (1) must ensure that, if a person is required to move from one base to another as part of their service in the armed forces, any plan awarded to their child or dependent under subsection (1) must be automatically transferred to the relevant authority.

(3) A person to whom subsection (2) applies shall have reasonable time to negotiate a named school for their plan under subsection (1) with the relevant authorities.

(4) Under this section, “a plan” means—

(a) in England, an Education and Health Care Plan;

(b) in Wales, an Individual Development Plan;

(c) in Scotland, a Co-ordinated Support Plan;

(d) in Northern Ireland, a Statement of Special Educational Needs.”

This amendment would allow serving families, with a child for whom they have been awarded an Education and Health Care Plan or equivalent Special Educational Needs support, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area to another.

Amendment 4, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements

(1) Within a year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements for a person who—

(a) is a serving member of the Armed Forces,

(b) has entered into negotiations about potentially adopting or fostering children, and

(c) is required to move base as part of their military service.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must ensure that if a service family is required to move from one base to another, for operational or other reasons, any adoption or fostering arrangements they have made with their existing local authority should be appropriately transferred to the appropriate new local authority.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “appropriately transferred” means any adoption or fostering arrangements shall not be disrupted as a result of the transfer from one local authority to another.

(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for minimum residency requirements for adoption or fostering in a local authority to be waived for any service family which is required to move from one local authority jurisdiction to another, for operational or other reasons.

(5) Service families to which this section applies shall have an opportunity to renegotiate potential adoption or fostering arrangements with the new local authority, including prior to transfer to their new posting.”

This amendment would require adoption and/or fostering processes being undertaken by a service family to be automatically transferred to the appropriate local authority if that family is required to move bases as part of their service in the armed forces.

Amendment 5, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Continuity of NHS secondary care services

(1) Within a year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of secondary care treatment for a person who—

(a) is a dependent of a member of the regular or reserve forces who is receiving secondary care services from a health body in one part of the United Kingdom, and

(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when the member of the armed forces to whom that person is dependent is posted.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for relevant health bodies to take reasonable steps to ensure that any course of secondary care treatment being provided to the dependent is transferred to an appropriate health body in the area to which the dependent relocates.

(a) the dependent’s treatment or place on a treatment waiting list is maintained upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and

(b) the dependent will not require a new referral form from a general practitioner or other primary care professional as a condition for continuation of treatment upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.

(3) Regulations under this section must include a requirement for a national authority to issue guidance on—

(a) the transfer of patient records,

(b) the continuation of treatment pathways upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and

(c) the preservation of waiting list placement upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision for NHS secondary care services to be appropriately transferred where a person who is dependent on a member of the armed forces must become ordinarily resident in an area for which a different NHS body is responsible for care.

Amendment 14, page 6, line 43, at end insert—

“343AZC Communication regarding armed forces pensions

(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of communication with former service personnel about their armed forces pension.

(2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include—

(a) a review of the number of armed forces pensions which have been unclaimed,

(b) the impact of the current armed forces pensions system on former service personnel, and

(c) an assessment of the effectiveness of introducing an annual letter distribution service to inform former personnel of their pension entitlements.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

“former service personnel” means a person who has completed their services in the armed forces.

(4) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements.

Amendment 15, page 6, line 43, at end insert—

“343AZC Transfer of medical assessments

(1) The Secretary of State must review current practice for the transfer of medical records and services for armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces.

(2) A review under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of—

(a) the time and costs associated with current practice, and

(b) the costs and benefits of introducing a case-by-case approach for determining whether a reassessment of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services is required upon their transfer to the reserve forces.

(3) Within one year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice regarding the transfer of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services upon their transfer to the reserve forces.

Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 7, line 15, at end insert—

“(4) The Defence Housing Service will operate within a multi-year budget, which must be set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.

(5) This must specify both capital (CDEL) and revenue spending (RDEL) on the Defence Housing Service, over the period of the Defence Investment Plan”

This amendment would ensure that Defence Housing Service’s budget is set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 8, page 7, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) improving the satisfaction of service personnel and their families with the accommodation provided.”

This amendment would make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service.

Amendment 9, page 7, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) providing earmarked accommodation, as far as practicable, to facilitate members of the armed forces spending time with their child where they have a child arrangements order.

(f) for the purposes of subsection (e), a “child arrangements order” has the meaning given by section 8 of the Children Act 1989.

(g) “contract visits” for children of service personnel, who do not live with them (in accordance with any relevant court order).”

This amendment would make the Defence Housing Service responsible for providing accommodation to facilitate members of the armed forces spending time with their child where they have a child arrangements order.

Amendment 13, page 8, line 24, at end insert “and single living accommodation”.

This amendment would add single living accommodation to the definition of defence housing to ensure that defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation as well as service family accommodation.

Amendment 10, page 9, line 27, at end insert—

“(4) The Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service, once appointed, must report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.”

This amendment requires the Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service to report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.

Amendment 12, in clause 13, page 34, line 33, at end insert—

“115C Duty to refer sexual offences and domestic abuse to civilian police

(1) This section applies where a service police force or the tri-service serious crime unit is made aware of an allegation that a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, has committed a relevant offence in the United Kingdom.

(2) The Provost Marshal of the relevant service police force, or the Provost Marshal for serious crime, must immediately refer the allegation and transfer the investigation to the relevant civilian police force, and inform the complainant of their right to have the investigation referred back to the relevant service police force and military courts.

(3) If the complainant requests that the case be transferred back to the military courts, the jurisdiction over the investigation and subsequent trial must be transferred back to the relevant service police force and military courts.

(4) In this section—

“relevant civilian police force” means the civilian police force for the area in which the alleged offence took place;

“relevant offence” means—

(a) any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003,

(b) an offence involving domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, or

(c) an offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence within sub-paragraph (a) or (b).

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify further offences which are to be treated as a relevant offence for the purposes of this section.”

This amendment requires the Service Police and the Defence Serious Crime Command to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the civilian police forces for investigation and subsequent trial in the civilian justice system, with the option for the complainant to transfer their case back to the military justice system if they prefer.

Amendment 6, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert—

“(iii) a retired holder of such a rank.

(iv) NCO’s – down to the level of Corporal, or equivalent.”

This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial. It would also allow soldiers down to the rank of Corporal (or equivalent) to sit on Court Martials.

Amendment 7, in clause 33, page 54, line 43, at end insert—

“69C Notice periods for recall

(1) Those reservists in Army Reserve Group A, or its equivalents, shall, following the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, have their standard notice reduced from readiness category R9 (180 days) to R7 (60 days).

(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘Army Reserve Group A’ has the meaning defined in the Reserve Land Forces Regulations 2026.”

This amendment would increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army Reserve Group A from 180 days to 60 days.

Government amendment 2.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The amendments I have tabled concern the right of British nationals to engage in foreign wars. What brought them about is reports that British nationals have been involved in Israel Defence Forces activities in Gaza and other places. To prevent this from happening in future, my amendments would amend the Visiting Forces Act 1952 to give the Secretary of State power to undertake some form of legal action against those individuals. To me, it seems very obvious and very important that if, as a general principle, we say that British nationals should not be allowed to fight for a foreign force, or to engage in a war in another country under a different command, we should do something about it legally. My amendments are quite widely supported and very carefully drafted, and I hope that the Minister will understand why I tabled them and their importance.

I never thought that in my lifetime, we would be able to watch genocide taking place live on television, as is happening in Gaza. My amendments clearly state that if cases are taken to the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court, that would be enough to trigger action by the Secretary of State in this country. That is why I tabled them, and I hope that the House will take them seriously and support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

As we progress the Bill collectively, we could, in some areas, look at giving better support to employers, but it is worth being clear that the Bill looks to extend service from anything from four to 16 years. It allows for the return to service of ex-military personnel until they are 65. That is being standardised across officers, other ranks, the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. By doing that, we will increase our strategic reserve pool. If we get caught in a crisis in any way, shape or form, their skills can be harnessed to help the nation out. There is a further discussion to be had, at a later stage, about how we include civilians in that.

This Bill puts in place a whole range of important provisions—on improving the standard of living and housing for the armed forces, on reserves and on the service justice system—while, importantly, keeping us safe at home and abroad.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I may refer to again in a few minutes. It is important to place on record the respect he has engendered across the House by resigning on an important issue of principle relating to the defence of the realm, which is, after all, the most important duty of Government, above all others. He and I have debated for five months on this Bill. We have not always agreed, but we have always dealt with each other respectfully. That respect has only been enhanced by his recent decision.

I rise to speak to new clause 11 and amendments 3, 4, 5 and 11 in my name and that of my hon. Friends. I will get into the detail of those amendments and the new clause in a moment, but before I do, I observe the courtesies of debate and congratulate the new Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), on her recent field promotion. We hope that she enjoys herself in her new post, but I caution her that there appear to have been further command changes back at the chateau as of today. We shall have to see how she fares in the re-brigading exercise that will inevitably follow, but for today, well done.

In the meantime, this Bill, which had its Second Reading back on 26 January, has been extensively debated—when the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill received both oral and written evidence; in the Select Committee’s debate phase; in Committee of the whole House on 2 June; and now on Report and Third Reading. The Opposition’s summing-up speech tonight will come from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed).

Over nearly five months, we have spent more than 40 hours taking evidence, conducting visits and debating this important Bill. As today is the culmination of its consideration in the Commons before it moves on to further scrutiny in the other place, I should say that throughout, we Opposition Members have attempted to act as a critical friend to the Bill. We have been able to do that mostly in a relatively consensual manner, although there have been occasional points of disagreement, as I suspect there may yet be this evening.

New clause 11 relates to a derogation from the European convention on human rights in the event of overseas operations under the auspices of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the proposition of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), despite the fact that I was born in his constituency, in Crouch End—or “Creuche Ende”, as the estate agents call it today. When we debated this matter in Committee, we tabled a similar new clause, based on the wording of the 2021 Act. It said that Ministers should at least consider derogating from the ECHR, if not doing so might constrain the operation of our troops when deployed overseas and leave them potentially fighting a ruthless enemy with no moral scruples, who behaved as the Russians did in Bucha during the invasion of Ukraine. Because of the ECHR, our troops could effectively be fighting with one hand tied behind their back, and could fear lawfare being used against them, perhaps even decades later, potentially at Russia’s behest. Unfortunately, the Government have been completely hopeless on this, and we have therefore firmed up the wording in our revised new clause; it says that Ministers “should” derogate in such circumstances. The principal argument, however, remains the same, and I hope that Ministers might yet be persuaded to accept the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Baker]

That is precisely what I am asking the Government to do. They should look at that, because judicial review cannot be the only option. We must have other options available to make sure that, when the covenant is not being delivered, we can hold those bodies to account.

We need clearer guidance for how services can put the covenant into practice. Earlier this year, I presented my recommendations to the Minister responsible for early years—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey)—setting out how the new Best Start family hubs can properly support military families. The first recommendation we made was simple: services should ask everyone at the first point of contact, “Are you from a military family? Are you from our armed forces community?” If public services do not know whether someone serves or has served, or is part of a military family, how can we connect them to the support they need? Service life often means deployments, frequent moves and dealing with different local authorities and providers. With a clearer record of our forces community, we can ensure that support follows people as they relocate, rather than forcing them to start again each time.

Ultimately, this is not about processes, but about people. At the Commonwealth hub on Saturday, I met a female Royal Navy veteran, and she spoke honestly about the challenges she has faced after leaving service in struggling to secure housing, to find work and to access the support she needed. Then she said something that has stayed with me:

“The Covenant is supposed to mean something. But it means nothing.”

That must change. The covenant must mean something when a veteran needs a home or a military family is looking to settle down. Those who sacrificed so much in service to our country ask one thing of us, which is that we stand by them in return. That is the promise we must keep and the standard we must set ourselves, which is why I support this Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for opening this debate and speaking to his new clauses. I will shortly speak to the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) on behalf of my party and to others tabled by my hon. Friends.

It is particularly appropriate that we should be holding this debate at the start of Armed Forces Week. Like many Members, I look forward to attending Armed Forces Day in my constituency, at Pingle field in Bicester on Saturday. We will raise the flag to salute the service and sacrifice of our incredible armed forces and their families. If previous years are anything to go by, I will again disgrace myself in misdirecting a bomb disposal robot under the patient eye of a member of the defence explosive ordnance disposal, munitions and search training team, which is based at the Bicester garrison.

Armed Forces Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

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

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

On Second Reading, I spoke about the armed forces covenant and the importance of translating our gratitude to those who serve into practical support. Today, I am proud to speak in support of the Government’s housing measures in clause 3 and the associated amendments, which address perhaps the most tangible test of whether we are keeping our side of the bargain with our armed forces community: the homes they live in.

As the Member for Aldershot, the home of the British Army, I represent around 1,800 service family homes—one of the largest concentrations anywhere in the United Kingdom. The success of these reforms will thus be felt directly by thousands of military families in my constituency. For those families, the quality of their accommodation is not an abstract policy issue; it affects family life, children’s wellbeing, retention, morale and operational effectiveness.

For years, too many service families have lived in homes that fall short of the standards that they deserve. I hear from families who face persistent maintenance problems, personnel who are frustrated by repair systems that feel difficult to navigate and parents who simply want a safe, decent home in which to raise their children. I therefore welcome the action that the Government are taking on defence housing. I welcome the £9 billion investment, the refurbishment of nine out of 10 these houses, and the housing officers who will be on the streets of Aldershot as a result of this Government. The creation of a new defence housing service, alongside the wider defence housing strategy, represents a serious and necessary step forward, and the commitment to long-term investment, clearer accountability and better standards will matter enormously to constituencies such as mine.

Welcoming those measures does not mean lowering our ambitions, but rather the opposite. If we are to rebuild trust with service families, the reforms must be felt in everyday life—in repairs completed quickly, damp and mould dealt with properly and a system that listens, responds and follows through. I gently urge Ministers to ensure that the defence housing service has the authority, funding and accountability it needs to succeed, with service families placed at the heart of its design and delivery.

Defence housing is not just about families, however; single living accommodation matters too. For many serving personnel, particularly younger personnel or those living away from their families, single living accommodation is their home. It shapes their daily lives, morale and wellbeing and their sense of whether they are valued by the country they serve. That is why I welcome the Government’s review of single living accommodation and the overseas estate. It is right that we look carefully at the standard of accommodation being provided to those who serve, whether they live with their family or in single accommodation. As the strategic defence review recognised, accommodation is not simply an estates issues, but a retention issue, a recruitment issue and a readiness issue. The test for us now is delivery.

Before I conclude, I want to reflect on a letter I recently received from a constituent who is the father of a serving RAF member. He wrote to me about helping his son move into accommodation at the start of a new posting—his first. As any parent would be, he was proud that his son had chosen to serve his country and proud to see him beginning the next chapter of his career; but when he saw the room that his son had been allocated, that pride turned to concern. The room was small, outdated and in poor condition; there was no heating, and basic facilities were inadequate. His son had to leave behind many of his possessions that made him feel at home, because there simply was not the space. What struck me most was the father’s description, not of the building itself, but of leaving his son behind.

As policymakers, it is easy for us to talk about estates, stock, programmes and investment. Those things matter, but perhaps the best test is a simpler one. When we make decisions about military housing, we should ask ourselves first: if those were our sons or daughters, would we be content to leave them there? Would we feel reassured driving away? Would we believe that they were being treated with the dignity and respect that their service deserved, and would we feel that the nation was keeping its promise to them? If the answers are no, then we must do better.

That is why I welcome the action that this Government are taking and the commitment to improve service family accommodation and review single living accommodation. I hope that Ministers will continue to push forward with urgency and ambition, because those who serve our country deserve decent homes and their families deserve peace of mind. Their service deserves our respect, and our gratitude must be matched by action.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

18:44

Division 7

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 171

Noes: 302

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

I call Ben Obese-Jecty to move new clause 5 formally.

[Hon. Members]

Where is he?

Defence Readiness

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

There is now a six-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

National security should be the primary duty of every Government, and so I have been pleased to be present in this House while listening to the contributions made on defence readiness as part of the King’s Speech debate. When the world today is more dangerous than it has been for a long time and when too many people are struggling with the cost of living and young people are finding employment prospects particularly difficult, the speech highlighted this Government’s plan to create a stronger, safer and fairer Britain.

Last week, I had the privilege of presenting the award for overall apprentice of the year at the Juniper Training awards in my constituency. What struck me at that event was not simply the talent in the room, but the determination, resilience and ambition shown by those young people. They are proof of the potential that lies within our young people and we have a duty to invest in their futures. Juniper Training is an example of an organisation that provides a credible alternative to traditional school or college pathways for young people who would otherwise be at risk of not being in employment, education or training. Its programmes offer not only qualifications for young people but confidence, resilience and a sense of purpose, providing a route into secure employment.

Our young people deserve our full support, which is why I am pleased to welcome the Government’s new deal for young people as part of our wider youth guarantee. I am especially proud that my constituency sits within the new west midlands trailblazer area, where young people are already beginning to benefit from these initiatives. Through funding provided by the Get Britain Working programme, more than 800 young people across the west midlands have already taken their first steps on to the career ladder, with a further 1,200 expected to benefit from the £10 million committed so far by the end of 2027.

In Wolverhampton itself, our youth guarantee trailblazer proposal is focused on structured work experience and transition support, intervening early to provide that crucial support. The “Wolves at Work” open door programme supports the youth trailblazer initiative and has placed more than 135 residents into work experience, and more than 50 of those individuals have already gone on to secure paid employment. Behind each of these numbers lies a young person whose life has been changed—someone who has gained confidence, stability and hope for the future. This is an achievement that my city of Wolverhampton can be proud of.

More broadly, I am proud of the work that this Government are undertaking nationally to support young people into work. The expanded jobs guarantee, now set to support an additional 35,000 young people, will provide vital opportunities to those on universal credit while helping people to get back into employment, thereby reducing long-term welfare dependency. Moreover, this Government are expanding youth hubs across the country to ensure that young people looking for work can access the advice and support they need to find employment. Through a £725 million investment in apprenticeships, we are backing our small and medium-sized businesses by covering their full apprenticeship costs for eligible young people. In doing so, we are also supporting our businesses to create the wealth that this country so desperately needs. This Labour Government are providing security and control to working people, and I am proud to support that mission.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Mark Pritchard.

North Atlantic Submarine Activity

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on north Atlantic activity. Let me begin by thanking the many members of our armed forces who are currently deployed in over 30 operations across the globe. Their efforts are often unseen by the British people, but they are always appreciated. They defend the very freedoms that we enjoy.

Last week, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary revealed details of one such operation. While the focus of many has been drawn to the middle east, UK armed forces, in partnership with our allies, have been deployed to deter the increased Russian activity that we have witnessed in the Atlantic. The specific operation involved a Russian Akula-class submarine and a concurrent deployment of two specialist submarines from GUGI—Russia’s main directorate of deep-sea research.

Last November, the Defence Secretary outlined to the House how GUGI vessels, including the spy ship Yantar, are directed by President Putin to engage in hybrid warfare activities against the UK and its allies, specifically around critical undersea infrastructure. Their mission is to survey pipelines and cables during peacetime and then potentially, if required, sabotage them in conflict.

In response to the Russian subsurface activity, the Defence Secretary deployed a Royal Navy warship and a Royal Air Force P8 aircraft alongside allies and partners to ensure that the Russian vessel was monitored during every phase of the operation. The Akula subsequently retreated home, having been closely tracked throughout, and we continued to monitor the two GUGI submarines when they were in and around UK waters and, of course, beyond. Our armed forces left them in no doubt that they were being monitored, that their movements were not covert as planned, and that their attempted secret operation had been exposed. The two GUGI submarines have now left UK waters and headed back north, and this operation, which lasted more than a month, has now concluded.

In often treacherous conditions, our pilots racked up over 450 flying hours and our frigates sailed several thousand nautical miles. Some 500 British personnel were involved in the response. I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to every single person involved.

We exposed this military operation undertaken by Russia for three key reasons: first, to send a message to Putin that he failed to remain covert, and that any attempt to damage critical undersea infrastructure will not be tolerated and cannot be denied; secondly, to demonstrate that even with significant capabilities and personnel deployed in the middle east, we will always do what is necessary to protect our homeland; and thirdly, to highlight a significant operation carried out by our armed forces, who met this challenge with the characteristic determination and professionalism that we all know too well.

This operation reminds us why the seabed matters, especially for the island nation of Britain: it connects us to everything, and that connection is sustained beneath our waters without interruption through a vast network of cables and pipelines on which much of our way of life relies—much of the gas that heats our homes, 99% of international telecoms and data traffic, and trillions of pounds of global trade each day. Because the seabed matters to us, it is a prime target for our adversaries.

The UK’s undersea network is highly resilient, but the threats are increasing, so we are stepping up our action to defend it, including by providing an extra £100 million for our vital P8 submarine-hunting aircraft; launching our Atlantic Bastion programme to combine the latest autonomous technologies with the best warships and aircraft to create a British-built hybrid naval force; and making the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, after years of hollowing-out and underfunding by various Governments. The threat is clear, and our resolve to confront it is absolute. That is why this year we are deploying our carrier group where it is most needed—the north Atlantic and the High North—and supporting NATO’s new mission, Arctic Sentry.

I want to put on the record our thanks to our allies, with whom we have co-operated closely throughout this operation, including Norway. Our shared commitment to confront Russian aggression in the north Atlantic is at the heart of our Lunna House agreement, and together we are now building a combined fleet of new submarine-hunting frigates and new uncrewed systems.

Let me say a few words on Ukraine, from where I returned just last week. Today, two wars on two continents are being fought at the very same time. Putin wants us distracted while he steps up strikes on Ukraine relentlessly, and indeed at enormous scale, with around 7,000 attacks a day on the front line and 55,000 drone and missile strikes last year alone. We must always remember our duty to Ukraine and recognise that Russian aggression is growing across Europe once again.

Let me finish where I began, with praise for our people. We have the very finest armed forces that a nation could hope for. They are second to none. As I speak, we have personnel deployed across every domain, every moment of the day, in every part of the world. They are in constant confrontation with our adversaries, from the depths of the seabed to the reaches of space. When a crisis erupts, as it has done in the middle east, I understand people questioning why all UK military assets and personnel have not been sent to deal with it. But as demands on defence rise, we must deploy our resources to best effect across multiple priorities.

Because of our increase in defence investment, we will be able to call on more and more resources in the coming years. As we defend our interests and partners in the middle east, we will tackle increasing threats in the High North. We will stand with Ukraine. We will meet our NATO obligations. Above all, we will always fulfil the first duty of government: to protect our homeland and keep the British people safe. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

We can agree that no sabotage took place this time from the Russian sub-surface activity off the coast of the UK. We have backed our words with action when it comes to deterring Russia, with £4.5 billion in UK military support to Ukraine last year and a total of £21.8 billion. The Ukraine defence contact group just raised an astonishing $45 billion to buy weapons, munitions and capability for the Ukrainians. The Ministry of Defence stands ready to board any vessels that meet the criteria—there is a lot of misinformation out there. Having very expensive frigates escorting every vessel at such range is putting significant demands on the Russian fleet and degrading its capabilities. Let me add that we have spent £5 billion extra this year alone on the defence budget, and by 2028-29 we will spend around £73 billion on it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and the Defence Secretary for his public statement, which have increased public awareness about the growing threats that our nation faces. On behalf of the Defence Committee, I pay tribute to all our armed forces personnel involved in disrupting the Russian activity around our critical undersea infrastructure. This incident underscores the growing threat that Russia poses, and the need to increase defence investment now and finally to publish the defence investment plan.

Turning to the incident itself, I take on board the Minister’s words, but it has been widely reported, including publicly at the London defence conference, that Putin had explosives planted on our undersea cables. For the record, can he confirm whether Russians were involved in either sabotage or precursors to sabotage on or around our undersea cables?

[Al Carns]

The reality is that Russia failed on this occasion, and it failed because we exposed its activity, which meant that there was no way, shape or form that it could deny its activity in the first place. I was at the London defence conference and I heard certain discussions about undersea cables. I can confirm that no sabotage took place this time, but the Russians put a lot of effort into mapping and understanding our undersea critical national infrastructure, and we will do everything to map, track and expose it, should it take place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I associate my party with his thanks and appreciation for the dedicated service of our armed forces personnel around the world.

While the world’s attention was on Trump and Netanyahu’s catastrophic war in Iran, Vladimir Putin was collecting vital information about our critical infrastructure. In response, the Defence Secretary told Putin, for the second time: “We see you.” But we need much greater confidence that the Government have the plan and resolve not just to observe Russia’s activities, but to meet and resist them, should that be required.

As Putin plans for future conflict, our Government appear frozen. Delay and inaction is sapping the confidence of industry and our allies, while enabling Putin’s war machine in Ukraine. The Government must remedy these failings as a matter of urgency. Our national security and the sovereignty of our Ukrainian allies demand it. Will the Minister commit to publishing the defence investment plan before Parliament is prorogued, and will he publish a plan to raise £20 billion in defence bonds to be spent on urgent projects, including rebuilding our naval capabilities, which are critical for protecting our undersea infrastructure?

The Minister rightly highlighted Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine. Péter Magyar’s spectacular victory in yesterday’s Hungarian elections should unlock European financial support to Ukraine. At just the same time, Donald Trump authorised a suspension of sanctions on Russian energy assets. The Government cannot allow this opportunity to slip, so will the Minister work with EU partners so that the UK’s £30 billion share of the frozen Russian assets in Europe can be sent to Ukraine’s defence alongside the promised €90 billion from the EU, and will he work with colleagues across Government finally to put an end to the scandal of UK companies providing maritime services for the export of Russian oil, gas and coal?

Gurkha Veterans

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Cameron Thomas, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. With an immediate five-minute time limit to start with, I call Lauren Edwards.

Nuclear Test Veterans

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend raises another very important issue that goes to the heart of today’s debate. The point is that the Government need to be in a good place on this; they need to acknowledge that mistakes were made historically, and to restore faith to all servicemen and women who put their lives at risk on a daily basis to keep us safe that, where it is found that their lives have been put at risk by the actions of the Government themselves, that will be made right, and they will get the support and care that they deserve. Hopefully that will be at the heart of the Minister’s response.

Finally, I have a number of brief questions for the Minister in relation to the 2014 report. First, on what date did the Atomic Weapons Establishment tell the Ministry of Defence of the report’s existence? Was the document ever produced to any judge? What steps are the Government now taking to inform the judges and courts concerned, and to inform war pensions in the future?

In the past six months, what impact assessments have been produced by the AWE or Ministry of Defence about costs, compensation and the number of people affected? What efforts have the AWE or the Ministry of Defence made to bring in the authors of the report, both of whom have since left the AWE, to discuss their findings? Who at the Ministry of Defence knew of the report at the time it was drafted, and did any Ministers know of the report?

What steps are the Government taking to look at the Athena database at Porton Down, which has confirmed it holds information relevant to nuclear veterans’ service and which has provided heavily redacted disclosures to freedom of information requests? What steps are under way in locating the research on radiation effects on UK service personnel, which the Ministry of Defence has confirmed is held by Technical Co-operation Programme, in an “allied country”?

When will the Defence Secretary and Prime Minister sit down with nuclear veterans and discuss their offer of a one-year special inquiry with capped costs to limit both the time and expense of ending this cover-up once and for all? Finally, on the Hillsborough law, can the Minister confirm that no information relating to nuclear testing veterans will be hidden behind national security concerns?

For too long, nuclear testing veterans have been forced to fight for recognition. For too long, they have been told there is no evidence to support their claims. For too long, they have had to carry the burden of proof themselves, when it is the state that held the evidence all along. That injustice cannot continue. We are the only nuclear power in the world not to compensate our nuclear testing veterans for their suffering.

This is not about rewriting history; it is about acknowledging it. It is about recognising that mistakes were made—serious mistakes—and those mistakes were compounded by decades of denial; it is about ensuring that those who serve this country are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve; and it is about restoring faith in our institutions by demonstrating that, when confronted with the truth, we are willing to act on it.

The veterans and their families are not asking for special treatment. All they are asking for is fairness, honesty and justice. After 70 years, that is the very least we owe them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before I call the Minister, I am sure I speak for the whole House in sending our very best wishes to the hon. Member’s mum.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.