Armed Forces Bill (Sixth sitting)

Paul Foster Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

I thank the hon. Members for North Devon and for Tunbridge Wells for the amendment. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and I thank the Clerks and staff, who are doing a fantastic job. I acknowledge Members’ concerns about the importance of retaining skills in the armed forces, which we all agree is critical to ensuring that we have a fighting force.

Let me address amendment 7. Despite the well-documented historical shortfalls in recruitment and retention, the figures are now far more positive. Under this Government, inflow is up around 13%, which we welcome, and outflow is down 9%. We have cut a lot of red tape—I will come back to that in a minute—addressed system blockages and established a ministerial board to oversee both inflow and retention, among many other improvements.

However, we are not complacent, and we are looking to drive our retention rates up further. Transparency and parliamentary scrutiny are crucial throughout this process, so that the public can clearly see how the changes we are implementing are enhancing their experience and delivering good value for the taxpayer. I appreciate the call from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells for an annual report, but I am concerned that that would create an additional layer of bureaucracy and red tape and largely duplicate information that is already available. As he mentioned, there is a need to step back and look at the issue holistically.

To give Members a small example, we publish around 80 statistical reports every year—some quarterly, some yearly and some twice a year. That is a huge amount of data that is collated and presented both to Parliament and as open source. We already publish, and will continue to publish, information on the size and make-up of the armed forces through our quarterly personnel statistics, which will make plain the effects of retention measures for both regulars and reserves. We also continue to publish the outcomes of the various continuous attitude surveys that the MOD runs annually, where we can see the change in attitude to some of the key drivers that affect people’s desire to stay.

One of the key measures to assist with this is clause 31, which will ensure that regulars do not have to leave their service to join the Volunteer Reserve, thus making career transitions and flexible careers far easier. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford mentioned some of the bureaucracy and difficulties in leaving regular service and joining the reserves, and a plethora of evidence highlights that difficulty. The clause will remove the requirement to leave one service and rejoin the next. Around 1,500 ex-regulars join the Volunteer Reserve every year—about a third of the total intake.

Another issue with people going from the regulars to the reserves is that a lot of senior-ish ranks leave—OF-3s, OF-4s, majors or lieutenant colonels—and there is just not the space or requirement for them in the reserves, so sometimes they have to de-rank or join at a different level, creating another bureaucratic hurdle. Although the clause will make it easier for service personnel to transfer from the regulars to the Volunteer Reserve, and we encourage them to do so, it is on a mutually agreed basis; there must be a suitable role for them to go to—for example, rank, skills and so on—and the serviceperson will have to agree to the terms and conditions.

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

I can provide a real-world example of how ludicrous the current system is. A friend of mine joined the Paras, completed P company, served with the Paras, smelt the coffee, and joined the REME and transferred to the Royal Engineers. He served for about 12 years in colour service and left. Within a year of leaving, he wanted to join his local reserve infantry unit, which said that it would accept him only if he did full reserve basic training. I take it that this legislation will prevent that nonsense in the future, because it seems ludicrous.

[Al Carns]

My hon. Friend highlights a good point. That issue is replicated across the entire service—not in all cases, but in many. People are having to go back through medical within six months of leaving, having to go back through basic training, or having to redo the commando course—you name it. There is a litany of issues. The Minister for Veterans and People is looking at that to see how we speed up the process. Sometimes there is no room for those individuals in the reserve liability, given the rank and position they want to come in at, which can create a difficult discussion about whether they have to de-rank—joining at a lower rank than they left. I absolutely agree that we have to smooth out those issues, and the Minister for Veterans and People is on it.

Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting)

Paul Foster Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[David Reed]

I acknowledge the intention behind amendment 6, and I thank the hon. Member for North Devon for tabling it. It is designed to ensure that serious offences, including sexual violence and domestic abuse, are investigated by civilian police with the specialist expertise and resources that those cases demand. That is an objective that both sides of the Committee can support, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley has laid out, some of the wording and the blanket approaches that have been drawn into clause 12 need to be hammered out.

Public confidence in the handling of such grave matters is essential, particularly when they involve members of the armed forces. That said, it is important to examine whether the approach set out in the amendment is the most effective way to achieve that aim. There are practical considerations around how referrals would operate, how responsibilities would be divided and how we would ensure that victims experience a clear and consistent process from start to finish.

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

I find this a fascinating debate because we can all see the meaning of the amendment, but the hon. Gentleman mentioned victims. If he recalls, we all visited the Defence Serious Crime Command and the victim support unit, and it was made clear that the victim support service has made some real improvements over the past few years. In any crime investigation that is transferred from the service justice system to the criminal justice system, the victim support unit cannot support the victim. That is a concern to me, and it was raised with us. Does the hon. Member agree that is a considerable concern that we should look at?

[David Reed]

Yes, I completely agree. If a crime has happened and the victim engages with a support unit, having to move between civilian and military judicial systems, and switch between people that they have had trusted conversations with, is—if I were to put myself in their shoes—probably not what they want to do if they have been exposed to sexual violence or other violence. I completely understand the approach that the hon. Gentleman puts forward.

I am keen to continue constructive discussions with colleagues across the Committee, as well as with the Ministry of Defence, to ensure that our system for investigating and prosecuting offences continues to improve. I look forward to working with the Minister on those proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who from his time as a Defence Minister knows well how to keep tabs on those who have served our country but are now retired. The pension scheme is an obvious way to do so. In addition, he makes an important point about the willingness of individuals to engage in the process. These are people who have given enormous service to their country, and often wish to continue giving service long into their years of retirement from active service.

Our armed forces are more stretched and more globally engaged than before, and they are more frequently deployed than at almost any point in recent decades. The spectrum of threats facing our country is widening, from state-based adversaries to hybrid war, cyber-operations and persistent instability in regions where British forces are called to act with precision and professionalism. As I have set out, when operational tempo increases every part of the system is affected. It is not just about equipment, logistics or personnel numbers, but about the justice system that underpins discipline, accountability and command authority.

The question, therefore, is a relatively simple one: does our current system of service justice have the flexibility, depth and resilience required to meet that demand? Amendment 9 is one attempt to ensure that it does. It recognises that we are asking a great deal of a relatively small pool of serving officers. We are asking them not only to command forces in complex environments but, where necessary, to sit in judgment in court martial proceedings, including in cases involving senior rank, complex evidence, and often significant reputational consequence for all involved. That is not to say that these individuals are incapable of doing those tasks, but that is a heavy burden on any system. It becomes more difficult still when we consider the practical realities of availability.

Senior serving officers are, by definition, in high demand. They are deployed, rotated, assigned to strategic planning roles or engaged in operational command responsibilities that cannot simply be paused or rescheduled. At the same time, the court martial system requires a bench that is credible, experienced and capable of understanding the realities of service life. It is not enough that those sitting in judgment are legally competent to interpret the evidence; they must also understand the context in which decisions are made, the pressures under which orders are given and the operational environments in which conduct is assessed.

That combination of legal competence and operational understanding is not easily found, and it is here that amendment 9 can make a tangible contribution. By extending eligibility to retired officers of appropriate rank, we end up expanding the pool of individuals who can bring that essential combination of experience and judgment to the court martial system.

I want to be clear about what the amendment seeks to do and what it does not seek to do. It is not an attempt to dilute standards. On the contrary, it is an attempt to strengthen them by widening the field of those who meet them. It is not an attempt to undermine the authority of serving officers; it is an attempt to relieve them of some of the competing pressures that now fall on them in an increasingly demanding environment. It is not an attempt to create a separate or parallel justice system where some are tried by those who are still in active service and some are held in judgment by those who have retired. It is merely an attempt to ensure that the existing system has the necessary capacity to function effectively.

[Mr Foster]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the majority of courts martial involve non-commissioned individuals? Although senior commissioned officers are subject to court martial at times, they are in the minority. The majority are non-commissioned officers.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention. If he is suggesting that we should look at going wider than the confines of this specific amendment, I would welcome that conversation. It is about increasing the flexibility and agility of the court martial system so that it reflects the challenges for those who currently serve in uniform.

Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting)

Paul Foster Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Francois]

The essence of new clause 7 is that the Government should prepare a feasibility study of the relative merits of introducing a forces housing association, as recommended in the “Stick or Twist?” report, versus continuing with the Defence Housing Service. I apologise to you, Mr Efford, and to members of the Committee: as the new clause relates specifically to that document, I should as a courtesy have sent a copy—or at least a link—to all members of the Committee before this sitting. No disrespect was intended, but perhaps I can atone for that by leaving a copy with the Clerk. If anybody wants to refer to it afterwards, they can go to him.

I will explain the background to the report and why I believe its recommendations are powerful. After I left government in 2016, when Theresa May became the new Prime Minister and I somehow did not end up in her Administration, I was commissioned by her as a former Minister—the Minister here today may one day, after he has retired, be commissioned to do something similar—to write a report about military recruitment. It was called “Filling the Ranks” and it took about a year to write; I submitted it in 2017. It covered a range of stuff, including trying to see past very minor medical ailments that were preventing people who desperately wanted to join the forces from doing so. All of the recommendations, bar one, were adopted by the Department and I think they have been worked on over the years, some of them more speedily than others.

For the record, the recommendation the Department did not adopt was that I pleaded with it to sack Capita— I nearly called it something else—as the contractor in charge of recruitment. I said in 2017, “Give them a year to fix it and if they don’t, they should go.” Capita did not fix it, and it stayed on. I understand that it was unsuccessful in bidding for the new trial service contract, so maybe it got its come-uppance after all.

Some people thought that “Filling the Ranks” was not completely useless, so I was subsequently commissioned to do a report on retention. The reason for that was partly that as soon as we started talking about recruitment, we ended up having a discussion about retention within 15 minutes anyway. As I am sure the Minister, with his experience, will know, there is no point widening the aperture of the recruitment tap, as it were, unless you can put a retention plug in the sink. If they are leaving faster than they are joining, we have a real problem.

I had a very good team for the retention report. I place on record my thanks to Brigadier Simon Goldstein, a distinguished reservist who retired from the Army after many years as a brigadier, including in one or two regiments the Minister will be familiar with, and my then researcher, an extremely bright chap called Rory Boden who has now gone to the dark side and works in public affairs. The three of us, I hope, put together a credible document. We called it “Stick or Twist?” because that encapsulates the dilemma that service personnel often face at a particular junction in their career. Do they stick with their military service, or twist and go and do something else?

We submitted that report in February 2020. It was commissioned by Theresa May, but by then Boris Johnson was the Prime Minister. We submitted it a month before the country went into lockdown, so it was written in a pre-covid context. The methodology was to make about a dozen visits to military establishments around the country, including Portsmouth for the Royal Navy, Catterick garrison for the Army and Brize Norton for the Royal Air Force. While we were there, we conducted a series of panels—I suppose one might call them focus groups—with warrant officers, senior non-commissioned officers, junior ranks and partners thereof. We tried to get four different perspectives on the challenges facing retention in the armed forces. It was very interesting to see how different ranks sometimes saw issues differently.

One quote struck us so much that we stuck it on the cover. This was under a Conservative Government—I have been called many things down the years, but never a toady. The quote relates to accommodation and came from an interview at Brize Norton with a Royal Air Force corporal:

“We had an Air Vice Marshal visit us a few months ago to give us all a pep talk about how what we were doing was extremely important to Defence and how the nation greatly valued our contribution to National Security. While I was standing at the back, I couldn’t help thinking, well Sir, if that’s true, why are my kids showering in cold water—yet again?”

We put that on the front page of the report—on its face, as it were—because we thought it encapsulated the problem. I encourage hon. Members at least to have a glance at the report if they have a spare minute, but I realise they all live very busy lives.

One thing that came out of the report was that when people leave the armed forces—when they decide to twist—it is often for a combination of reasons. We gave the example of an Army corporal having a kitchen table conversation with his wife when their kids have gone to bed. He has been offered promotion, and he says, “Should I stick or twist?” They go through factor by factor: his likelihood for promotion, her likelihood of promotion in a civilian career, the education of their children—in this scenario, they have an education, health and care plan, so if they move, they might lose that—care for an elderly relative and availability of medical support. In the end, they come to an amalgamated decision about whether to carry on. We learned from the focus groups that this sort of stuff goes on all the time. We were trying to reflect what the Minister would call ground truth.

Sometimes there was just one thing—the straw that breaks the camel’s back. In some cases, it was that the partner in the services had been away on an unaccompanied tour and there had been failures with housing provision, and that did it. To give a completely contrary example, a captain in an armoured unit down on Salisbury plain said that he left because he had been looking forward for months to being the best man at his old university friend’s wedding, but he was picked up on a trawl and told that he had to be a watchkeeper in the British Army Training Unit Suffield. He pleaded with his CO. He wrote a letter to the brigadier, but the brigadier was unsympathetic. The captain missed his best mate’s wedding. He said, “I was sat there with a laptop at 2 o’clock in the morning in the middle of BATUS”—this was some years ago, remember—“reading a cheap novel, when I could have been at my friend’s wedding.” So he came back from Canada and told the Army to stuff it. To my mind, such brainless decisions can bring very promising military careers to an end.

When my team and I looked at the housing issue, I looked at the history of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, which at that time, it has to be said, was not coming in for a lot of praise. In fairness to the DIO—I want to put this on record—it was created in 2010 in something of a shotgun marriage between up to 24 different entities. The old Defence Estates and lots of attachments and detachments, to use military language, were thrown together to create the DIO.

In 2012, when I came in and asked to visit the DIO’s headquarters, I was asked, “Which one do you want to visit, Minister?” I said, “What do you mean? There can be only one.” “No, sir. There are six.” We eventually decided that the principal headquarters was in Sutton Coldfield, but that gives some idea of how long it took that organisation to settle down. It was not given an abundance of resources with which to complete its task. In fairness to the DIO, which has come in for a lot of stick down the years, not least from me, it was set up in challenging circumstances and has had a difficult job to do for many years. If anyone from the DIO is listening, I hope they can appreciate the spirit of what I am trying to say.

We found very clear themes from the focus groups. The partners definitely wanted the patch managers back—I have gone on about it because that is what they kept telling us everywhere we went. Some of the junior ranks in single living accommodation wanted to have slightly better conditions, but some of them at least accepted that, while their conditions may not have been great, they paid virtually no rent for them. Bluntly, at the age of 19, they were slightly more concerned about having a bit of spare cash for Friday and Saturday night than they were about their rent, but that does not mean they do not deserve to live in good accommodation. So we got a variety of feedback.

Based on the DIO at the time, we came up with an alternative solution that we called a forces housing association. The rationale for it was to create a specific bespoke entity with the sole purpose—as established in its articles of association—to provide high-quality housing for armed forces personnel and their families while providing value for money, both for those families and for the taxpayer. The Minister will know that such an entity could be a retention aid because people often pay well below the market rate for a property that would cost them a lot more to rent in the civilian world. In some cases, service personnel value that, and in some cases it is one of the reasons they stick rather than twist, so it can work two ways.

The idea is to create a bespoke housing association, chaired by a Minister and bringing in external expertise from the social rented sector.

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

I will finish this point, then of course I will give way. Some housing associations have been looking after public sector housing, which is effectively what forces housing is, for decades. In my experience as a constituency MP, such housing associations vary in quality. There are some poor ones and some very good ones. The main one operating in my constituency is Sanctuary. A few years ago it was pretty poor but it is now under new leadership, with a very good chief executive called Craig Moule. Five years ago he told me that he was going to turn around the supertanker; she is still turning, but she is now pretty much going in the opposite direction, so I have seen what good looks like.

The idea was to bring in the expertise of people who had been managing public sector housing for decades, get a chief executive from that background and then create a board chaired by a Minister, so that Ministers would have real accountability, with representatives from forces families associations sitting as non-executive directors on the board, thus ensuring direct involvement from the customers themselves.

There is more I could say on that, but I do not want to try the patience of the Committee. That was the rationale: bringing in external housing sector professionals and getting them to run a ringfenced entity. That is what we were advocating for in “Stick or Twist?” and it was the genesis of the policy we announced several months ago, I am pleased to say. Having given the context, and having hopefully told the Committee where my heart lies on this matter, I will gladly give way to the hon. Member for South Ribble.

[Mr Foster]

The independent defence housing strategy team looked at the issue of a defence housing association, and said that

“transfer outside the public sector to a housing association or other private sector structure is not appropriate. It would be most likely to set back the renewal of the estate, increase costs of delivery and hamper operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces.”

Was the right hon. Member aware of that?

[Mr Francois]

Yes, and in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, they would say that, wouldn’t they? We were proposing a slightly more market-oriented solution. Registered social landlords are somewhere between the public and private sector. They are not entirely private entities or entities of the state, but are, practically, somewhere in the middle. As I have already said from experience, they vary in quality, but to be fair, I have seen what good looks like. I appreciate the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman. He has a proud background of service in the Royal Engineers. He qualified as a clerk of works, which is no mean feat, so I appreciate that he knows his onions. None the less, the point he puts across came from the other side of the fence—no pun intended. Of course they would argue that.

The purpose of tabling new clause 7 was so we could debate the relative merits of the two systems. If we think of this as a spectrum, the old DIO was at the most statist end, the Defence Housing Service as proposed is one notch further along to something more market-oriented, and we are proposing something another notch further along the spectrum. The Minister is listening intently; hopefully he understands the analogy.

As I said at the beginning, I do not believe there is any violent disagreement, or indeed any disagreement at all, about what the Committee is trying to achieve. We all want service family accommodation of the best possible quality for our personnel and their families; the debate is about how we best get to that objective. We were asking the Government to conduct a feasibility study, perhaps slightly more independently than the response that the hon. Member for South Ribble just cited, and to come back a year later, before the Defence Housing Service is fully up and running, to see whether there might be a better way of doing it or whether it could be tweaked. We might return to this on Report, but that is the background, the genesis and the stimuli of our proposal.

When we did the visits—it was a former Minister, a politician in a suit, coming down to a military establishment—we sat 20 people down in a room and gave them the scenario of the corporal’s conversation at the kitchen table as a bit of an icebreaker. To begin with, everyone looked at everyone else, and they were all a bit nervous about saying something. One person then said something, and the dam broke: everybody wanted to pitch in, and everybody had a contribution to make. That taught me how powerful all of this is. We had a number of specific examples when people of varying ranks told us, “We are going to leave the service of the Crown, because of our concerns about housing.”

I know from experience that this really matters to service personnel and their families. I apologise for trying the patience of the Committee this morning, Mr Efford—in all seriousness, you have everything in Greenwich, including your own barracks, so you will be very familiar with these matters yourself. I hope Members understand the spirit of what we are trying to do with new clause 7.

On clause 3, I think we have had a good debate this morning, and we have tested some of the issues fairly well. I hope we have done our duty, and no doubt we will wish to return to some of these issues on Report, not least the prospective bonus for the National Armaments Director. I will conclude there, and I am genuinely interested to hear the Minister’s reply and the opinions of any other members of the Committee.

Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

Paul Foster Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[David Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He has a lot of experience in local government, so I take his view on this topic and look forward to hearing his substantive speech on it.

Amendment 8 does not introduce a new or burdensome requirement. It simply reflects existing guidelines and established practice, and provides clarity, not complication. By setting out what due regard means in the Bill, we ensure that everyone is working from the same understanding from the outset. In practical terms, placing a definition in the Bill would make it clear that local authorities and other relevant bodies must consciously consider the needs of the armed forces community when making decisions in scope of the covenant. It would require more than a cursory acknowledgment; it would require proper thought, proper sentiment and a willingness to adjust decisions where appropriate. That is not an unreasonable expectation. Local authorities already operate within similar frameworks in other areas of public policy, and the duty to have due regard is well understood in some areas and councils.

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that we may be jumping the gun slightly? The covenant’s statutory guidance will explain in detail what due regard means in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that, but instead we should push our local authorities and other public bodies to create tailored solutions. For example, I recently asked organisations in my constituency how they are supporting the armed forces covenant, and I was delighted with the response I received. Organisations reached out to explain the specific actions that they have taken, and how they have gone above and beyond to support armed forces personnel, veterans and their families.

Warwickshire police told me that it has achieved gold status in the defence employer recognition scheme, which is managed by the Ministry of Defence. It has developed an armed forces network that has worked hard to develop referral pathways for veterans and their families. We should encourage organisations to aspire to be the best that they can be and to achieve that gold status, rather than enforcing a basic minimum.

[Mr Foster]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, with this amendment, we run the risk of creating a minimal requirement that organisations may seek to meet, without going any further, thus undermining the delivery and service of the covenant for our veterans?

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and that is exactly the point I am making. We need to encourage the best from all our services, local authorities, police, education, courts and so on. We should not lose the approach of striving for the best, in favour of having a national minimum, because that becomes a drive to the bottom. We need to allow organisations to design their own approach with their local community to do the best they can for the armed forces—veterans and serving personnel—within their communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

Empowering armed forces champions is not necessarily the solution; unfortunately, whether we like it or not, armed forces champions differ between councils. I am not an expert, as some members of the Committee are, but I have travelled to many local councils and seen where it works exceptionally well. For example, in Manchester, armed forces champions are paid and employed by the council and have clear terms of reference. Other areas do not even have armed forces champions. To deliver the most consistent change, the solution is not necessarily to empower armed forces champions but to provide a set of terms of reference for the accountable individuals in councils to uphold the covenant and support veterans, across the entire nation, in line with the Valour programme.

[Mr Foster]

On this Committee, we have veterans and former council leaders, and I am both. One of the main reasons for all the changes being made in the Bill is a recognition that, historically, the covenant has not been delivered appropriately by local authorities. However, does the Minister agree that there is evidence that it has significantly improved recently, and that including Op Valour will take that improvement a step further?

[Al Carns]

I completely agree. The reality is that the implementation of the covenant has been really narrow, across three different Departments. The Bill will broaden the number of policy areas it covers to 12 plus two, which will put an onus on councils and allow people to hold them to account on delivering in line with the armed forces covenant. That is a positive step in the right direction. When we combine that with Valour over time, starting small and broadening out, we will end up with a data-based solution that ensures that councils can support their armed forces community in a more effective and balanced manner.

A definition of due regard in the Bill risks being overly narrow and could unintentionally limit how bodies apply it in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Having been a Member of Parliament for 25 years in June, I have learned not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I say that in the nicest possible way, so I will take the hint, and having gone to the trouble of writing the speech, I will definitely submit it.

To continue, if a service family were based at Tidworth and, perhaps after some considerable time, had secured an EHCP from Wiltshire as the local education authority, but were then posted to Catterick, they would potentially have to go through the process all over again in Yorkshire. It could be another two years of agony to get back to where they already were before they moved.

As the Minister pointed out in his helpful letter to the Committee of 9 March, the Department for Education has produced—here is that word again—“guidelines” that should help facilitate the passporting, in effect, of EHCPs from one military garrison or equivalent airbase or naval base to another in a different LEA area, so there is already a process in place to do that. The problem, however, is that those guidelines are facilitative rather than mandatory. In other words, if the receiving LEA—in Yorkshire, in our example—was already under serious financial pressure and already had delays in its system for granting EHCPs, it is possible that, despite the armed forces covenant, the receiving LEA might yet be unreasonable and still force the service family to go back to square one and start all over again. Without taking the Committee for granted in any way, I strongly suspect that Members from all parties would find that situation highly undesirable.

[Mr Foster]

Is it not the case that a civilian family who lived in Wiltshire and moved to Yorkshire would face exactly the same challenges as the service family? The covenant is about service personnel and families not being at a disadvantage compared with their civilian counterparts. Actually, they are already not at a disadvantage because both are dealt with in exactly the same way.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Member is making my point for me. In the civilian context they might not be ordered to move, but in a military context their whole unit might move, so they do not have a choice. If they are going to follow the drum—follow the flag—they have to go from Tidworth to Catterick. If, therefore, the LEA covering Catterick were difficult about it, they would have to start the journey all over again. When I was doing the “Stick or Twist?” report, I spoke to a number of service personnel, so we had anecdotal evidence, although I am afraid not a league table. We certainly spoke to people who were contemplating leaving the military because they were in exactly that situation and simply could not face the challenge of having to move and start all over again. They would rather leave the service of the Crown and keep the bird in the hand—for want of a better phrase—staying with the EHCP that they had, than move to a new location, roll the dice and start all over again. That is the fundamental difference.

An absolute principle of the covenant—as, to be fair, the hon. Member for South Ribble rightly elucidated—is that service personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage as a result of their military service. This is a very specific example of where they do, and we called the report “Stick or Twist?” because, in this case, that is the dilemma that they would face. I have done my best, I hope, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, so I will try to move towards a conclusion without trying your patience, Mr Efford.

In essence, amendment 11 seeks to make provision for the Secretary of State to produce guidelines within six months such that the receiving authority must accept that transfer as legitimate and seek to passport across whatever benefits were provided for in the EHCP, or in the national equivalent in the devolved Administrations. On a point of detail, as an EHCP usually includes a named school for that child to go to, whether mainstream or specialist, the service family should also be given a reasonable period of time in order to help negotiate and select a named school in the receiving area, ideally before their posting comes into effect, so that the child could, as it were, know their fate and begin to establish links in the new school. I hope Committee members appreciate that for children with certain SEN conditions, moving educational settings can be a disturbing experience. That is why I put that provision into the amendment.

I hope the Committee will forgive me for having gone into considerable detail about all this, but special educational needs is perforce a rather complicated subject. Nevertheless, I hope that the Committee can understand what I and my hon. Friends seek to achieve here, and I hope that we might somehow be able to co-opt the Committee on a cross-party basis to bring it through. The spirit is simple: one of the key principles of the armed forces covenant is that service personnel should suffer no disadvantage relative to their civilian counterparts by virtue of their service, and I believe that that should apply equally in the field of special needs education as elsewhere.

Having presented my case, and so as not to try the Committee’s patience, I genuinely look forward to hearing other members of the Committee, especially the Minister when he sums up, and their views of amendment 11. I shall not discuss amendment 12 now, but will let someone else have a go. Perhaps, Mr Efford, you will call me to speak briefly to that amendment later. Other than that, I rest my case.

Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability

Paul Foster Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I commend the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for bringing forward the debate. I completely associate myself with his comments about the workforce up there; generations of my constituents have worked at the Samlesbury and Warton sites. I quite enjoyed his speech—most of it, anyway.

I was lucky enough to visit the Warton site recently with the Prime Minister, when he announced the Turkey order. It is fair to say that the workforce was absolutely buzzing; this is such an important order for them. We have 20 brand-new Typhoons guaranteed and fully assembled at the site up there, with an option for a further 20, guaranteeing up to £8 billion in investment and securing production facilities and critical jobs for at least a decade.

As was mentioned, BAE Systems is also spearheading sixth-generation fighter development, under the Tempest programme, which is expected to enter service around 2035. As the hon. Member for Fylde mentioned, BAE Systems at the Samlesbury and Warton sites is also heavily engaged with the delivery of the F-35, which is now in service with the RAF. I understand that—for reasons not known to me—the RAF prefers the F-35 to the Typhoon. That was shared with me by the unions and a number of individuals.

The last UK sovereign order for Typhoons was back in 2009. I note that the hon. Member did not say that the previous Government ordered no sovereign Typhoons between 2010 and 2024. Given that the production of these aircraft takes almost five years from ordering to completion, we now have a gap at the production facilities because they did not order any.

The previous Government’s combat air strategy was published in July 2018. It had the clear objective that the F-35 Lightning would replace the ageing Tornado GR4—which it has—and then partner the Typhoon until the latter leaves service around 2040, with the global combat air programme Tempest being the successor. Much work must be undertaken to ensure that critical upgrades to the current 111 operational UK sovereign Typhoons take place, particularly around the enhanced radar and the weapons the aircraft carries.

The Government must continue their efforts to ensure that more Typhoons are sold on the export market. As the hon. Member said, that needs to be done as a matter of urgency. There is an argument to be had that the Government could consider a sovereign order now that could potentially be exported in years to come. That has happened historically, although I am completely cognisant of the fact that there are constraints on the MOD budget and the UK Budget at the moment. However, that is a consideration that Ministers may have.

[Mr Snowden]

The hon. Member is giving a good speech in defence of jobs in his constituency. On the point about previous years—I touched on this in my speech—it became obvious that the next big defence review would have to be the point where the crunch decision was made on this. I echo the point—it was probably remiss of me to miss this out in my opening remarks—that placing that order and then potentially releasing it is a very good way of not only potentially boosting the export campaign, but covering the two to three-year critical gap that we have now that the assembly line will be empty. I thank the hon. Member for making that point.

[Mr Foster]

I agree, but Ministers have a difficult decision. The recent publication of the strategic defence review has committed us to the Tempest programme, but we must await the details of any updated combat air strategy, which is obviously clearly linked to the defence investment plan and acquisition pipeline.

To conclude, the securing of the Turkish Typhoon export order has been a real game changer for my community in South Ribble and the wider community of Lancashire, and for procurement across the entire country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) mentioned. It is a great start. It has secured a number of jobs at the Warton site for a decade. We must support the Government and BAE Systems as much as we can, and get as many of these aircraft exported as we can.

UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal

Paul Foster Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome of this deal. The message that goes out loud and clear to the workforce of not just BAE Systems, but the entire supply chain, is one of cross-party support for their work that this statement has announced.

On the question of the Istanbul mayor, it is not for the Ministry of Defence to comment on individual legal cases in other countries. Our defence engagement with Türkiye is focused on shared security interests and NATO co-operation. However, I recognise what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will ask the Foreign Office, which leads on that matter, to update him.

I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister, at this Dispatch Box during Prime Minister’s questions today, remark on the importance of the EU reset deal, our commitment as part of that deal to defence and security arrangements between the UK and the EU, and the progress we are seeking to make in forming closer ties with the EU. The hon. Gentleman will know that those negotiations are ongoing with our EU friends, and we hope to have updates shortly. However, let me say very clearly that our EU friends are also our NATO allies, and there is real common cause and a common opportunity to strengthen our collective defence by working together.

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

I had the privilege of being at BAE Systems in Warton yesterday with the Prime Minister, and it is fair to say that the workforce are utterly buzzing about this announcement. It is the first new order of aircraft since 2017, as the Minister said, and the largest order since 2007. It was hard-won against the likes of the US, the Swedes, the French and other allies, but guess what? Lancashire won. It is for 20 aircraft signs now, with an option for a further 20, worth £8 billion. Generations of my constituents in South Ribble have worked or still do work in Samlesbury and Warton, and this deal has secured thousands of jobs for at least a decade, or even more. Can I please urge the Minister to still prioritise the Typhoon and to get us more orders as quickly as he can?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for the important work he has been doing alongside other Lancashire MPs not only Labour Members, but on a cross-party basis—in support of the workforce at Samlesbury and Warton. He says that Lancashire won, but I should place on the record that a key part was played by the Yorkshire Defence Secretary, and I think that when they each play nicely with their neighbours, they can achieve great things together.

My hon. Friend is exactly right that the Typhoon offers an incredible platform. As part of the Government’s efforts to promote British industry and our products around the world, we will continue to promote the opportunities that the Typhoon presents to our allies, given the interoperability and close partnerships that Typhoon nations have with the RAF in particular, but also, as we move towards GCAP and the opportunities that it provides, the importance of saying that cutting-edge British innovation, especially in the combat air sector, keeps us and our allies safe.

Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement

Paul Foster Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I am glad that the hon. Lady supports these measures. As I have already made clear, this decision is not at the expense of buying more F-35Bs, which we will do. The extent to which we fully implement the strategic defence review, and the order in which we implement its recommendations, will be decided through our investment plan, which is being worked on now and will be fully published and available in due course. There is no doubt that, as she says, the threats we face are increasing. We need to make sure that we are capable of deterring those threats, with our allies in NATO, and this decision will assist us in that. By joining the NATO nuclear mission, we will be able to play our part. As we said in the SDR, our policy is “NATO first”, and our commitment to NATO is unshakeable.

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

I commend the Government on the prompt procurement of the F-35A fixed-wing, which is of huge strategic importance, but this is already creating great uncertainty in Lancashire—in Chorley, Mr Speaker, and in my constituency of South Ribble—where the workforce of the Typhoon Eurofighter live. Can the Minister please assure me that the Government will still be constant in looking to procure the Typhoon aircraft for the RAF? Also, with our NATO partners all increasing their defence spending, is there not a huge opportunity to urge them to procure the Typhoon Eurofighter as well?

[Maria Eagle]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. What we are talking about does not of course preclude any support for the Typhoon. We are very committed to our Typhoons, and we are committed to upgrading them, as per our existing plans. We are engaged in many efforts to export, and one would hope that some of them will come off at some point in the not-too-distant future.

We are very keen on making sure that the skills and abilities of the workforce at Warton are fully used. We of course have the future combat air system and the global combat air programme, which will use those skills in the longer term. Many people working for BAE Systems—not at Warton, but at Samlesbury—make parts for the F-35, and I think they will be pleased to hear the announcement today.

Draft Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024

Paul Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 General Committees

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

I will be brief, Mr Efford. Will the Minister confirm that this SI closes an existing loophole in the current legislation, and that, additionally, it will allow the whole process of court martials to be sped up? Ultimately, that has to be in the best interests of everyone involved.

UK Submarine Fleet

Paul Foster Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

I will be brief, Dr Murrison. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this important debate on what is without doubt one of the most—if not the most—critical elements of our nation’s defence. After all, our submarines carry our ballistic nuclear weapons, which are our continual at-sea deterrent.

I have a long-standing passionate interest in the submarine fleet, as they are built by my friends and family in my hometown of Barrow-in-Furness, albeit that is not my constituency. It is true that I could well have entered into a career in building them myself had I not decided to join the British Army instead in 1988. I wish to publicly commend the continued outstanding work of all the personnel within BAE Systems in Barrow in building what are quite possibly the most technically advanced submarines in service. Additionally, I commend our submariners who do a job that I never could—for extended periods, they keep us all safe from those who wish to cause us harm. I am also fully supportive of retaining our nuclear deterrent, as well as the replacement Dreadnought programme.

Looking at the current UK submarine fleet, I have some concerns on a number of issues, but I am aware that it would not be appropriate to raise them all, given the classified nature of operations. As I mentioned, I commend our submariners serving the Royal Navy in an exemplary manner, and I hope that the current recruitment and retention issues being experienced within the service can be addressed quickly. The time that those individuals spend continually at sea is certainly an issue that requires some focus, which I hope it is receiving. The substandard defence accommodation for our serving submariners and their families is also clearly an ongoing issue. The Secretary of State is dealing with that as a priority, and I would appreciate updates as to the progress that has been made.

The UK’s next-generation attack submarine, AUKUS, in collaboration with Australia and the United States, is a huge opportunity for not just the shipyard in Barrow but the entire nation. It is pleasing to see that global collaboration with two of our strongest allies, but it also provides a long-term strategic path, along with the Dreadnought programme, for the submarine service to grow from strength to strength and for the United Kingdom to continue to be a leading power in the sector.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to grow the skills necessary to build the service and maintain our submarine fleet? Rolls-Royce Submarines in Derby is doubling the size of its site in preparation for AUKUS, and it has its own nuclear skills academy with 200 apprentices every year. Does my hon. Friend agree that investing in apprenticeships is essential to providing the skills that we need?

[Mr Foster]

I wholeheartedly agree. One of the challenges that we have faced in Barrow over a number of years is losing all the trades and the young people, because previous Governments did not invest in the submarine fleet. Barrow is a small town, but my hon. Friend is right that this is a massive opportunity not only for Derby and Barrow, but for the entire country. I am sure that no one present would disagree that the British Astute-class attack submarine is quite possibly the best there is globally.

I did say that I would be brief, so I will finish soon, but one area that requires much attention—I am aware that the Government are looking at it closely—is submarine decommissioning and dismantling. My understanding is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar mentioned, 23 submarines await dismantlement at the Rosyth or Devonport dockyards, with no final solution yet agreed. Furthermore, four Vanguard-class submarines will leave service in the 2030s. I trust that the ongoing strategic defence review is looking closely at the issue.

To conclude, the UK submarine fleet delivers the cornerstone of our nation’s defence. Our Royal Navy submarine service should be commended for the unwavering, continued and extremely challenging service that it provides to this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Foster Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to improve housing for military personnel and their families.

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

19. What progress he has made on improving military accommodation.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

21. What steps he is taking to improve housing for military personnel and their families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have lived in some of the accommodation and I have seen how bad it is, and this deal will allow us to change that. Over time we will have a chance, saving £230 million a year, to give the people who serve this country the deal they deserve when it comes to housing.

[Mr Foster]

During my service in the late ’80s, through the ’90s and into the early 2000s, I had the pleasure of having to live in military accommodation. Its poor condition was discussed almost weekly. Roll forward 20 years, and we are still having the same discussion. Can Ministers please assure me that they will now seriously get a grip of that and, through the strategic defence review, give some clear programme delivery dates for when we will deliver for our forces?

[Al Carns]

Absolutely. As part of the SDR, we will set out our new defence housing strategy. We will look at how we take Annington, build on it and improve the housing available for those who serve in our armed forces.