Defence Investment Plan

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I join the hon. Gentleman in passing on my personal condolences in relation to the helicopter crash in Devon, which, as a Devon MP, I know has hit the military city I represent very hard. I come from a Royal Navy family and know many people who fly similar helicopters, and I welcome the cross-party support for the families of the victims.

The hon. Gentleman asked when the DIP will be published. As the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have said, it will be published before the NATO summit in only a few weeks’ time. The “few weeks’ time” should have answered his final question, but I understand he wanted to get that in for a social media clip. Instead of wanting to know the answer, he would already have known it.

The hon. Gentleman would also have known that the SDR was not market sensitive, so what he said was not correct. We are, however, very clear that we are investing more in defence. We are ending the hollowing out and underfunding that his Government presided over. We are very clear that the DIP will be published before the NATO summit. [Interruption.] He can keep chuntering, but I am trying to answer his questions. He had an opportunity to ask them; let me have a go at answering them. [Interruption.] He is choosing not to do that. Spending decisions are made by the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is still chuntering, which is not good. Spending decisions will be made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in the usual way, as applies to any Department, including the Ministry of Defence, and we will publish the defence investment plan before the NATO summit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary, and my heartfelt condolences and sympathies are with the families of our brave service personnel who, sadly, have perished.

The strategic defence review set the ambition, but the defence investment plan is supposed to say what will be funded, when and with what trade-offs. Will the Minister confirm that, when the defence investment plan is finally announced, it will be announced in this Chamber to enable proper parliamentary scrutiny? Will he also confirm that it will contain all the details that hon. Members, British taxpayers and industry expect from an investment plan, rather than just a headline figure, some headline commitments and a few aspirations?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does for defence and the work he does on the Defence Committee. He knows that the commitment the Defence Secretary made from this Dispatch Box to publish the plan before the NATO summit will be honoured. When it comes to the details, we have committed to go beyond the equipment programmes we inherited. The equipment plans published by the last Government dealt only with equipment, and as my hon. Friend will know, 47 of the 49 major defence programmes we inherited were delayed and over budget at the general election. He will also know that 30% or so of the equipment plans were unfunded, and many of them were unsuitable for the threats we are facing. That is why the defence investment plan will go beyond just equipment and deal with people, estates and infrastructure, as well as dealing with this reform. I am certain that he will have heard the commitments given by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, and I look forward to debates in this House on the defence investment plan, when it is published.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, and I enjoy listening to his clips on social media, on which I am sure this will appear very shortly. [Interruption.] I have to say to him politely—[Interruption.] I have to say to him politely—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I do not need such loud chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench.

[Luke Pollard]

I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, politely, that when we have military families living in housing with black mould in bedrooms, broken boilers and leaky roofs, the investment we are making in defence housing is absolutely vital. He says that there may have been errors—there certainly were. Defence matters to me, as someone who comes from a military family and represents a military constituency. We will publish the defence investment plan shortly. What it will show is a Labour Government increasing defence spending, ending the hollowing out and underfunding that his Government, in which he was a Minister, presided over: new capabilities for our armed forces and a stronger Britain in a more dangerous world. [Interruption.] I look forward to seeing the entire answer on his social media, not just his clip. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Tugendhat, you had the luxury of coming in early on this urgent question. Other colleagues would like to be heard as well. Minister, have you finished?

[Luke Pollard]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

As Devonport’s MP, I say to my Portsmouth colleagues that after many years under the Conservatives where Devonport, Portsmouth and Faslane were pitched against each other, it is welcome that under a Labour Government we can confidently say that there is work and resources for all three. After much delay by the last Government, we will see a multibillion-pound investment across our naval bases, and the defence investment plan will lay out some of that. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and her Portsmouth colleagues to say how we are investing in the kit and capabilities that our Royal Navy needs, as well as in military houses, skills and support for veterans and cadets across the country, which will improve our warfighting readiness, ensuring we have the ability to deter aggression—and to defeat it if necessary.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that on Sunday we published a report—I have it here—that is highly critical of the delay in the defence investment plan. The most important duty of a Government is to defend the nation, as is stated in article 3 of the NATO treaty. Our constituents want to know whether they are going to be properly defended, the armed forces need to know whether they are going to be properly defended and, above all, our allies need to know when they are going to be properly defended. Why has the Minister been dragged to this House unable to tell us when the DIP will be published? When will it be published?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The hon. Member, who is far more experienced than I am, should know that we do not hold up booklets or magazines as props when speaking in the Chamber.

[Luke Pollard]

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is indeed a prop, but I have read it and welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, because I want to see more scrutiny of defence and ensure that we can answer that. The issue he raised on article 3, which concerns homeland defence, is important. That is one of the reasons why I said in my opening remarks that the equipment plan we inherited was unsuited to defence. It also had gaps in our defence. What the hon. Gentleman and others will see when the defence investment plan is published is how we are supporting not only our warfighting ability and the defence of NATO allies, but homeland defence. Let me be clear that homeland defence means the entirety of the United Kingdom and our overseas territories.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

As Mr Speaker noted earlier, the mood of the House is very much that the long-awaited defence investment plan must not be produced this Friday, yet the Minister is still unable to provide that confirmation. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask Mr Speaker whether he would consider an emergency sitting of Parliament on Friday if it is produced then.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

These questions are supposed to be to the Minister, not to the Chair, but no doubt Mr Speaker will have heard that one. He has made his views very clear, as has the Chamber. Was there actually a question in there, Mr Tice? Would you like to have another attempt at a question?

[Richard Tice]

Can the Minister confirm whether the plan will be produced on Friday—yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before you took the Chair, you will have heard the very strong statement from Mr Speaker about the prospect of the defence investment plan being delivered when the House is not sitting. His words were that it would be “an utter kick in the face” to Parliament if that were to happen. I have raised this directly with the Minister, and colleagues from three different Opposition parties have asked the explicit and specific question as to whether it is going to be delivered when the House is sitting. Surely, given that this is such a significant plan in the context that we face internationally, we should be entitled to confirmation from the Minister that it will be not be delivered when the House is not sitting.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Speaker made it abundantly clear at the start of the statement just how important it is that the defence investment plan is presented first to Parliament, and that Members of this House have the opportunity to ask questions about it as soon as the plan is published. As the Speaker said, I hope that speculation that the plan will be published on a non-sitting day is proven wrong. The House comes first.

Of course, the Government could table a motion to enable the House to sit on a non-sitting Friday, if those were the circumstances. If the hon. Member wishes to have further advice on parliamentary procedure, he can get that from the Clerks in the Table Office. Mr Speaker made his views abundantly clear. Does the Minister wish to respond?

[Luke Pollard]

indicated dissent.

Railways Bill (Ways and Means)

King’s recommendation signified.

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Railways Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision about income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, stamp duty, stamp duty reserve tax and stamp duty land tax.—(Shaun Davies.)

Question agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

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

[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind Members that in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” or “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.

Clause 1

Duration of Armed Forces Act 2006

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 8 and 9.

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Continuity of plans for special educational needs

(1) Within six months 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 3, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements

(1) Within six months 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 4, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Continuity of NHS secondary care services

(1) Within six months 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, and—

(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 88, page 6, line 37, 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 89, page 6, line 37, 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,

(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.

Clause 2 stand part.

Government amendments 10 to 24.

Clause 3 stand part.

Government amendment 25.

Clause 4 stand part.

Clauses 5 and 6 stand part.

Government amendments 26 to 30.

Clause 7 stand part.

Clauses 8 to 11 stand part.

Amendment 90, in clause 12, page 29, line 6, 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.

(3) 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).

(4) 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.

Clause 12 stand part.

Government amendment 31.

Clause 13 stand part.

Clauses 14 to 19 stand part.

Amendment 5, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert—

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

This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial.

Clause 20 stand part.

Government amendment 32.

Clause 21 stand part.

Clauses 22 to 24 stand part.

Government amendments 33 and 34.

Clause 25 stand part.

Clauses 26 to 28 stand part.

Government amendments 35 to 37.

Clause 29 stand part.

Clauses 30 to 32 stand part.

Government amendments 38 to 41.

Amendment 1, in clause 33, page 54, line 43, at end insert—

“69C Prevention of recall for persons in reserved occupations

(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations to define certain categories of civilian work as reserved occupations.

(2) A “reserved occupation” under subsection (1) is any category of civilian work which the Secretary of State deems as vital for defence purposes.

(3) Persons undertaking a reserved occupation may be exempted from a recall order under section 69A for which they would have otherwise been liable.”

This amendment would allow persons undertaking civilian work which the Secretary of State deems vital for defence purposes to be exempt from a recall order under section 69A.

Amendment 6, 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 R8 (90 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 90 days.

Clause 33 stand part.

Clauses 34 to 41 stand part.

Government amendment 42.

Clause 42 stand part.

Clauses 43 to 51 stand part.

Government amendments 43 to 46.

Clause 52 stand part.

Government amendment 47.

Clause 53 stand part.

Government amendment 48.

Clause 54 stand part.

Clause 55 stand part.

Government new clause 4.

New clause 1—Exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights for Deployed Members of the Reserve Forces—

“A member of the 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 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 2—Laying of the Defence Investment Plan—

“Within one month of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament within a month of the passage of this Act.

New clause 3—National Veterans’ Commissioner (England)—

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

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

(1) Within 12 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 5—Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or dependants of serving or discharged member of the armed forces—

“(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 68, after subsection (11) insert—

“11A Fees may not be charged

No fees may be charged in respect of a serving or previously serving member of the armed forces or their family members applying for indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Rules Appendix HM Armed Forces.””

This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 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.

New clause 6—Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights—

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

“14A Duty to consider derogation in relation to overseas operations

(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must consider whether it is appropriate 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 consider derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights during significant overseas operations.

New clause 7—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 8—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.

New clause 9—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 10—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 11—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 is 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 12—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 13—Single living accommodation standards—

“(1) The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 101 (The standard of MOD accommodation), after ‘service family accommodation’, in each place it occurs, insert ‘and single living accommodation’.

(3) In subsection (10), at the appropriate place insert—

‘single living accommodation’ means any building or part of a building which is provided for the use of a person subject to service law or a civilian subject to service discipline as living accommodation, but which is not service family accommodation;”.

This new clause amends the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 to ensure defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation.

New clause 14—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 15—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 NC14, 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.

Government amendments 49 to 56.

Schedule 1.

Schedule 2.

Government amendments 57 to 84.

Schedule 3.

Schedule 4.

Government amendments 85 to 87.

Schedule 5.

Schedules 6 and 7.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I apologise for interrupting so early, but before the Minister gets into his stride, I would like to place firmly on the record that we are debating legislation of material importance, relating to the care of our armed forces, and yet again, there is no Reform Member of Parliament present. Does the Minister agree that there is a massive irony here? These plastic patriots love to wrap themselves in the flag, but they cannot be bothered to turn up in Parliament to debate the fate of those who serve to defend it.

[The Chairman]

Order. Obviously interventions are taken by those who wish to take them, but we need to make sure that interventions and speeches stay within the scope of the debate.

[Al Carns]

I absolutely agree. I am a full patriot, and I support patriotism, but I make sure that I practise it. By not being here today, Reform Members are demonstrating that some individuals do not necessarily live up to those standards.

Government amendments 8 and 9 bring the Greater London Authority, combined authorities and combined county authorities within scope of the covenant duty, alongside the local authorities already listed in the Bill. These bodies exercise functions in policy areas covered by the Bill, and should therefore have regard to the armed forces covenant, just as other local authorities do. The amendments simply add those authorities to the list in clause 2; they do not create new functions or impose new outcomes. I remind the House that the new duty will expand the number of policy areas involved from three to 12, and there are already 14,400 covenant signatories, which is a prime example of patriotism across society today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

That is one of the reasons for these amendments and other provisions in the Bill. In the past, personnel had to leave the regular forces to join the reserves and leave the reserves to join the regular forces. We want to create a seamless transition, which will reduce the 60 pages of administrative burden that my hon. Friend had to fill in to a much more seamless transition between regular and reserve services, mirroring other nations across the world that do it quite well.

We need a system that is fair and equitable and that does not discriminate against anyone who wishes to exercise that flexibility. It is worth noting what that will provide for the UK in the current geostrategic environment. It will likely take us from a strategic reserve of 95,000 that could be mobilised up to 150,000 over the next 10 years, which is a significant step forward.

All the other Government amendments tabled in my name are either consequential to the amendments I have just covered or are minor and technical, simply to improve the drafting of the Bill.

I turn to the Opposition amendments. On amendments 2, 3 and 4, I am aware that the Minister for Veterans and People recently met the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) to discuss the concerns behind them. We continue to work across Government on the best way to address those issues in practice. The better route is not a rigid statutory fix but practical improvements through existing systems. The statutory guidance on the covenant legal duty already gives public bodies a flexible framework to take account of the particular challenges service families face when on the move. Let me be clear: considering the statutory guidance supporting the duty is not optional; once it is in force, public bodies that are subject to the duty must have regard to it in their decision making and policy development.

Special educational needs, adoption and fostering, and NHS continuity are exceptionally important issues, but they are not well addressed through rigid legislation. The systems are different, the legal frameworks are different and the decisions involved often depend on professional judgment, safeguarding or clinical need. A blanket duty to transfer plans, arrangements or treatment automatically could create confusion, cut across devolved responsibilities and in some cases delay the support families need. Instead, our focus is on improving continuity in delivery so that service families get better support without unintended consequences.

Amendment 88 would require the Secretary of State to review current practices for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements. The MOD maintains a comprehensive and ongoing programme of communication with both serving and former personnel, supported by established governance, regular data analysis and targeted engagement activity. The Department already monitors take-up and traces unclaimed entitlements 60 working days after pension due date. When a positive address is identified, individuals are contacted. That approach has resulted in over 10,000 pensions being brought into payment. Mandating a further statutory assessment would add process without delivering meaningful additional insight, diverting resource from delivery at a time when the focus is rightly on implementing pension remedies and strengthening frontline pension support.

Amendment 89 would require the Secretary of State to review current practices regarding the transfer of the medical records of armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces. I reassure the Committee that no transfer of military healthcare records is needed when transferring from regular to reserve service because Defence continues to hold and manage healthcare records for reservists in the same electronic system, which will also be simplified by some of the reserve forces amendments I mentioned earlier. It is worth noting that we send out 425,000 quarterly digests to those receiving pensions across the system.

Amendment 90 seeks to make sure that all investigations and prosecutions of service persons for sexual offences and domestic abuse in the UK take place in a criminal justice system. Since the prosecutors’ protocols were published in 2023, there have been no cases where a victim wanted trial in the criminal justice system but the case was instead prosecuted in the service justice system. The amendment would, however, override the victim’s preference in cases where they would prefer the service justice system. That risks increasing the victim withdrawal rate in civilian police investigations which, for adult rape-flagged cases in 2024, was 59%, while the withdrawal rate for the Defence Serious Crime Command was 24%. Furthermore, the amendment could lead to the loss or erosion of golden hour evidence and the safeguarding of victims, as there is no duty on civilian police to accept the case. A case-by-case approach that takes into account the views of the victim is better. Clause 25 therefore strengthens the provision of information to victims when asked for their preferred jurisdiction. That will help prosecutors take into account the victim’s view when making a decision on jurisdiction.

Amendment 5 would extend eligibility to sit on a court martial board to retired officers. The Government do not consider the amendment to be necessary, nor do we believe that it would improve the current arrangements. First, there is no shortage of eligible board members. The court martial already draws from a broad and sufficient pool of eligible personnel. In 2025, for example, 447 service personnel were sworn for 263 trials, and there has been no difficulty in constituting boards. Secondly, it is important that board members bring current knowledge and practical experience of the latest single service policies, procedures, values and standards. An individual who has left service, even relatively recently, may no longer be sufficiently connected to the pace of change across the service. I recognise the valuable contribution that veterans continue to make, but service on a court martial board is not the appropriate means of drawing on that experience. It is also worth noting that, when we are court-martialling higher rank, there are over 331 one stars in the British military and therefore ample opportunity to sit on court martial boards.

Amendment 1 would ensure that persons undertaking vital civilian work are exempt from a recall order under new section 69A of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Section 73 of the Reserve Forces Act already provides powers of exemption to recall. That existing provision allows the Defence Council, by regulations, to exempt individuals from or relax recall liability in total.

Amendment 6 aims to increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army reserve group A from 180 days to 90 days. I reassure the Committee that all Army readiness levels are subject to annual review, and to effectively fulfil its obligations the Army must review and adjust readiness levels across all elements of its force, responding to the evolving demands of the nation. It is essential that defence maintains the necessary flexibility to respond swiftly and appropriately to changing threat levels. Embedding such provisions in primary legislation would impose rigid constraints, creating an obstacle rather than a suitable mechanism for setting and reviewing readiness levels.

Hopefully, I have given the necessary assurances, and I ask that the Opposition amendments be withdrawn.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Mr Martin, are you hoping to contribute today, or do we just have the pleasure of your company?

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

indicated dissent.

[The Chairman]

Marvellous. I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Francois]

I rise to speak to amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 6, which appear in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I will say a little about each amendment and new clause in turn. I will also refer to new clause 5, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), and say at least a little about the multiplicity of Government amendments that have just been tabled, in particular Government amendment 54 on the proposed Crown immunity for the defence housing service. By your leave, Madam Chairman, I propose to speak to the amendments first and then to refer to the new clauses a little later in the debate so as not to try the patience of the Committee with an inordinately long speech.

I hope that we have collectively done the House and, indeed, the armed forces a service in our scrutiny of the Bill so far. The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, most of whose members are here, held seven oral evidence sessions on the Bill’s contents, as well as making a fact-finding visit to the Defence Serious Crime Command in Fareham and to defence housing sites at Emsworth near His Majesty’s Naval Base Portsmouth. As a Committee, we received 47 pieces of written evidence and heard from 42 witnesses. Having held the evidence sessions, we then went through a detailed process of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill and produced our subsequent report to the House, which was published on 29 April.

The Bill has already had quite a detailed amount of scrutiny; however, it is right that a measure of such importance is now in Committee on the Floor of the House. I reiterate my disappointment that Reform does not regard these proceedings as important. I am sure that the rest of us do; that is why we are here.

Defence Readiness

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard]

The Minister is right to focus on procurement and on defence kit and equipment, but all of that is nothing without defence personnel. I do not know if he is going to come on to personnel in his speech, but may I pivot his thoughts towards that subject? When they are redeployed to different countries, or even when they are moved between different local education authorities in this country, a lot of our armed forces personnel who have children with particular special educational needs and disabilities find it difficult, because there is a patchwork of quality in SEND provision, if I can put it like that. In the national interest, and in the interest of those individual children and families, will the Minister commit to ensuring that there is uniformity in SEND provision and recommendations when our servicemen and women are redeployed with their families?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I can tell that the question is incredibly serious and the right hon. Gentleman needed to give detail, but we are very short on time and over 40 people wish to contribute, so interventions and responses must be short.

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in his first intervention about Type 26 frigates, but he is right in this one. It is important that we do that, and that is why this Government are putting the armed forces covenant fully into law. If it is an issue that he feels passionate about, I can arrange a meeting for him with the Minister for Veterans and People, so he can discuss this important issue further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

No, I need to make progress. Madam Deputy Speaker is clear that I have to finish in a moment, but I thank the right hon. Member for his interest.

We know that in a more dangerous world, we need to spend more on defence. Turning to the legislation, I have heard the nonsense about there not being any defence measures in the King’s Speech from the usual armchair generals on social media, so let us look at what is in there. The Armed Forces Bill will further strengthen and improve service life, strengthen our armed forces and strengthen our strategic reserve. A new regulatory Bill, with measures to expand drone testing and use, is good news for our forces and good news for defence tech firms in Swindon, Plymouth, Poole, Portsmouth and across the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will repeal a law that was found to be unlawful and replace it with a new Bill that has new protections for veterans, which we are working closely with veterans and veterans groups to deliver.

I hear the Opposition squealing about the defence readiness Bill—a Bill they never thought of, a Bill that they never implemented and a Bill that they only complain about. The shadow Defence Secretary will know that we are continuing to work on the defence readiness Bill and it will be introduced later in this Parliament, assuming that the usual processes allow. We are consulting with people, but he will know that it is a sequential Bill. We are improving readiness in defence with the Armed Forces Bill and we are working on new measures, but all he has to offer to this debate is complaints—no apology for the underfunding, the cuts or the armed forces housing with black mould that our people are forced to live in. It is not good enough.

This Labour Government are investing in our people, providing the largest pay rise in 20 years and refurbishing or rebuilding nine in 10 defence houses. We are establishing an Armed Forces Commissioner and investing in our infrastructure. Billions of pounds will be spent on new housing and new docks. In our industrial relations, we will deliver five defence growth deals. We will deliver five defence technical excellence colleges in England, hopefully two in Scotland and one in Wales. We announced a £182 million defence skills package and 1,200 contracts have been signed.

In capabilities, we have new artillery, new missiles, new drones and new ships that are being built in Scotland. We have done new deals with Cambridge Aerospace for interceptor missiles and with Norway for new commando insertion craft. We will create new munition factories and 23 new medium helicopters are being built in Yeovil. Proteus, the first autonomous UK helicopter, has made its first flight, and we will have new defence warehouses, homes and facilities.

There will be more exports, a bigger defence industrial base and more alliances. There will be investment in the coalition of the willing and a new Ukraine Defence Contact Group, chaired by the Defence Secretary. We have a new deal with Germany, the Trinity House agreement, a fresh Lancaster House agreement, and a new deal with Norway, the Lunna House agreement. This Labour Government are delivering for defence and delivering for Britain, backing our allies and backing our forces, and I commend His Majesty’s Gracious Speech to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

The right hon. Member enjoys raising the coalition quite a lot. You are talking about the nuclear submarines, aren’t you? That is what you asked about.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I was not talking about anything. Please do not use the words “you” or “your”.

[James MacCleary]

The Liberal Democrats have reaffirmed our commitment to our nuclear deterrent repeatedly, and we will continue to do so.

The defence investment plan is still not published. Industry is still waiting for certainty, and our allies are still waiting for clarity. Our armed forces are still waiting for the investment that they need, so it was deeply disappointing that the promised defence readiness Bill was not included in the King’s Speech. It speaks volumes that the Government’s own Bill on readiness is itself delayed. That matters, because defence cannot be switched on overnight. We cannot rebuild capacity in industry at the flick of a switch. We cannot train personnel, repair readiness, modernise equipment, strengthen supply chains and restore deterrents with vague promises or “working at pace”.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that defence bonds, as with all bonds, would be borrowing. We have spoken before about the need to increase defence spending through cross-party talks, and a reversal in aid spending would be part of an overall package of how we would budget in the future. One way of doing that, which we have looked at and will propose later today, is rejoining a customs union with the European Union, which would generate increased spending.

Those bonds would help to modernise our armed forces, strengthen our sovereign capabilities and support British defence firms, including the small and medium-sized businesses that are so often at the cutting edge of innovation. That would also give the public a direct stake in the defence and security of our country. This is about spending better, not simply spending more. For too long, defence procurement has been slow, bureaucratic and wasteful. Too many programmes have been delayed and too many costs have spiralled, and too often British industry has been left without the certainty it needs to invest, hire, train and grow.

If we are serious about national security, we must also be serious about industrial security. That means backing British manufacturing, investing in research and development and supporting apprenticeships and skilled jobs. It means ensuring that defence spending strengthens communities across this country, not just the balance sheets of a handful of prime contractors. It means recognising that in the modern world, defence is not just about the number of tanks, ships and aircraft that we possess, important though they are; it is about cyber, space, drones, AI, secure supply chains, energy resilience and the ability to move quickly when threats change.

Climate change is causing global instability. Melting ice opens up new flashpoints in the Arctic, and stress on food and water resources drives displacement and conflict. Our armed forces need the tools to fight the wars of the future, not just to patch up the gaps left by the past, but Britain cannot do this alone. If the last century has taught us anything—and if recent years have taught us anything—it is that our security is bound up with that of our allies. That is why we must be unwavering in our continued support for Ukraine. We must strengthen NATO, deepen co-operation with Commonwealth allies such as Canada and Australia, and rebuild a serious defence relationship with Europe.

The Liberal Democrats have called for a new European rearmament bank and for UK participation in the Security Action for Europe rearmament programme. That would allow Britain and our allies to mobilise investment at the scale required to ensure that our defence industries lead the next generation of technology, while also generating the economies of scale needed to reduce costs over the long term. This is not about choosing between Britain and Europe; it is about recognising the obvious truth that Britain is safer when Europe is stronger, and Europe is stronger when Britain leads.

National security should not be subject to short-term political games. That is why we have called on the Government to urgently convene cross-party talks on how we reach 3% by 2030. Our adversaries are not waiting for us to get our act together, and our armed forces should not have to wait either. Defence requires all of society to be involved. Being ready to defend our nation means also building our national resilience.

The Government must move faster and show far more ambition to involve the public in defence and security. Should the worst ever happen, having 70 million of us ready to come to our nation’s defence would be the most powerful weapon of all, but that requires leadership from Government, which has so far been absent, despite promises of a national conversation. That means learning from our friends in the Baltic and elsewhere about how we can harness the talents of the British people to become a more resilient and prepared country. The best way to prevent a war is to prepare for it.

The choice before us is clear: we can continue with managed decline, delayed plans and underpowered commitments, or we can choose seriousness. We can publish the defence investment plan and the defence readiness Bill, commit to 3% by 2030, launch defence bonds, back British industry, rebuild our armed forces and strengthen our alliances. We can send a clear and unambiguous message to Putin and to every other authoritarian regime watching us that Britain will defend itself, its allies, its values and its way of life. That is the ambition that the King’s Speech should have shown and the action that this country needs, and that is why Liberal Democrats will continue fighting for it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

After the next speaker, we will go to a speaking limit of seven minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call my constituency neighbour, Mike Martin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

I am following the hon. Member’s remarks with a great deal of interest. He mentioned the reserves, and I am a reservist. Would you give the Government credit where it is due for carrying over the Armed Forces Bill, which will advance the age of retirement for reserves to 65, and agree with me that we can probably go further in looking at people, especially the reserves, who are skilled in particular areas and may be able to help us address the challenges of the future, rather than those of the past?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Dr Andrew Murrison, you know better than to use the term “you”.

[Mike Martin]

I served on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, and as well as increasing the scope of who can be called up, it creates a consolidation of different types of reserves and allows zig-zag pathways for specialists who can come in and out of the reserves, so it is absolutely a step in the right direction.

One thing that is missing at the moment might create the political space for an increase in defence spending. I was slightly waylaid by the right hon. Member who intervened, but I should have said that to lead and deter in the Euro-Atlantic area, we are talking about a 50% increase in defence expenditure, not £1 billion here or £2 billion there. A 50% increase in defence is the scale we are talking about.

[Mike Martin]

I will not, if that is okay, because we are short on time.

To create the political space for some of these trade-offs, because that is a huge amount of money—£30 billion extra every single year—we need to have the national conversation on defence that was announced in the strategic defence review, but has been notable by its absence. That is why I, together with the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) and for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) and Field Marshal Richards in the other place, have formed the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament. We hope to raise public awareness not just of the threats, because I think the public understand the threats we face, but of the lack of capability, and the diminishing capability, in the UK military.

I recently went to a school in my constituency to talk to sixth-formers, and I have asked this question in several schools since, but they all assume we have a fleet of about 50 or 100 ships. When I tell them that we have 14 frigates and destroyers—surface combatants—they are shocked. The general public do not know the state of the British military, which is entirely incommensurate with the threat we face.

In conclusion, because time is very short, our military is a paper tiger. Sooner or later, we are going to be found out, and when we are found out and the battlegroup in Estonia is overrun or an aircraft carrier is sunk, Suez will pale into insignificance. This King’s Speech falls far short of what is required.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

Gurkha Veterans

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

It is crucial that we continue to recognise the invaluable contributions of the Gurkhas, both militarily and in our communities, and I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing this debate and explaining eloquently the issues that the Gurkha community faces. We need to continue the conversation about the important role they play in our society.

The Gurkhas in my constituency of Ashford and Hawkinge have been a model of dedication and contribution to the wider community, and I could not be prouder to have a thriving Gurkha community in my constituency. Many members of that community are veterans and their families, and many own businesses that contribute to local growth on our high streets, enhance our local culture through Nepalese food, festivals and celebrations, and organise charity events such as litter-picks and walks around the parks in my constituency. Often, veterans take the lead to provide help to the rest of their community through organisations that bind us closer together at a time when we risk becoming more fractured than ever before.

Our shared history with the Gurkhas is demonstrated most clearly by their 200 years of distinguished service as part of the British Army, including their bravery and sacrifices in both world wars, most notably during the north African and Burmese campaigns in the second world war, where they earned 12 Victoria Crosses, and their service against the Ottomans in the first world war, among many other campaigns. The Gurkhas have continued to serve in modern peacekeeping operations, such as in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and still serve bravely to this day. I saw that at first hand when I participated in various visits as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which my colleagues have mentioned.

I know that the Gurkhas’ dedication to service is recognised by all Members across this House and by this Labour Government. Part of that recognition involves ensuring the dignity of Gurkha veterans. That is why I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People to ask what measures would be taken to explore the welfare needs and long-standing pension issues of Gurkha veterans. I was pleased that, in her response, the Minister outlined the Government’s commitment to explore measures to address the welfare needs of Gurkha veterans, in both the UK and Nepal, and that Ministry of Defence officials have been instructed to continue discussions with the Gurkha veterans’ representatives. I urge the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, who is on the Front Bench today, to update us on how that is progressing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

One of the most favoured spots in my constituency on a Friday evening is The Ferry in Thames Ditton, a wonderful Nepalese restaurant run by Cepe, who served with the Royal Gurkhas for 19 years. Around the restaurant are pictures of VCs, a proud reminder of the many Gurkhas who have served our country loyally and bravely, without hesitation, in some of the most dangerous theatres of war.

With thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for bringing this debate to the Chamber, I want to speak today about something that I think cuts to the heart of what we stand for as a country: fairness, honour and how we treat those who have served under our flag. For more than two centuries, the Gurkhas have stood shoulder to shoulder with British soldiers. From the trenches of the first world war to the jungles of the second and the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan, they have fought with a courage and loyalty that should inspire us all. The Gurkhas are not a peripheral force; they are an integral part of the British Army. Yet, despite that sacrifice, we have not treated them as equals. That is the uncomfortable truth at the centre of this debate.

Let me be clear about the scale of the problem. Around 25,000 Gurkha vets who retired before 1997 remain on the Gurkha pension scheme, a system designed not for life in the UK but for retirement in rural Nepal. As a result, they receive pensions that are significantly lower than those of their British counterparts, despite having done the same job, worn the same uniform and faced the same dangers. These are not marginal differences; they are life-defining disparities. Many Gurkha veterans living in this country are surviving on incomes that would be considered unacceptable for any veteran of our armed forces. Some are living in poverty, some are struggling to heat their homes and some are making impossible choices between basic necessities.

The argument has long been that the Gurkha pension scheme was designed with a different purpose and that retrospective changes to pension arrangements are uniquely difficult, but that no longer holds, and here is why. In 2009, after a sustained and powerful campaign supported by Members across this House, Gurkha veterans secured the right to settle in the UK. That was a landmark moment, but it created a new reality—one that our pension system has simply failed to catch up with. We cannot invite people to live in one of the most expensive countries in the world and then continue to pay them as if they were living in Nepal. It is not sustainable or defensible.

This is not a new complaint; it has been raised repeatedly by campaigners, vets themselves and Members on all sides. We have seen hunger strikes, protests outside this building and legal challenges, but the fundamental injustice persists, and that should trouble every one of us. When people who once risked their lives for Britain feel that their only remaining tool to be heard is protest or starvation, something has gone very badly wrong.

The Liberal Democrats have been consistent in this fight. In 2009, we used an Opposition day to force the House to confront the issue of settlement rights. That vote sent a clear message, and the Government of the day were forced into a U-turn. That showed what this House can achieve when it acts with conviction. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) has written to the Minister for Veterans and People demanding action. We are not raising this issue for the first time; we are raising it because it remains unresolved.

There are wider pressures bearing down on this community. Many ageing veterans face language barriers that make it genuinely difficult for them to navigate the system. Many are unaware of entitlements that they should be receiving, and many struggle to access NHS services or social care. Mental health provision is often inconsistent and inadequate. Families face high visa fees and significant financial strain when trying to reunite with loved ones. This is not only about pensions; it is about a broader failure to support a community that has given so much.

We must confront the deeper issue here: the current system is rooted in a colonial-era arrangement, the 1947 tripartite agreement between the UK, Nepal and India. That agreement may have reflected the geopolitical realities of the moment, but nearly eight decades later, those realities have changed. The Nepalese Supreme Court itself recently called for a review of the arrangement, highlighting the unequal power dynamics under which it was created and questioning its continued relevance. It has made it clear that the current system does not adequately protect the rights and welfare of Gurkha soldiers, and we should take that seriously.

The armed forces covenant promises that those who serve or have served in the armed forces and their families should be treated with fairness and respect—it is a promise of no disadvantage—and yet, for Gurkha veterans, that promise has not been fulfilled. They are, in effect, excluded from the full application of that principle. That is not right, and we have a responsibility to do something about it. Fairness before the state should depend not on where someone was born, but on what they have given.

Where do we go from here? The answer is not overly complicated, but we require political will. First, we need a comprehensive pension justice review that seriously examines how we can move towards parity for Gurkha veterans who served before 1997. Secondly, we need to address the financial barriers that continue to affect Gurkha families through reductions in visa fees and, where appropriate, waivers. Thirdly, we need a targeted support package for ageing veterans to ensure that they can access healthcare, social care and mental health services without unnecessary obstacles. These are not radical demands; they are reasonable steps towards fairness.

At the end of the day, this comes down to a simple question: do we believe that equal service deserves equal treatment? If the answer is yes—and it must be—the current situation cannot continue. The Gurkhas have served this country with extraordinary courage. They have done so without hesitation and with a loyalty that has become the stuff of legend. But loyalty is a two-way street, and for too long we have not upheld our side of that bargain.

Let us act. Let us match their service with fairness, match their sacrifice with justice, and ensure that the values we so often speak about—honour, duty and equality—are reflected not just in our words but in our actions. If we cannot do right by those who have fought for us, the claim that we are a fair and honourable nation begins to ring hollow, and that is something this House should never accept.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. We have seen very well-mannered contributions from Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and DUP Members, including the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), with her ode to the Gurkhas. We heard from the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—history will remember him as a man who stood on his principles—and from the hon. Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) and for Ashford (Sojan Joseph).

We heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), who is also a fan of Gurkha cuisine. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), is a student of military history, and he always expresses himself with such character. I always enjoy my conversations with the Minister, and I am thankful to him for turning up today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That was perfectly short and sweet.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered support for Gurkha veterans.

Defence

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Member for a very balanced contribution, as always. On the specific issue, I will come back to you and write to you on where we are and how the review is moving forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I do not require any correspondence from the Minister, although it is always welcome.

[Al Carns]

Let me go back to the point about the 20,000 troops. The motion calls for more troops, but it says nothing about how they would be recruited, trained, housed or equipped. It does not even begin to answer the most basic questions about what those troops would actually be used for. It proposes funding defence through unrelated policy changes, as if national security can be managed like a spreadsheet, and it pulls together issues that do not form a coherent strategy. That is not a defence plan—it is a list.

What is most revealing is the position of the Conservative party. One week, the Leader of the Opposition says that we should send jets “to the source” in Iran, and that we are in this war

“whether we like it or not”.

The following week, she says,

“I never said we should join”,

and when the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is asked for a clear position, he says that there are no easy answers. Those are their words, and they tell us everything. They are armchair generals rushing to judgment one week and retreating from it the next—rushing towards escalation, then stepping back from it the next. That is not leadership, it is not judgment, and it is certainly not how to make decisions about putting British service personnel in harm’s way. Those decisions demand seriousness, not commentary or hyperbole from the sidelines.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Let me just say to the Minister: no more “yous”.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I sense that this little fracas is something of a tautological tap dance. We are at war, and I do not think Iran cares whether we made the strike on it or not, because it still sees us as a target. We accept that, and that is the danger that our troops are in.

However, I want to ask the Minister about something else. I want to ask again the question that I asked the Defence Secretary yesterday. Is it not the reality that we are at war, and that Iran is an enemy of ours and has been for a considerable time? It has been carrying out operations here. It has been stirring up Islamic extremism, and we are seeing targeted antisemitism and hate marches. That is all part of Iran’s plan. Is it not time that the Government finally said “Enough is enough”, proscribed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and arrested the hell out of these people who are causing mayhem on our streets?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have listened carefully to this debate, which has been an interesting knockabout. On the question of what we are achieving, I refer the Minister back to the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who was the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee when the Conservatives were in office, on the numerous wastage scandals in defence procurement. I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee during the Blair years; I go back so far that I remember Lord Levene being appointed by Michael Heseltine to get this right. We are never going to get anywhere until we stop the scandal of defence procurement. We have the sixth biggest defence budget in the world, but we do not get bang for our buck. I do not have any instant solutions, but is this not something we can all unite around? Can we not just insist that we stop these huge projects, which are not fit for modern warfare, and go back to actually being able to fight a war?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I note that many colleagues wish to contribute; no doubt he is coming close to his conclusion.

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. We are moving in that direction; the national armaments director is providing professional oversight now and is looking at reviewing the system. I think we can all collectively agree on whether we have got value for money over the past 14 to 20 years. We need to make sure that we do get value for money in the future; if we had in the past, we would have a properly equipped armed forces at the present moment.

In closing, this motion asks the House to express regret about a Government who are delivering the largest increase in defence spending, leading on Ukraine, investing in our veterans and reversing the decline in recruitment and morale that we inherited. At a time when our armed forces are deployed to protect British lives, the Opposition offer a motion built on a record they would rather forget and a set of arguments that do not meet the test of seriousness. This is not a moment for point scoring but a time for leadership, and this Government are providing it. I urge the House to reject the motion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Sir Julian Lewis, I have never seen you behave so badly.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, is he not? The egg is now on the other face, and Conservative Members are very excited. Which of the Tory cuts does my hon. Friend think was the most damaging—was it the cuts to the frigates, the destroyers, the minesweepers or the troops?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin]

Well, they will hear it anyway.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order! We need less noise in the Chamber.

[Mike Martin]

On an Opposition day, one would expect His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to put together a cohesive critique of Government defence policy. Instead, what we have is a shopping list—a Christmas tree—that is effectively a list of the pet projects of various members of the Conservative party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Brian Leishman.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Forgive me; I was slightly distracted. We now have a speaking limit of eight minutes.

[Brian Leishman]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This will be a tough enough listen for many in the Chamber to hear it just the once—I do not need to do it three times.

In January, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the doomsday clock forward. We are currently sitting at 85 seconds to midnight: the closest the world has ever been to ending. We live in a time of great political turmoil—of that, we are all certain—but the debate about ramping up defence spending, and making cuts to public services to do it, has been going on for decades. The suggestion of reinstating the two-child benefit cap so that we can have more bombs and weapons is against everything that I believe in. We have seen austerity that has created immiseration and poverty up and down the United Kingdom. Then we had a pandemic, with an explosion in wealth inequality. Now, a cost of living crisis has taken hold to the extent that most of the public think it will never end. All of that means deteriorating living standards. The social fabric of our country has been ripped apart—this is life in the world’s sixth-largest economy.

Pursuing economic growth and improving people’s living standards are the right thing to do, but thinking that militarism is the way to achieve that is at best misguided; at worst, it will further jeopardise global security. It also makes little economic sense. Military spending has one of the lowest employment multipliers of all economic categories: it is 70th out of 100 in terms of the employment it generates. Energy, agriculture and food, chemicals, iron and steel, and construction all have far greater employment multipliers than military spending—for example, health is 2.5 times more efficient than military spending for job creation. British military spending supports less than 1% of the UK workforce. So let us not kid each other: it will not be working-class communities who benefit; it will be weapons manufacturers.

Defence is neither a UK-wide industry, nor does it massively help small or medium-sized businesses, as they only secure approximately 5% of all orders. Ministry of Defence figures highlight that defence employment is densely concentrated in specific geographical pockets of the country. Instead of bombs and weapons and talking about a defence dividend, what about what Tony Benn called a “peace dividend”? That is all about making political choices.

Middle East

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I need to squeeze in many people, so questions need to be short, and answers just as short.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

We can debate what the armed forces think or do not think, but I always think it best to leave them out of these debates. However, there is an issue here at home, and defence of the realm is defence at home first and foremost. We know that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has threatened us on these shores endlessly for a number of years, and many colleagues across the House have called for it to be proscribed. As yet, in the middle of this war, we have not proscribed the IRGC, but it would make the life of our security services so much easier if we did so. Will the Secretary of State please get up and say that it is his determination that the IRGC should be proscribed and kicked out, or arrested for all the awful deeds that it does by chasing, hounding, and killing people on British shores?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

There is no use—there has been no use—of Prestwick airport for US bombing strikes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call John Cooper.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Excuse me; I have swallowed a fly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Ready?

[John Cooper]

I think I just about am, yes. The situation we are talking about today is a shooting war, but of key interest to us is the tug of war going on between the MOD and the Treasury over the defence investment plan. We have some indication of what is going on—I think we have gathered that it will not come out this week. Can the Secretary of State give us some indication of whether the purdah period for the upcoming elections in Scotland in May will further impact the announcement of this critical plan?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is almost last, but not least. I reject almost every assertion he makes in his tripartite question. The decisions we have taken and the permissions we have given have a sound legal basis. They are for defensive purposes, and are directed at Iranian sites that are attacking our interests and our allies, and that hold a threat, including to British ships and red-ensign-flagged vessels in the strait of Hormuz.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

While we welcome the progress of talks in the middle east, the fact that our Government have to learn updates from the news cycle is beyond disappointing. The deterioration of the relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister is particularly worrying. Will the Secretary of State begin to rebuild that relationship with our American allies, and show willingness to work in the best interests of this nation? The attacks on Diego Garcia prove that this nation is under attack, and that deserves decisive action. How will the Minister secure the right action to put us back in step with our American friends, regardless of any personality clashes?

Commonwealth Troops: First World War

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Jas Athwal, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Back Benchers are on a six-minute speaking limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I just want to put on the record that I talk about the work of Noor Inayat Khan to my daughter, Farah, so her legacy will not be forgotten.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Rhodes]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I recognise the important work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its outreach and public engagement teams. I also recognise the huge contribution of volunteers in promoting that work.

How we commemorate and who we commemorate must reflect the full breadth of those who served and sacrificed. I hope that the first permanent memorial to the British Indian Army in the grounds of Kelvingrove will be a testament to that. Madam Deputy Speaker, we must remember our shared past if we are to help build our shared future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Monica Harding]

The hon. Member is entirely right, and I will shortly come on to the forgotten stories of this war.

From the mud of Flanders to the deserts of the middle east, from the jungles of East Africa to the mountains of the Balkans, Commonwealth soldiers were present in almost every theatre of the conflict. Their bravery and resilience, too often forgotten and overlooked, was one of the most notable features of the conflict.

Canadian troops faced chlorine gas for the first time at the second battle of Ypres in 1915, holding the line. At Vimy Ridge in 1917, four Canadian divisions fought together as one for the first time, and in just four days they achieved what the French and British had spent years and over 100,000 lives bravely failing to do. This courage was not confined to the trenches. In the skies above Europe, Canadian airmen distinguished themselves with equal daring. Fighter aces such as Billy Bishop, who was awarded the Victoria Cross, played a crucial role in securing allied control of the air.

Australian troops bravely fought for eight months on the steep cliffs of Gallipoli, before playing a decisive role in the final offensives of 1918. New Zealand, with a population of barely 1 million people at that time, sent more than 120,000 soldiers overseas, nearly one in five of whom never returned.

My own constituency of Esher and Walton has a profound historical connection to New Zealand, dating back to the first world war. During the conflict, Walton served as a major centre for treating injured soldiers from the New Zealand Expeditionary Force, particularly those wounded in the Gallipoli campaign. The Mount Felix mansion was converted into the first New Zealand hospital in the UK. Some 27,000 New Zealand soldiers were treated there, and 21 New Zealand soldiers unfortunately died and are buried in St Mary’s churchyard in Walton.

We remember this connection, such as through our roads; New Zealand Avenue runs through the middle of Walton, and we have Adelaide Road too. Since 1920, an annual Anzac Day service is held at St Mary’s church. The Mount Felix tapestry features the soldiers at the hospital, and a kowhai tree donated by the New Zealand Government in 1970 stands at the former site of the hospital. My brilliant constituents in Esher and Walton ensure that the sacrifice of those from New Zealand who served in the great war is remembered.

Soldiers from the Caribbean served in the British West Indies Regiment, operating across Europe, Africa and the middle east. Many of them were denied the chance by the British Government to fight as equals. Instead, they were often assigned labour duties, such as digging trenches, unloading ships or carrying supplies. Despite that discrimination, they served with courage and dignity.

African soldiers and porters were indispensable to the campaigns across the continent, carrying ammunition and supplies through terrain that would have stopped any conventional army. They suffered catastrophic losses, but they were the logistical backbone of the campaign, and their story remains one of the least known chapters of the war. Women across the Commonwealth were also vital to the British war effort, serving as nurses, driving ambulances, working in munition factories, and keeping farms and industries running.

In many schools, our students still learn about the Somme, Passchendaele, and the western front but hear very little about the role played by Indian, African, Caribbean, Australian, Canadian and Chinese forces. As Baroness Warsi powerfully put it,

“Our boys weren’t just Tommies—they were Tariqs and Tajinders too”.

When we speak of those who served in the first world war, we are speaking about people from every corner of what was then the British empire—people who crossed oceans to fight for a country they had never seen, people who fought in climates and conditions utterly alien to them, people who believed that they were fighting for principles, freedom, justice and the defence of small nations. Yet the response of the British Government in the immediate aftermath often fell far short of the ideals that these men believed they had fought for. West Indian soldiers were excluded from the London victory parade. In India, promises of reform made in return for wartime loyalty were followed by the brutality of the Amritsar massacre.

The first world war reshaped not only Europe but the political map of the world. The modern Commonwealth and the family of nations that it represents today has its roots in the sacrifices made during that war. That brings us to the present. We must honour the shared history that binds us to the Commonwealth. Let us ensure that their contributions are fully recognised. Their service must be fully integrated into our national commemorations, and their stories taught in schools so that young people understand that the first world war was not fought by Britain alone.

We must uphold the vital work of organisations such as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its volunteers, whose quiet dedication ensures that the name of the fallen, regardless of their nationality, faith or background, are remembered with dignity. We fought alongside a brave coalition of nations and peoples—millions of individuals whose courage, labour and sacrifice made victory possible. They fought in the mud of Belgium, the deserts of Palestine, the mountains of Greece and the jungles of East Africa. Tragically, many of them never came home. They were asked to fight and, sometimes, to die for a country that they had never seen. Let us, a century later, remember why they came and the bravery with which they fought not as a footnote to history but as an essential part of the story of how that tragic war was fought and won.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend is clearly a subject matter expert. I entirely agree with her sentiment about both the contribution of those South African labourers and the vital work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

It is also important to commemorate the contribution of Caribbean troops to the allied war effort. Most of them, as we have heard, served in the West Indies Regiment, which saw combat in France, Italy, Africa and the middle east. Indeed, that was pointed out in particular by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton.

Albeit from a different conflict, I can reveal to the House that the records of the ship’s company of HMS Victory at Trafalgar record the presence of a seaman whose name was John Francois. He was on Victory. I do not believe he was a direct relative, as he was recruited from the Caribbean—none the less, I can assure the House that there was at least one Francois at Trafalgar who served on the British side.

In the limited time available, I have been able to refer with only the briefest outline to the contribution of troops from across the British empire and the Commonwealth to what was believed—at that time, at least—to be the war to end all wars. Unfortunately, that proved not to be the case; the world was involved in a second major conflagration barely two decades later. Let us passionately hope that in our lifetimes—indeed, in those of our children and grandchildren—we never see a third. Although I say humbly to the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth, as the Roman military theorist Vegetius taught us, “Si vis pacem, para bellum”: he who desires peace should prepare for war in order to deter it.

In thinking of how to conclude, I came upon some lines from Rupert Brooke. In his eternal poem “The Soldier”, he wrote:

“If I should die, think only this of me:

That there’s some corner of a foreign field

That is for ever England.”

If that be so—and I believe it to be so—then there is also a part of a neighbouring field that is forever Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, South African, Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, and African and Caribbean, too. Without the contribution of all those nations from right across what was then the empire and is now the Commonwealth, we would never have defeated the militarism of the Kaiser’s Germany, and Europe undoubtedly would never have been free. We thank them all and their nations for their service. Lest we forget.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Well, follow that, Minister.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. For colleagues’ information, I should say that I intend to take everybody, but how long that will take depends on the length of the questions; we could be here for quite some time. Can questions and answers please be short?

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and pay tribute to the role of the Royal Navy and RAF personnel in taking out this rogue tanker flying under the flag of a rogue nation. The Bella 1 was taken just a few hundred miles out into the Atlantic, which is too close for comfort for those of us who come from the Western Isles.

I understand that we hosted the USAF maritime patrol aircraft Poseidon out of Stornoway airport and two V-22 Ospreys out of Benbecula. Can the Secretary of State give us more details on the role of Scottish airports in this operation? Does he agree that, yes, we have a frontline in the Donbas, but that the frontline for us against Russia is our backyard: the wild North Atlantic?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

You are inadvertently misleading the House—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We do not need chuntering from the Back Benches, and I can determine whether the House has or has not been misled.

[John Healey]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s observations. I think this is a test for the leader of Reform: are the interests that he declares closer to those of President Putin or closer to those of the British people?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

I do indeed, and my hon. Friend is right. This new era of threat also demands hard power, strong alliances and sure diplomacy, but all that is based on a domestic political unity of values and unity of intent. I am proud of the way that the UK sets the standard for that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Mark Sewards for the final question.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I welcome this evening’s statement. I say, primarily to those outside this Chamber, that any deployment of British forces in Ukraine is not going to be a tripwire to a wider conflict. If we do not deploy those forces, put that deterrent in place and back Ukraine—if we allow Putin to take Ukraine either now or at some point in the future—there will be devastating consequences for British interests and global stability.

With British interests in mind, although I fully appreciate the answer the Defence Secretary gave on troop numbers—I understand his reasoning for not wanting to share those—can he reassure the House that this country has the soldiers, the resources and the equipment to ensure that we can provide an effective deterrent in Ukraine without compromising and undermining the other commitments we have made to allies around the world?

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I left home in Newcastle-under-Lyme on Monday to travel down to Parliament, the weather was already very bad after heavy snow on Sunday night. However, for the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme, the situation at home has got worse, thanks to both the weather and the complete and utter failure of Staffordshire county council to grit our roads and keep those who live, learn and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme safe.

I have had reports of empty grit bins on Sterndale Drive in Westbury Park and on Plymouth Grove, of our town centre being an ice rink, of the A34 from Newcastle to Talke not being fit for purpose and of the roads through Chesterton, Audley and Madeley being cut off, just like roads in Wolstanton. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise me of the best way to raise this issue in the House? [Interruption.] This is serious. How can I get Staffordshire county council and its leadership to do what my constituents pay for and want: to do their job and grit our roads, and to do so now?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I do not doubt that the matter is indeed serious, but it is not a point of order or a matter for the Chair, whose powers do not extend to Staffordshire county council. The hon. Member has nonetheless got his very important matter on the record.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

As the shadow Defence Secretary has raised a question about recruitment and retention, it is important that we look at the record of his own Government. Military morale fell to record lows under his Government, with just four in 10 personnel in the UK armed forces satisfied with service life; satisfaction fell from 60% to 40% in 2024. Is that surprising when there were real-terms pay cuts in nine out of the 14 years that the Conservatives were in power and over 13,000 housing complaints in a single year? I will not be lectured by the hon. Gentleman on this issue.

I would suggest that to mention that I have an insight into the operational imperative of our forces, as the tip of the spear, is a slight underestimation. I would argue that there are several people in this House who would understand that, including one who is stood here and another on the Opposition Benches. We have been left with a mess and our Northern Ireland veterans were in a legal wild west because of what the Conservatives did with the last legacy Act. No party in Northern Ireland agreed with that Act or supported it, so we had to sort that out—this Government will not allow that situation to continue.

Let me be very clear: we are listening. We have spoken to the Royal British Legion and other associations. I speak to military cohorts on a weekly, if not daily, basis and I speak to the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner almost every day. We are working collaboratively and collectively to ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose, that it protects the individuals, that the process does not become the punishment for those individuals, and that we do not allow any terrorist organisation to rewrite history through the courts.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

It is clear that the previous solution, the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, was opposed by all the political parties in Northern Ireland. It was found to be unlawful by our courts, and therefore it needed to be replaced. It is also clear that the solution to this complex issue must provide justice, be legal, and ensure that our veterans feel that they have been protected and their service has been celebrated. Can the Minister confirm that nobody who perpetrated terrorist atrocities during the troubles will be given immunity? How exactly will the Government protect veterans from repeated investigations?

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The reality is that the last Act was opposed by every part of the Northern Ireland system, groups across the military and civilians in Northern Ireland. It left our veterans in a legal wild west. The honest answer is that our military will always adhere to the law, and to the highest levels of the law. The new Bill allows us to protect this cohort, so that the legal process does not become a punishment, and importantly ensures that individuals cannot rewrite history. For the first time, we will have protections in place to support our veterans, and we will protect them from repeated investigations. There will be a legal duty to consider our veterans’ welfare, and we will ensure that no veteran has to attend proceedings or go to Northern Ireland; they can give evidence from home. These protections for our veterans have been designed by veterans, through discussions with me and various people across the Ministry of Defence.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats are clear that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 failed victims, survivors and veterans alike by removing legal avenues to justice and eroding public trust. Elements of the Government’s new Bill are welcome, particularly the desire to move towards reconciliation and information recovery, but those aims cannot come at the expense of justice and fairness, or the rights of those who served. Our concern is not to shield wrongdoing; it is to ensure fairness for those who acted within the law as it stood at the time. Veterans must not be left exposed to uncertainty or retrospective judgment, and without clear legal protection.

Recruitment and retention is already an acknowledged challenge for our armed forces. Given the flaws in the Bill, an impact in this area could only further the case against it. What steps is the Minister taking to protect personnel who served during the troubles who followed the laws of the day? Given the extreme concern across the armed forces community about the impact that this legislation could have, will he consider halting the Bill, and replacing it with one that puts veterans at its heart?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Colleagues will struggle to get in unless they keep their questions short, and the Minister should make sure that his answers are just as short.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. The French Government have recognised the legal jeopardy that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has described, and they have legislated to protect their servicemen and women and veterans accordingly. That is contained within their recently published manual on military operational law—all 353 pages of it—which I recommend to the Minister. Why can the French do that for their people, while this Government are doing completely the reverse?

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and the tone in which he asked them. I too was disgusted when I heard the news of the injuries to our service personnel, especially after a point at which the vehicle was assured to be safe. It is for that very reason that I will not speculate—I hope he understands why—until the investigations have reported, so that we can understand the cause of the noise and vibration injuries. A decision can then be made based on that information. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern, and I want to ensure that information given to Ministers—be it to me or any other Minister, in this Government or any other—is accurate and timely, so it is appropriate that we get to the bottom of this. I also share his concern around a particular issue with one GD employee, which he raised. I can confirm that General Dynamics has written to the Department to apologise for the recent social media posts from a member of its staff, and that was the right thing to do.

The hon. Gentleman asked about an independent review of the platforms. As well as the Defence Accident Investigation Branch and the British Army’s teams investigating, I have asked that an external organisation with experience of noise and vibration be brought in. We are building a team of experts from a number of organisations outside the usual GD production line to add expertise and external challenge to the work. Hopefully, I will be in a situation to say more to the House in my next update; I hope to table a written ministerial statement ahead of the Christmas recess to keep the House informed about progress.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern for our service personnel. It is not good enough for our service personnel to sustain injuries in this fashion on a platform that they were reassured was safe, just as I was. That is why getting to the bottom of this issue is a priority for me. I await the reports of those three investigations to understand what happened and therefore what decisions we will take as a result.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

What an absolute shambles. The Minister should be livid at how things have transpired, given the billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money that has been spent over the years on the Ajax programme and the injuries sustained by our brave service personnel. In addition to problems with Ajax, the Boxer mechanised infantry vehicle is years late into service, and the 6,000 or so MAN support vehicles are currently grounded due to broken parts. Is there a wider systemic problem with land vehicle procurement and sustainment? Where exactly does this leave us with the British Army’s readiness at a time of such increased international tensions?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, as well as for the questions he asked me in front of his Select Committee last week, which gave me the opportunity to provide an update to his Committee and the public on the investigations.

The MAN SV fleet is a system that is working properly, in the sense that problems have been identified with a vehicle that is nearly 20 years old. When problems are identified, it is right that fixes are then identified and rectifications are put in place. That is what is happening with the MAN SV fleet, which should return to full capabilities early in the new year. In the meantime, duty holders have the ability to operate those vehicles within strict parameters, to make sure Army tasks can continue to be carried out. However, my hon. Friend will know that the defence procurement system we inherited is in need of quite significant reform. We have started that process already, but there is more work to be done, because we need to move to warfighting readiness—for all our forces to be able to deter aggression, and defeat it if necessary. To do that, we have to get on top of what could be quite significant issues with a number of platforms, and that is what we intend to do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State regarding the service personnel injured in the recent training incident involving the Ajax vehicles.

The recent revelations about the Ajax programme raise questions that go far beyond this single family of vehicles—they go to the heart of how the Ministry of Defence manages major defence projects, our ability to meet our NATO obligations, and the safety of the men and women who serve so bravely. Meant to enter service in 2017, the Ajax is now getting on for nine years behind schedule, and after more than £6 billion has been spent, the Minister still cannot give a cast-iron guarantee that Ajax is safe to operate. Will he confirm whether the Department has prepared any contingency plan should the Ajax ultimately be deemed unsafe or unviable? If further delays or design overhauls are needed, what assessment has been made of the impact on our NATO commitments, particularly our contribution to the UK’s armoured capability? Our allies will be watching closely, as will our enemies.

Finally, given that this programme has been allowed to drift for so many years at eye-watering cost, is the MOD considering an internal investigation into how these failings were able to progress this far without detection? If that investigation were to be undertaken, could it be expanded further to touch on the issues already raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), about the Boxer tank, the Boeing E-7 reconnaissance plane, and other MOD acquisition failures over recent years? Taxpayers deserve answers and value for money, and our armed forces deserve equipment they can trust.