Armed Forces Bill

Michelle Scrogham Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

As Members on both sides of the House have said over many years, this Bill is unlike most others that come before us. It is not simply a piece of Government business; it is the foundation on which our armed forces rest. It is renewed every five years and carries with it a deep responsibility.

I am proud to stand here in support of this Bill, and to reflect the priorities of my constituents in Barrow and Furness, a community whose identity and prosperity are bound with the defence of this nation. In Barrow and Furness, thousands of highly skilled workers design and build the submarines that keep our nation safe. Families move in and out as part of service life, and veterans settle and make their homes. For Barrow, defence is a lived experience, so when this House considers how we support those who serve, people in my community are listening closely.

The Bill comes before us at a time of profound global uncertainty. The security environment has changed dramatically since the last Armed Forces Act was debated, in 2021. We face new global threats and constant cyber-attacks, and those who might wish to harm us are testing our levels of defence and resilience on a daily basis. In this context, the provisions to strengthen the strategic reserve are vital. Expanding the pool of former personnel who can be called on in times of national need recognises the enormous value of their skills and experience. Many veterans possess specialist capabilities in engineering, intelligence, logistics and cyber that cannot easily be replaced. It is right that this country should draw on their expertise in a crisis.

There is another aspect of this Bill that I welcome wholeheartedly: the decision to put the armed forces covenant fully into law. This was a clear manifesto commitment of the Labour party, and I am proud that this Government are delivering it. Unfortunately, the Defence Committee, on which I sit, found that many people in the armed forces community are not aware of the covenant or do not have a clear understanding of what it means for them. That must change.

For too long, the covenant relied on good will alone. Too often, service families and veterans have found themselves at a disadvantage, and have struggled to access housing, healthcare, education or employment because of the unique demands of their military life. Putting the covenant on a statutory footing is not about special treatment; it is about preventing unfair treatment and ensuring that those who serve are not penalised for doing so. In Barrow and Furness, I see why that matters every week. I meet veterans navigating complex systems, and I meet partners trying to rebuild careers after repeated relocations. This Bill offers something that they have long deserved: practical, enforceable recognition from the state.

I welcome the establishment of the new defence housing service. Good-quality accommodation for service personnel is fundamental to morale and family wellbeing. Too many of our armed forces families have been let down over the years by poor housing and inadequate maintenance. An end to the Tories’ disastrous 1996 privatisation of military housing, which cost the taxpayer billions, is long overdue.

Labour has always believed in strong defence. We are the party of NATO and understand that our nation’s security is the first duty of any Government. We have increased spending on defence to its highest level since the cold war and will increase it further in the coming years, but we also know that strength must go hand in hand with fairness. Supporting our armed forces means more than words; it means decent homes, proper healthcare, fair treatment in civilian life and real opportunities for veterans. This Bill makes progress on all those fronts.

The direction is the right one. We are modernising our armed forces, strengthening support for those who serve, and delivering on the promises made to them. For communities like mine in Barrow and Furness, that matters deeply. I welcome this legislation, and I look forward to working constructively with Ministers as it moves through Parliament.

Our Government were elected with a clear commitment to renew the nation’s contract with the men and women who serve in our armed forces, and with the ranks of veterans who have put their lives on the line for the UK. The message to our armed forces is clear: this Government are on your side.

Armed Forces Bill

Michelle Scrogham Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger]

My point is that arguing loudly for a bigger armed forces, praising our troops, as we all do, or speaking up for our allies, as we should, are not a strategy. Publishing a strategic defence review or even a defence investment plan do not count either.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

The hon. Member says that the SDR is not about strategy, but the clue is in the name. It is a strategic defence review. Does he not agree?

[Danny Kruger]

The word “strategy” can be put on all sorts of things. I am talking about what a strategy actually is. It is a plan of action that proceeds from an objective and a doctrine about how to achieve that objective. That is what we lack as a country. We have not done grand strategy in this country for decades.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am taking the opportunity of a defence debate to make the point that defence is downstream of grand strategy, and that is what is fundamentally lacking. Our defences are not going to be as strong as they could be, because they are not necessarily oriented towards the fundamental objectives that we need, which I am trying to set out in very broad terms. I am not suggesting that we need to create new structures and new alliances with new institutions—we can work within the ones that we have—but the purpose of the United Kingdom’s security strategy, and the fundamental objective we should have as a country, is to lead the defence of Europe with our partners, particularly the Euro-Atlantic sea border.

Let me conclude with this point. To lead the alliance that I suggest, we need real strength at home. More than anything, that means economic reform, liberating the inventors and entrepreneurs, particularly in the exciting new fields of defence tech. It means freeing up private capital that will ultimately fund our defence in addition to anything that the Government can find. It means driving forward on AI, which is the new, great frontline for everything. It also means securing the supply of energy, licensing new oil and gas exploration, and radically reforming our planning system. None of that is being done by the Government. That is why, although I absolutely support the objectives of the Bill—we will vote for it tonight if it goes to a Division—I still fear for our security as a country.

[Michelle Scrogham]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), mostly because it is such a rarity—like hen’s teeth—to see our Reform colleagues in the Chamber for these debates.

I turn to new clause 10, tabled by the Conservative party. I would be supportive of it if it focused less on the timeframes and more on getting the defence investment plan right. There is an urgent need to properly fund the defence investment plan as a credible, long-term commitment for our nation’s security. I call on the Government to do that.

We have seen what happens when defence is funded inconsistently—the Conservatives, in their 14 years in government, provided a masterclass in that. For years, too often spending has been drip-fed, reactive, fragmented and tied to short-term pressures rather than long-term strategy. That approach does not save money; it stores up costs and leads to delays, inconsistencies and, ultimately, weaker capability.

Nowhere is that clearer than in my constituency of Barrow and Furness, the heart of our sovereign submarine building capability. When investment falters, as it did under the coalition Government of the Opposition parties, skills are lost, highly trained engineers move on, the training pipeline is cut and the supply chain contracts. When the nation inevitably needs to accelerate production again, we are forced to rebuild that capacity at far greater expense. That is why the DIP—the first line-by-line, long-term plan of its kind in a decade—is so important. It is vital that we get it right, but also that it is properly funded to meet the scale of the threats we face and the demands placed on our armed forces. The consequences of not doing so extend beyond cost; over time, our armed forces risk becoming “hollowed out”, as referenced by former Conservative Defence Secretaries.

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member is right to mention defence being underfunded—I called it out under the last Government and I call it out under this Government. The previous Defence Secretary talked about 30 years of defence underfunding. We talk about the DIP going line by line and getting this right, but if it does not come out with correct funding and it is anywhere near the numbers quoted by the previous Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), that will probably be felt most in the hon. Member’s constituency with its shipbuilding and, as she mentioned, submarine capability.

[Michelle Scrogham]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. As he rightly says, nobody felt that more than we did in my constituency. I agree that we have to invest properly in the DIP, but we must also ensure that the priorities in the DIP are right. Warfare has changed so dramatically in recent years that we cannot go to the capabilities that we have always looked at, and we cannot continue to fund it in the way that has been done for the past couple of decades. It is about putting the right amount of money in, and about putting it into the right places.

Over time, our armed forces have become hollowed out. Our adversaries will be emboldened, and we leave ourselves at a greater risk of the conflicts that we all want to avoid. Defence is not just a cost; it is an engine for growth in communities like mine. Investment in defence supports skilled jobs, apprenticeships and innovation across the country.

This Armed Forces Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to strengthening our services through improving support for personnel and their families, updating service justice arrangements and ensuring that our armed forces are better equipped to meet the challenges of the modern world. Those are important steps forward, and I am confident that the Bill significantly delivers the improvements that are needed. I therefore oppose new clause 10.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I wish to speak to new clause 4, tabled in my name. I thank all those across the House who signed my amendment. Some 10% of MPs in the House supported the amendment. Although that is not exceptional, it is certainly unusual, and I wish to put on record my thanks to all those who put their name to it—particularly those on the Labour Benches.