Armed Forces Bill (First sitting)

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[David Reed]

I would rather have it in the legislation from the outset. We could take a position where we hope that local authorities will sit down and read through the legislation but, as we have seen over the last few years, that has not been applied in the current understanding of the covenant. I would rather the definition be explicit for local authorities. That would also provide a nice feedback loop, because if it is not working, it can go straight back to the Ministry of Defence and we can work on making amendments to the overall legislation.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

When coming to a definition that everybody can agree on, it often ends up being very narrow, because that is what the group can agree on and apply. Does the hon. Member agree that if we end up defining due regard in the Bill, the definition will be narrow and, by its very nature, bodies will apply it in a very narrow sense in practice, to the detriment of veterans and service personnel?

[David Reed]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and she makes a good point. But who defines “narrow”? From what we have seen with local authorities, most councils want to go above and beyond the covenant, because people in the council might have served in the military or had military families and they want to do more than what is already stated. Having the base, narrow explanation in the Bill will give everyone the base requirement, and it is a powerful thing to include—it is important to be explicit.

The amendment simply ensures that the same level of care is applied, and it is also about accountability. Without that clear definition, it becomes hard to assess whether an authority has fulfilled its duty. A defined standard provides a benchmark against which performance can be measured. It gives confidence to service families and ensures that their circumstances are properly considered; it also gives clarity to authorities about what is expected of them.

--- Later in debate ---

Members from across the House will recognise the importance of the armed forces covenant. It reflects a simple but powerful principle that those who serve, and those who have served, should not be disadvantaged by that service. That special consideration is appropriate in some cases. If we are serious about that principle, we must ensure that the mechanisms we put in place to uphold it are clear and robust.

[Rachel Taylor]

It is a pleasure, Mr Efford, to serve under your chairmanship.

Liberal Democrat amendment 5 is well intentioned, but I find it troubling. The hon. Member for North Devon seems to be trying to create a minimum requirement that organisations might reach and then decide that they will take no further action. I am hugely concerned that it could be detrimental to delivering the best possible service to veterans and service personnel. A one-size-fits-all national protocol removes the ability for decisions to be made at a local level and tailored for local context and circumstances.

[Mike Martin]

Perhaps it would be helpful to explain that it is a floor, rather than a target.

[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.

[Ian Roome]

It is nice to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Amendment 5 would add a new section to the armed forces covenant provisions that were introduced in the Armed Forces Act 2006 to try to make access to services more consistent. This Bill requires specified persons to have due regard to the covenant for specified matters, such as the fair provision of childcare, healthcare and social care, housing and other services listed in clause 2. Some of those specified persons are national bodies, but others are local authorities, educational bodies and health bodies, many of which are much more localised.

Without a national benchmark for supporting armed forces families, we risk that due regard to the covenant will still be interpreted in very different ways by, say, neighbouring local councils. I fear that some might see it just as a paper exercise. That could be unfair on armed forces personnel in some parts of the country, but would make life especially hard for those being reposted every two years. For example, Devon has one, two or three overlapping levels of local government, depending on where someone lives. Our NHS hospital trusts, police, fire authorities and other services have different boundaries too.

The problem of a postcode lottery was identified as a weakness in the original covenant. If someone is in uniform, they could easily be reposted from a big city to RAF Lossiemouth or RNAS Culdrose—a completely different kind of community. The Defence Committee’s report on the armed forces covenant found that some councils have priority housing rules for veterans, while others still require a local connection. That can be unfair on service families who move around a lot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

I disagree—the postcode lottery will get better and start to standardise over time. There is a multitude of problems with the covenant that the Bill will try to solve, one of which is education, and communication to our own armed forces personnel about what it is and what it is not. That is a problem for the Ministry of Defence, which we are taking forward.

A definition of due regard in the Bill risks being overly narrow and could unintentionally limit how bodies apply it in practice. I talked in my letter about flexibility, which is critical. Due regard is about informed decision making. It may involve training staff and putting mechanisms in place to ensure that decision making includes concise analysis of how decisions might impact members of the armed forces community.

[Rachel Taylor]

The Minister has been extremely generous with his time. I want to come back to this definition and whether it will help us, because what the Minister is saying is that we need to educate, inform and work with the champions in local authorities, rather than set up a system that litigates the meaning of “an appropriate amount of weight”. I fail to see how a definition that talks about an appropriate amount of weight is any more helpful for someone interpreting it than the phrase “due regard”, which, from a lot of evidence, is well understood by most of the people delivering on the armed forces covenant.

[Al Carns]

The public sector equality duty has been in force for 15 years and its duty of due regard is working well; we seek to replicate that as we move forward. From my perspective, the amendment risks constraining rather than strengthening that approach. As I have said many times, this is a step in the right direction. It broadens the policy areas covered by the covenant, which is a fantastic step and should be seen very positively across the armed forces, their families, our veteran community and the bereaved.

I thank the hon. Members for North Devon and for Tunbridge Wells for amendment 5, which proposes a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to

“prepare and publish a national protocol for consistent access to public services”

for personnel and their families. While I recognise the importance of consistent and reliable access to public services for the armed forces community, again I respectfully cannot accept the amendment. A national protocol setting out standardised procedures and expectations could create a minimal level of requirement that organisations might seek to meet without going any further. It therefore risks unintentionally limiting the steps taken by those organisations to support the armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I will confine my remarks to amendment 10, concerning the continuity of NHS secondary care services for the dependants of members of the armed forces. The amendment addresses an issue that has very real consequences for the health and wellbeing of service families, and therefore for the broader integrity of the commitment we make to those who have served and do serve.

At the heart of this amendment lies a simple maxim: those who serve their country, and the families who support them, should not be placed at a disadvantage when accessing essential public services as a result of the demands placed upon them by service life. That principle is, of course, recognised in the armed forces covenant; the question is whether we are giving full and consistent effect to it in practice.

The difficulty arises from a defining feature of military service: members of the armed forces are required to move. They are often asked to move frequently, often at short notice, sometimes across significant distances within the United Kingdom, and sometimes further afield. Those moves are not discretionary; they are intrinsic to the operational readiness and effective functioning of our armed forces. And when service personnel move, invariably their families move with them.

That reality carries with it a number of challenges, but one of the most pressing, and one that is too often overlooked, is the disruption to ongoing medical treatment for their dependants. While primary care is generally able to accommodate patient movement with relative ease, the same cannot be said for secondary care. Hospital treatment, specialist pathways and waiting lists are typically organised on a regional or trust basis. When a family crosses those organisational boundaries, continuity is not guaranteed.

The consequence, in too many cases, is that dependants find themselves required to re-enter the system. A child undergoing specialist treatment, a spouse awaiting elective surgery or a family member under the care of a consultant may be told that because they have moved into a new area, they must obtain a new referral, join a new waiting list and effectively begin the process again from the start.

It is important to be clear about what that represents—not a clinical judgment or a decision taken in the interests of patient care, but an administrative consequence of the way services are structured and commissioned across different parts of the NHS. It is in effect a failure of co-ordination. For the individuals concerned, however, it has a much more significant impact. It can mean delayed diagnoses, prolonged pain, deterioration in conditions that require timely intervention, and significant anxiety for families already managing the pressures of service life. It can also undermine confidence in the system and create a perception, justified or otherwise, that service families are being treated less favourably.

The amendment seeks to address that problem in a proportionate manner. It does not attempt to redesign the structure of the NHS—that would be a fool’s errand—nor does it impose a rigid requirement on how services should be delivered.

[Rachel Taylor]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument; we can all relate to the specific problems that anyone faces when they move house, and that is far more likely for service personnel. However, requiring patients to retain waiting list positions regardless of clinical urgency surely risks distorting NHS prioritisation principles, which are based on clinical need in order to ensure fairness and safety. Could he address that point?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. Of course there will need to be a degree of clinical judgment, but the premise that somebody has to start at the bottom of the system by virtue of the fact that they are a dependant of service personnel is inherently unfair, and one that needs to be addressed in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is about not only streamlining the process, but giving more heft to those who wield the power to ensure that we get improved patient outcomes at the end of it. That is what we should all be seeking.

Ultimately, the question before us is very straightforward: are we content to allow a situation to persist in which service families can lose their place in the healthcare system simply because they are required to move in the course of service, or do we consider it reasonable to take targeted steps to prevent that outcome? In my view, the answer is clear. Where treatment has begun, it should continue. Where a place on a waiting list has been earned, it should be respected. Administrative boundaries should not dictate clinical outcomes. They certainly should not impose additional burdens on those who have little choice but to cross them.

The amendment provides a measured and practical mechanism to achieve that objective. It respects the structure of the NHS, acknowledges the reality of devolution and focuses squarely on the removal of a specific and identifiable disadvantage. In doing so, it gives tangible effect to the principles of the covenant. It recognises that our obligations to service families are not merely symbolic; they require a practical expression in the design and operation of public services.

[Rachel Taylor]

Although the amendments are well-intentioned, they are somewhat problematic because they target health, education, adoption and fostering, which are all devolved to the respective Governments. They risk recklessly breaching our devolution conventions, including the Sewel convention. The purpose of the Bill is not to strain relationships with the devolved Governments; instead, it seeks to empower them to design the right solutions for each nation.

The covenant duty is intentionally flexible and is supported by guidance and existing frameworks. It allows each Government to design their response. I believe that this Government should seek to work collaboratively with the devolved Governments on supporting our armed forces, rather than prescribing duties to them in legislation.

Furthermore, our NHS already works effectively with the covenant duty to support continuity. The amendments would risk governance and clinical risks. Instead, the Government are focusing on initiatives that aim to promote awareness of the armed forces community.

The Ministry of Defence already provides comprehensive guidance for service families through the adoption and fostering defence instruction notice, which embeds the MOD’s role firmly within existing civilian-led systems. These long-standing frameworks already ensure continuity for families when they move. In combination with the strengthened covenant duty, they will provide a far more practical and effective approach than is proposed in the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

When I was conducting the “Stick or Twist?” report for Prime Minister Theresa May—I referred to that in some detail on Second Reading, so I shall not go into all that again now—I learned that service personnel sometimes find themselves in a very difficult situation, where they spend one or two years securing an EHCP from their local authority, only to face losing it if they are posted from one garrison to another in a completely different LEA area, and therefore have to start the whole assault course again.

[Rachel Taylor]

The right hon. Member makes a very valid point. I invite him to submit his speech to the consultation on the Government’s White Paper on special educational needs. If he is going to withdraw the amendment, perhaps he would consider that, and then we could move on.

[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.

Middle East: Defence

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I am not going to announce the deployments of British forces in advance. The hon. Member is right to point to the balance of threats and responsibilities that we have to manage. We are doing that, and we will always fulfil our NATO commitments.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Can I thank my right hon. Friend for everything that he is doing in Britain’s national interest? Our armed forces cannot believe their ears when we have the Leader of the Opposition saying that they are hanging around doing nothing and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) swanning off to the States to tell Donald Trump that, if he were Prime Minister, he would blindly follow US defence policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the first duty of any Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Defence is our national interest—Britain’s national interest and not anything else?

[John Healey]

The first duty of any Government is to defend the country, pursue our national interest and support our armed forces. On this occasion, we had expected and look for better from the Leader of the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to support Ukraine.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

17. What steps he is taking to support Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

Three weeks ago I was in Kyiv. I saw for myself the savagery of Putin’s brutal assault on the Ukrainian people and I saw also their extraordinary defiance. Next week I will co-chair the 50-nation strong Ukraine defence contact group in NATO, and the UK is providing more military support now than ever before, and we will continue to stand united in this House, will continue to stand united in this country, and will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this, and as a nation and a Government the UK will not hesitate to act against those supplying and funding Putin’s war economy. We have sanctioned a range of organisations that operate in third countries over economic and military support for Russia, including 50 Chinese companies. We will continue to work across other nations with other nations and to bolster the support for Ukraine and the principles of the UN charter.

[Rachel Taylor]

In North Warwickshire and Bedworth, many, like Felicitas in Water Orton, have welcomed Ukrainian refugees into their homes and have stood by Ukraine, just as this Labour Government have. Meanwhile, Reform-led Warwickshire county council has removed the Ukrainian flag from county hall despite public protest. Given the ever-growing threats of Russian aggression, what steps is the UK taking to strengthen its anti-submarine warfare capabilities?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right that politicians of any party are judged on what we do, not just what we say, and the performance of Reform-led councils will certainly come home to roost, I suggest, for their party. But my hon. Friend is right: in this new era of Russian threat, we must ensure that our Royal Navy has the innovation it needs to detect, to track and to deter threats beneath the waves, and so today we have announced a new £40 million contract with a British-based SME to buy new sonobuoys, exactly to be deployed and used beneath the waves to track Putin’s subs.

Armed Forces Bill

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

First, on behalf of our House of Commons Defence Committee, I thank the Secretary of State for the memorandum his Department provided to us and for last week’s briefing, organised by the Ministry of Defence Bill team. I also put on record our deep gratitude to the British armed forces for keeping us safe and secure—it is a sad fact that our world is becoming a more dangerous place, and I cannot praise enough the brave men and women who face down that danger every day to protect our nation. This is a wide-ranging Bill, and unfortunately, time does not allow me to address all its aspects in detail. I draw the House’s attention to my Committee’s letter to the Minister for the Armed Forces last week, in which we give more detailed observations on the Bill.

Clause 2 of the Bill expands the armed forces covenant, following the Government’s manifesto pledge to put the covenant “fully into law”. The Defence Committee held an inquiry into the covenant last spring, in which we recommended that the covenant be extended to all Government Departments and to the devolved Administrations and that its scope be extended beyond housing, education and health into other areas of life where service personnel can experience disadvantage, such as employment and social care.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the armed forces covenant is so important across all our local authority services? If so, does he share my surprise that no colleagues from the turquoise brigade on the Opposition Benches can even be bothered to come into the Chamber and listen to this evening’s debate?

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is 100% correct. At such times, it is to be expected that all parties attend the debate—that point has been eloquently made by my hon. Friend. If Reform Members are serious about defence, they should attend defence debates and questions on a regular basis.

Clause 2’s strengthening of the covenant is welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Bedworth in my constituency hosts the largest armistice parade in Britain. It is truly the town that never forgets. Today I want to pay tribute to all the veterans across North Warwickshire and Bedworth, especially those who lost their lives in Afghanistan, including Sergeant Simon Valentine.

When I speak to people across my constituency, they tell me that they are proud of their armed forces. Just last week I met a constituent on a visit to Parliament who proudly told me about his time serving in the RAF. At a time of growing international turbulence, we need more people who look to our armed forces with national pride and who can see a future for themselves in our armed forces.

For too long, those opportunities were undermined by years of under-investment by the Conservatives. In 1996, the Conservative party privatised military housing. This decision cost taxpayers billions and left too many service personnel and their families living in substandard conditions. Between 2018 and 2023, military families lodged almost 53,000 complaints about their housing. By 2023, satisfaction with service family accommodation had fallen to the lowest level on record, with only one in five service personnel satisfied with the repairs and maintenance carried out. This Labour Government have started to turn the tide. We have brought 36,000 forces family homes back into public ownership, saving over £200 million a year in rent payments. These savings are already being invested in fixing and improving military housing, but we need to do so much more.

In the run-up to the election in 2024, we promised to extend the armed forces covenant to every area of Government. Through this Bill, we are delivering on that promise. The armed forces covenant promises to deliver fairness for serving personnel, veterans, families and the bereaved, and for the first time, this Government will extend the covenant across social care, employment support and other public services, placing a legal duty on them to consider the unique circumstances faced by forces personnel and their families. It will deliver better support for tens of thousands of service personnel and veterans across the country. As part of improving that help, I am proud to have supported Op Valour, which is extending more support for veterans and their families in my constituency.

All those who serve our country must be able to do so with dignity and respect. They deserve confidence in a service justice system that stands with them and that supports victims and delivers justice. That is why the Government are ensuring that the service justice system can better protect those who experience the most serious offences. It will give the military police enhanced powers to investigate wrongdoing, provide service courts with stronger tools to hold perpetrators to account and, crucially, improve the experience of victims as they navigate the justice process. I am proud to stand behind this Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls, and this Bill will help us in that mission, because it includes a comprehensive set of measures to protect those at risk of violent behaviour, domestic abuse, stalking and sexual abuse and harassment.

I also want to see this legislation protecting our armed forces in their role combating terrorism at home and abroad. The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. Today, the threats we face are growing closer and closer to home. We have seen Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine, and we have seen the rules-based international order fracture and strain. In response, we have to strengthen our armed forces and ensure that we are prepared for an era of ever increasing threat.

Finally we have a Government who are standing side by side with our armed forces through real, tangible measures, backing our armed forces, supporting their families, treating them with dignity and respect, giving them choices and ensuring that our nation’s security is fit for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Portsmouth North knows the value of service. We are a proud naval city, home to serving personnel, reservists, veterans and their families, and to the many charities and individuals who support them. We are a city whose identity is inseparable from the Royal Navy. More than 9,000 veterans of all services live in Portsmouth. Thousands more serve at His Majesty’s Royal Naval Base, Portsmouth, and many families in my constituency move where duty sends them, putting down roots again and again in the service of this nation. That is why the Armed Forces Bill matters so deeply to Portsmouth North. The Bill renews the nation’s contract with those who serve. It delivers better homes, stronger protections, fairer support for veterans and serving personnel and greater readiness at a time of global threat.

Let me start with housing, because for far too long forces families were badly let down. Under the Conservatives, satisfaction with service family accommodation collapsed to record lows as families lived with damp, mould and unsafe conditions. This Bill draws a clear line under that failure. Indeed, I am proud to see that this work has already begun under this Government, with real change to be seen in houses in areas such as Hilsea. I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for visiting and seeing this change.

But we are going to do more, by establishing a publicly owned Defence Housing Service and backing it with a fully costed £9 million defence housing strategy. Change under Labour is real. This investment will directly improve service family accommodation in Portsmouth, which will improve retention and provide stability and quality of life for those who serve and live in our almost 700 local homes. That is also only possible because we ended the disastrous privatisation of military housing and brought 36,000 forces family homes back into public ownership, saving £200 million a year—money we are now reinvesting for our service personnel.

I am proud that the Bill delivers on a solemn promise that we made at the general election: for the first time, the armed forces covenant will be extended across every part of government. Central Government, local authorities and public bodies will be legally required to consider the unique circumstances of service life. For Portsmouth North, where thousands of veterans and service personnel rely on local healthcare, housing, employment and support, that will end the postcode lottery and deliver fairness for those who are serving and those who have already given up so much. I ask the Minister to tell me in his summing up how clear statutory guidance with practical examples will support consistent delivery on the ground and give confidence to those responsible for making the covenant work. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) and join her campaign by making Portsmouth the national covenant city, alongside Aldershot’s covenant town.

Those who serve our country must be able to do so with dignity and respect. This Bill strengthens the service justice system, improves support for victims and ensures that serious offences are dealt with swiftly and properly. It also delivers new protections against sexual violence, domestic abuse, stalking and harassment in line with our mission to halve violence against women and girls. Supporting victims and raising standards does not weaken our armed forces; it strengthens them.

In conclusion, the Bill exposes a clear divide between those who back our armed forces and those who prefer slogans to substance. The Tories talk tough on defence, but their record is one of abysmal failure. Their 14 years in government left morale at record lows, forces housing in a shameful state, our services decimated, and the no-detriment service of our service personnel unrecognised, unknown and, for many, invisible. But there is another group I must mention: Reform UK. Reform Members speak loudly outside this Chamber about patriotism and respect for the armed forces. Yet when this House debates housing, welfare and legal protection for those who serve and have served, they are conspicuous by their absence. On debates marking D-day, VJ Day and moments of enormous significance to my naval city and to veterans across the country, Reform Members are shamefully not here.

[Rachel Taylor]

Does my hon. Friend agree that given that Reform is in control of more than 10 county councils up and down the country, which will be responsible for implementing the armed forces covenant in areas such as education and social welfare, the inability of its Members to show up today is shameful?

[Amanda Martin]

Absolutely, which is why I ask the Minister how we can ensure that the covenant is statutory across all our local authorities.

Patriotism is not a slogan or social media post. It is showing up, voting for better homes for forces families, backing the armed forces covenant, strengthening the protections for those who serve, and listening and supporting individual constituents as an MP and collectively as Government. Help for Heroes, the Royal Navy and Royal Marines Charity and the Naval Children’s Charity have all welcomed the direction of the Bill and stand ready to support its implementation so that lived experience continues to shape delivery.

This is a Bill for homes fit for heroes and for fairness for thousands of veterans in Portsmouth and for those serving. I am proud to say that two special naval personnel are in the Gallery today: my son and his girlfriend. I want to give them and all others who serve and have served dignity, respect, support and readiness in an increasingly dangerous world. Since being elected, I have stood up proudly for my armed forces community, alongside a city that has always stood up for our armed forces. Today this Bill ensures that Government will do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I have met service children as I have visited my schools, and I always pay special attention to the service they are giving through their parents being away.

It is not just in education; we know that dentistry is in crisis, and Dorset has often been mentioned as a dental desert. While serving personnel can access excellent GP and dentist services on their bases, that does not extend to their spouses and children. Most NHS dentists are closed to new patients in my area, so families arriving in the county face the prospect of losing their dentist. Is the Minister considering extending service dentists to support the wider armed forces family? How will he work with the Department of Health and Social Care to amend NHS contracts, because dentists are private businesses within the system and are therefore not, as I understand it, within the scope of the armed forces covenant? We must ensure that these children are not disadvantaged by regular moves around the country.

That brings me to the quality of accommodation, which has a significant effect on wellbeing. I welcome the Defence Housing Service and the commitment to upgrade 90% of military family homes, but when we turn to single-person and training facilities, the housing problems are immense. Through my involvement with the armed forces pension scheme, I have visited numerous establishments—Royal Navy, Royal Marine and Army—and I am constantly shocked by the experiences shared with us of no running water, cold showers and toilets that do not flush. I recognise that our incredible military will be living in far more basic circumstances when on manoeuvres, but it is simply not acceptable for their day-to-day lives. What plans does the Minister have for the upgrade of single-person accommodation and training establishments that are not covered? I am concerned that if that provision comes fromindividual budgets, commanding officers will be expected to choose between the equipment that keeps our military safe and safe military accommodation.

Another aspect of the Bill that raises interesting questions is the extension of the special reserve. Although some former members of the armed forces would be more than happy to go back and do their bit, others do not feel that way. One local resident told me that he has done his fair share and does not see why he should be called up again up to the age of 65. I know that my husband would be happy to go back, but I suspect, given his recent attempts to get fit, that he is very unlikely to reach the threshold. What assessment has the Department undertaken of how many in that cohort will be physically able to serve, and what else might they be able to do to serve their country?

[Rachel Taylor]

Might I recommend that the hon. Lady’s husband regularly run parkrun with the Minister? It may get him up to a level of fitness nearing the Minister’s.

[Vikki Slade]

I have just discovered that the Minister’s children live in my constituency, so I may well take him up on that offer.

To come back to a more sober point, against that backdrop, it is important to remember why all this matters—the Minister knows who I am going to speak about. In the light of the President Trump’s disgraceful comments last week, I put on record my thanks to all those who choose to serve; to their families, whose lives are turned upside down; and in particular to people such as my constituent Toby Gutteridge, a royal marine and member of the special forces from Poole. He survived a catastrophic injury in Afghanistan that left him paralysed from the neck down. Despite being permanently reliant on a ventilator, he has gone on to achieve academic qualifications—including a first-class honours degree from Bournemouth University—formed a charity called Bravery, and inspired others through his public speaking. For anyone in doubt about the sacrifices our troops made or their immense bravery, I recommend his book, “Never Will I Die”, which I understand is set to be turned into a film about his life and service.

Toby’s story is a reminder of the resilience at the heart of our armed forces community, and underlines why we must ensure that the facilities, care and equipment that support service personnel match their dedication. I look forward to supporting the Government as the Bill progresses, and will seek ways for us to improve it wherever we can.

LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Those LGBT veterans were welcome to fight for their country when they were needed, but this nonsensical policy was introduced only in the ’60s.

For too many, the weight of the betrayal that they felt proved too heavy to bear. Tragically, some veterans committed suicide following their dismissal.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. I am here today on behalf of my constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, as well as friends of mine who have been affected by this historical injustice, which can only be described as a shameful period in our history. Today, I want every LGBT veteran to feel proud of their service to our country. Does she agree that we must ensure that LGBT veterans who were wrongly dismissed do not face any further injustice by having to wait for the compensation that they are rightly owed?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Member raises an important point. There are constituents in every one of our constituencies who were wronged, and I am grateful to her for raising the plight of her constituents in this regard. She is right that we cannot wait any longer for justice to be served. I pay tribute to those individuals who will never see justice served; they will not see a penny of reparation or an apology from the state for their cruel treatment. They deserved better.

The Etherton report is remarkable in its scope and sensitivity. The Government accepted all its recommendations, and the apologies that followed, the plans for memorials, and the returning of medals and caps would not have been possible without it.

Today, we must focus on one of the most critical elements for veterans: financial reparations. Last December, the Government announced a £75 million compensation fund, with individual payments of up to £70,000 for LGBT veterans who were affected by the ban. The announcement was welcomed across the House as an acknowledgment, at last, of the scale of harm inflicted.

However, I secured this debate because the implementation of the scheme has been woefully inadequate. The delivery has been painfully slow, and the communication from the Ministry of Defence has been appalling. That is not justice delivered. It is justice delayed, and as we all know, justice delayed is justice denied.

War Memorials

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Melanie Ward]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important point. I agree completely, and I will say some more about it shortly. There are a few who argue that war memorials, and our ceremonies and rituals around them, glorify war. I stand here as a former humanitarian aid worker who has served in war zones. I strongly believe that remembering the fallen does not glorify war. In fact, the opposite is true. It serves as a reminder of the human cost of war, the sacrifice of individuals and groups, and the devastating gaps that their deaths leave in the places where they lived and within the people whose lives their presence enriched. That is why, all these years on, we choose to remember them.

Of course, I want to talk about some of the beautiful memorials in my constituency. In November, as many of us did, I attended Remembrance Sunday events. For me, they were at Cowdenbeath’s memorials, and I also laid wreaths in Burntisland, Aberdour and Inverkeithing, and I attended Kirkcaldy’s memorial. There are also memorials in Dysart, Dalgety Bay, Crossgates, Kinghorn and North Queensferry. The beautiful commemorative first world war stained-glass window in the now sadly closed Auchtertool kirk has a link to this place, as its designer, Ballantine, also designed windows in the House of Lords.

However, I give special mention to Kirkcaldy’s war memorial, galleries and gardens, which were unveiled 100 years ago this coming Friday. They were the gift of John Nairn, whose family’s linoleum-manufacturing business made Kirkcaldy the linoleum capital of the world. He paid for the construction in memory of his only son, Ian Nairn, who was killed in the Somme in 1918. The memorial in Kirkcaldy is a focal point of our town. It is one of the first things that people see as they leave the train station and head to the town centre, and its award-winning galleries have a large collection of paintings by William McTaggart and Samuel Peploe, and they have hosted exhibitions by Diane Arbus and Fife’s own Jack Vettriano, who was heavily influenced by the works on display in the galleries.

The centenary commemorations begin this Friday, when I will have the solemn honour of beginning the reading of the names of the more than 1,500 dead recorded on the memorial. Each name will be read out one by one over the weekend, from those who lost their lives in the first world war to Sergeant Sean Binnie who died in Helmand, Afghanistan in May 2009, while serving with the Black Watch.

Sean joined the Army in 2003 and served with his battalion in Iraq and the Falkland Islands. He was later deployed on Operation Herrick in Afghanistan, training Afghan troops to fight the Taliban. On 7 May 2009, Sean Binnie was killed, aged 22, during a firefight with Taliban insurgents in Helmand province, while serving as part of the battle group mentoring the Afghan national army. My thoughts, along with those of the whole House, are with his family.

On Wednesday next week, as we in Kirkcaldy hold the service to mark the centenary of the memorial, we will remember Sean and all those who died serving their country. We will think of the gaping holes that their loss has inflicted on those who love them most, and on our communities who raised them. The service would not have happened without the dedication of Kirkcaldy Royal British Legion Scotland, in particular its amazing chair, Bill Mason, and secretary, Ray Davidson, as well as our Deputy Lord Lieutenant Jim Kinloch, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that the names of the fallen featured on the memorial and Kirkcaldy’s veterans are remembered for their sacrifices.

The role that the RBLS Kirkcaldy and the Kirkcaldy United Services Institute, better known as the KUSI club, play in supporting veterans in our community is outstanding. I pay special tribute to the many volunteers in Kirkcaldy who, when asked to knit 1,500 poppies for the centenary, ended up knitting more than 8,000. Those poppies have been attached to nets that now cascade down the central tower at the memorial and dress the balcony. The ceremony will match the serenity and importance of our war memorial in Kirkcaldy. I pay tribute to all involved and ask the Minister, in her remarks, to join me in commending them.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Stuart. In my constituency, Bedworth is rightly called the town that never forgets. On 21 September 2021, the Bedworth Armistice Committee unveiled the Bedworth peace podium, to mark the international day of peace.

Hundreds of children submitted poems and words as part of the project, an important reminder that we must ensure that the next generation learns and understands our country’s history. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must continue to invest in war memorials, and ensure that our young people never forget the sacrifices made by our armed forces and the wars that this country has fought?

[Melanie Ward]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important remarks. There is also a peace part of the memorial in Kirkcaldy, which is an important way to integrate those values into the overall memorial.

I have said a lot about the importance of our memorial to our town of Kirkcaldy, but it has not been free of problems in recent years. In January, it fell victim to an arson attack, the third attack on the memorial in two years. That was not just reckless vandalism; it was an affront to those who gave their lives serving our country and our town. I am glad that an individual was charged with wilful fire-raising in the aftermath.

That raises another issue of how we protect and cherish our memorials, and how we prosecute those who seek to desecrate them. Although I understand that this is a justice issue and, therefore, devolved to the Scottish Government, I ask the Minister to outline how the UK Government plan to strengthen protections for war memorials across the country.

Defence Industries: West Midlands

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Edwards]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. In fact I will go on to talk about just how important it is that all our regions and nations are embedded in this process, and that they all contribute different skills that are of value. There are so many different aspects to defence, and our defence industries that contribute and go well past into other areas of manufacturing. I thank him for raising that point.

Last week, the Business and Trade Committee heard from Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems, Leonardo and MBDA on the global combat air programme, which is an alliance between the UK, Italy and Japan, who are designing Tempest fighter jets. That alliance integrates advanced air combat technology, ensuring that our defence capabilities match evolving threats. Defence alliances are a cornerstone of trade diplomacy, driving both national security and industrial growth. They have been cited as having the potential to drive our export growth, while cementing important alliances for our defence.

One issue raised with the Business and Trade Committee was the short-term nature of defence funding cycles; even major companies operate on a one-year funding cycle, making it difficult to sustain long-term projects such as Tempest. National security priorities do not fit neatly into parliamentary terms, and our defence sector needs stability. It was suggested that moving to a three or five-year funding model would provide certainty, drive innovation and ensure that the UK remains a global leader in defence. What conversations is the Minister having on the contractual arrangements currently in play for companies and the assessment that he has made of their ability to help the Government to reach their goals for the sector and national security?

Export-led growth will be essential to the defence industries that need a wider base than just their own sovereign purchasing power. By exporting technology and products, companies will be able to keep the continuity of build programmes going away from that boom-and-bust cycle. We could use industry to foster diplomatic relations of bilateral importance. The future of the defence industry relies on a workforce equipped with the right skills and adaptable to the evolving demands of our armed forces and the Ministry of Defence.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank my on. Friend and neighbour for securing this important debate. Every year, Bedworth residents show their pride in our armed forces with their Armistice Day parade, which I was privileged to take part in this year. Many of my constituents already work in the defence and security sector in small and medium-sized enterprises around the west midlands. I am glad that this number will only go up with the Government’s increased investment in our defence and security. Does my hon. Friend agree that the west midlands should be proud of the contribution we make towards the defence and security of our nation, and should look forward to seeing more people benefiting from the skills and training that come from joining this industry?

LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am humbled by the testimonies that have been shared by my friends on both sides of the Chamber, but I was particularly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley). The testimonies that have been shared show us how ashamed we should be that our country treated so many people so badly for so long. Make no mistake: we have had LGBT people in our armed services for as long as we have had armed services, and I am proud to call many of them my close friends. They have shared their harrowing stories with me, but what always shines through is their loyalty to their service and their country.

Today’s debate makes me proud to be a Labour MP. I remember the Labour Government lifting the ban on LGBT soldiers in 2000. I celebrated that with my friends. Labour argued for the Etherton review, and I thank Lord Etherton for his work. Now, as a Labour MP, I welcome the recommendations. I will fight for every LGBT veteran to get the compensation that they deserve.

The historical treatment of our veterans was a moral stain on our nation. It was wrong on every single level. We will never know how many good men and women were too afraid ever to apply to serve their country, or too afraid ever to come out to this day. So many LGBT soldiers had their hopes and aspirations cut short despite their commitment to serve our country. They were left feeling ashamed, demoralised and humiliated when they should have been proud, like I am, to be a member of the LGBT community.

We cannot undo the damage of the past, but we can ensure that those who were affected receive what they are owed. I pay tribute to all the veterans with us today, and to Fighting With Pride, which has supported LGBT veterans for years and pushed Governments to do better. I also pay tribute to Kelly Holmes, whose recent personal account was difficult to hear but typical of so many women I have spoken to.

I encourage every LGBT veteran to apply to have their rank restored so that they can feel pride again in the service they gave to our country. It is time to renew the nation’s contract with all those who have served, and delivering Lord Etherton’s recommendations is just a small part of that. I hope that today is another historic landmark in the fight for equality for LGBT people in this country. I will support any veterans to get the compensation they deserve to restore their dignity and pride for their service for our country.