Armed Forces Bill

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. and gallant Member makes an excellent point, and I hope that the Minister for the Armed Forces will respond to that in his winding-up speech.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

On the proposal to extend the age limit under which reservists can be called back, a small number of them might have attained the extremely high levels of physical fitness of the Minister for the Armed Forces and be suitable for a wide range of roles, but some could be called back for back-office tasks such as analysing intelligence or training people, where the levels of fitness required are far lower than for any kind of combat role. Does my hon. Friend accept that that would release younger people who are currently in those roles to take up roles nearer the frontline?

[Mr Dhesi]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Defence Secretary opened the debate by talking about the Bill taking significant steps to improve service lives, but the reality is that the rhetoric is not matched by the record.

Let me take as an example the significant section of the Bill that is devoted to reservists. There are measures that I have no objection to: it allows the recall of those in their early 60s; it aligns the provision across the three services; and it has a new, lower threshold to recall based on warlike conditions, although it does not explain to employers what “warlike” constitutes so that they can know on what basis their staff might be called up. But the reality is that under this Government the number of reservists has actually fallen. It was over 32,000 in October 2023 and under 32,000 in October 2024. The number of training days has also fallen, from 1.3 million in 2023-24 to 1.17 million in 2024-25. The Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) said that our reservists “are critical” and “absolutely central”:

“Without them we cannot generate mass, we cannot meet the plethora of defence tasks”.

If that is his view—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) spoke about increased risks and the action being taken by other countries—then why is the number of reservists not increasing significantly?

There might be those on the Government Benches who say, “Well, perhaps our record so far hasn’t been great, but don’t worry—the strategic defence and security review promises a 20% increase in our reservists, so perhaps it will improve in future.” First, that starts from a very low base of 32,000, so a 20% increase is around 6,500. Let us put that in context. Even the French—the French, Madam Deputy Speaker!—are more than doubling their number of reservists, and from a higher starting point. They are going from 46,000 to over 100,000 in the next decade. Many other countries have already taken action. The US has half its army and over a third of its air force in its guard or reserve units. Scandinavian and Baltic countries have also taken action. If we want to see what other countries are doing, we can look at the action the Germans are taking, as my right hon. Friend talked about, or at Poland’s defence spending

We have a very weak target of 20% on a low threshold. What is worse is that the funding commitment to that is almost non-existent. The strategic defence and security review has no hard deadline, and it has the caveat

“when funds allow, most likely in the 2030s.”

Some might say, “Well, isn’t that just my view?” It is actually the view of the cross-party Public Accounts Committee. There are 10 Labour Members on that Committee. It is worth pointing out what that cross-party Committee said just a few months ago, in September:

“The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) sets out the Department’s ambition to significantly expand the reserves’ role, including a 20% increase in numbers from the current 32,000 reserves when funding allows, most likely in the 2030s. However, the Department does not currently have funding or a detailed plan for how it will achieve this expansion.”

That is a report from a Committee with a majority of Labour Members of Parliament.

Let us be honest: it is not just on the issue of reservists that there is no action and little transparency on the funding. To give another example, we do not even have the defence investment plan published—it was promised last year. Given what my right hon. Friend said about the funding steps being taken by other countries, let us put that in context. How much money are we talking about? Spending on reserve pay last year, 2024-25, amounted to £135.3 million, with a further £32 million for bounty payments. The Department’s budget is over £60 billion. A 20% increase in pay and bounty payments would be £33.6 million. We have Government Front Benchers saying that this is critical, central and urgent, but we cannot find low tens of millions until the 2030s.

[Luke Akehurst]

It is an honour to serve under the right hon. Gentleman on the Finance Committee, where we look at slightly smaller-scale issues on spending. He appears to be questioning the Government’s political commitment to find the funding necessary for defence. Does he accept that the downpayment on that political will was the very tough political decision of the Government to take an axe to international development funding, something close to the hearts of many Labour Back Benchers, to provide additional funding for the MOD? If a Labour Government are prepared to take a step with that political courage, he should be in no doubt that, as the years go forward, we will find the funding that is essential to deal with the future defence threats we face.

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman is one of the most astute commentators on the Finance Committee, so I always genuinely listen to what he says. However, the point I am making is on the urgency to address this now and the relative modesty of the sums we are talking about to significantly increase the reserves. We are talking about tens of millions in a budget of over £60 billion. Therefore, if the rhetoric that this is central to our national security is meant, why is the action being delayed? To the hon. Gentleman’s point on funding, as a Former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I know that pages 141 and 142 of the Red Book deal with the resource departmental expenditure limit, which I think is at £1.1 billion this year in cash terms, and the capital departmental expenditure limit is at £0.4 billion—so there is more money. From that £1.5 billion, if I was back in the Treasury I would be asking why tens of millions cannot be prioritised for this, if it is indeed a priority?

If we do not want to look at the MOD budget, we could look at the £27 million the civil service spends on diversity and inclusion officers, or some other areas, such as the over £100 million a year those on the Government Benches voted to spend as part of the Chagos islands giveaway. My point is that these are relatively small sums, which give us scale in terms of our ability to respond at pace.

Ministers are right to say that the reserves are critical, but their record is one in which they have failed to act, and there is no timescale to address those points. Just last month, the Minister told journalists that the UK is “rapidly developing” plans to prepare the country for war, and he warned that:

“the shadow of war is knocking on Europe’s door once more”.

How is that aligned with the approach of the Government in terms of failing to scale reserves, and in allowing their numbers to stagnate or even fall?

I have a specific question to ask the Minister with regard to the article 3 commitment under NATO, on our ability to defend the UK. Will he confirm that for the duration of this Parliament the current level of manpower available in our reserves is sufficient to meet article 3 and cover all our critical national infrastructure, and that in reaching that judgment, he is not double counting reservists—such as those who are police officers, doctors, nurses or work in our NHS—who could be counted as essential in those tasks as part of our article 3 requirements?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Members across the House who have brought to the debate personal experience of serving this country in the armed forces. I particularly thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) for his insightful speech, in which he talked about some of the threats we face.

It was mentioned earlier in the debate that there are no Members present from the Reform party. I think that their apparent lack of interest in defence matters could partly be because, while most of us across the rest of the House have sleepless nights worrying about the threat to the United Kingdom and its allies from Russia, Reform Members do not actually accept that that threat exists; they are on a spectrum that ranges from thinking it is all Ukraine’s fault that it was ever the subject of two invasions and the threat of a third, through to their Welsh leader actually accepting money from the people whose military threat we are trying to counter.

For many families across North Durham, the contract between the state and the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces is a key issue—one that they sent me here to focus on. One in every 10 households I speak to in North Durham has a veteran or serving member of the armed forces. When I am campaigning on people’s doorsteps, I often play “spot the cap badge”, as many homes have different badges just inside the door as mementos, and if I manage to recognise it, it helps to strike up a conversation.

Across my constituency are people who have served in all three services and many different units, but North Durham has a particularly strong connection with the Durham Light Infantry—also known as the DLI or Faithful Durhams—and its successor regiments following amalgamation. I pay particular tribute to the Durham Light Infantry Association for its role in my constituency.

For my constituents, having proper housing, social care, justice and other support for veterans is not just about making a pledge; they must be a reality for them and their loved ones in order to get on with life. Since being elected, I have tried to use my role in this place as a platform to stand up for our armed forces and veterans and call for greater investment in defending our country. In an increasingly turbulent world, the importance of the invaluable efforts of our servicemen and women is clearer than it has been at any time since the end of the cold war.

I am proud that we have a Labour Government who are showing through this Bill that we are on the side of our armed forces. I was elected on a manifesto that promised to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve through better housing, services and protections for our forces and their families. The Bill will do exactly that. It will also renew, as is done on a five-year basis, the existence of standing armed forces—a tradition that has gone on since 1688. I am sure Members will be unsurprised to hear that I am happy for this country to have standing armed forces. As others have said, I hope that the standing armed forces will grow and that we will attain the kind of mass that we need to deal with the threats we face.

The Bill forms a key part of a wider picture of a Labour Government who are delivering on the defence of this nation. I spoke about the tough political choices that we are making to obtain the funding that is needed for that, but landmark deals have also been secured to protect British jobs and help keep the world safer from hostile actors. We secured an £8 billion deal with Turkey on Eurofighter, which I spoke about in a Westminster Hall debate late last year, and we have seen the selection of the UK’s Type 26 frigates by Norway. Incidentally, I consider Norway to be one of our key strategic partners in defending the north Atlantic bastion.

As parliamentarians, we all have a duty to deliver a renewed covenant with our armed forces. We must do that for the brave men and women in North Durham who were willing to put their lives on the line throughout history and do so even now for the good of the rest of our constituents up and down the country. We must do it for the current generation in active service, who are safeguarding the nation from threats, wherever they come from. We must do it for the entire population, who rightly expect that their Government will do all that they can to keep them safe from any risk of conflict and bloodshed.

Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting)

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the amendment, which was tabled in the name of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and to set out my broader support for clause 20. I will begin with the clause itself, because it addresses the composition of the court martial. In such circumstances, it is right that we support the very sensible change that the clause sets out, with its underlying intent to ensure that the court martial is properly constituted and capable of commanding confidence across the armed forces and the wider public. Enlarging the pool of those who can sit on it is a welcome amendment.

Precisely because we support that principle, however, we also need to examine whether the system is fully equipped for the realities it faces. In that context, the amendment becomes not only relevant, but in my view increasingly necessary. The amendment proposes a simple change, as set out by my right hon. Friend, to include retired holders of the relevant rank among those qualified for membership of the court martial.

At first glance the amendment may appear relatively modest, but I suggest that, like many apparently modest changes in defence legislation, it subtly reflects something much more significant. It reflects a recognition of the demands placed on our armed forces justice system and how those are changing over time, and changing rapidly. We are operating in an era of increasing operational tempo—a phrase that is often used in defence debates, sometimes frequently.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Has the hon. Gentleman made any assessment of whether the capacity savings from serving officers not having to serve on the court—because under the amendment they would be replaced by retired officers—are perhaps exceeded by the burden on the service justice system of having to track and maintain some kind of database of the retired officers that it would call on to serve?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Gentleman makes a helpful challenge. Clearly, there is no impact assessment with the amendment. However, there is a joint service publication, the RARO—regular army reserve of officers—list, and there are those letters I receive annually asking me to update my address and contact details. There are already mechanisms by which individuals can be identified and recalled for this service. Given the operational tempo that I have described, it makes sense that we ameliorate the pressure on those who are currently in active service while not impacting the flow of justice through the service justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

I say that because one challenge sometimes faced by the armed forces justice system is not necessarily a lack of expertise, but a lack of availability of individuals at the precise moment when that expertise is required. The danger of that, and something that I suspect we would all agree we want to avoid, is that it creates delays. It can create scheduling and listing difficulties; and in some cases it puts an enormous strain, as I have said, on those who have served. We have to be absolutely candid. Justice delayed is not just justice denied in the civilian context. In the military context, that can cause much wider issues in terms of morale, discipline and operational focus.

[Luke Akehurst]

I feel that the hon. Member is perhaps trying to fix something that is not broken. In the evidence we heard about the service justice system, was there anything that implied that there was a large-scale problem with delays and scheduling? I ask because I thought I was hearing about a system that was relatively efficient and speedy compared with the delays that we all know are afflicting the civilian justice system. There was just one instance—I think it was of a general who had done something inappropriate regarding funding for school fees. It was almost a sui generis incident where it had been difficult to put together a board. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there is some danger that the amendment is attempting to fix something that is not broken in a system that is actually working rather well?

[The Chair]

Order. I gently remind hon. Members that interventions should be slightly shorter than that.

Armed Forces Bill (Sixth sitting)

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Francois]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments. He proves that the issue is not all about recruitment, as he was in the Air Training Corps but joined the Royal Marines. I thank him for his tri-service.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is bipartisan support for extending cadet forces into the state sector, which was his first point. He mentioned cadet forces in state schools in his constituency, and the combined cadet force at Park View comprehensive school in Chester-le-Street also does excellent work. I hope he accepts that there is a community of interest in achieving that aim. I am not aware of the obstacles he spoke about around the RFCA, but I am interested by his points.