Armed Forces Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

When I was a Minister, the hon. Lady was always raising that point. She has been a passionate defender of her constituents on this matter, and I respect her for that. When we talk about single living accommodation, as opposed to service family accommodation, it is fair to say that there is a different funding structure—it goes through the frontline commands. My own experience is that that can be challenging, as they have their own budget challenges. Hopefully, by taking forward this model we will see clearer lines of finance into housing, but at the end of the day we need to have both SLA and SFA up to a high standard. The hon. Lady is absolutely right.

Let me turn to the Bill’s proposals on drones. We obviously welcome the proposals to give the military greater powers of interception in relation to drones, but we want them to go further. For example, why have the Government not taken the opportunity to put into law measures that provide easier access to testing ranges for our brilliant defence small and medium-sized enterprises? After all, they have delivered some of the best drones used in Ukraine.

Is this not part of the problem? When it comes to procurement, we live in a parallel universe where the Government have delivered—quite rightly, and as we did—drones, munitions and equipment at scale to Ukraine, but at the same time procurement for our armed forces has been almost frozen since the election. There is a reason why the Government’s plans to increase the reserves may not happen for a decade. There is a reason why any defence company will share its immense frustration at the lack of orders coming out of the MOD, whether for drones or for other capabilities. That is because the Government have prioritised a bigger welfare bill over the scale of increase in defence spending that our armed forces require.

When it comes to defence spending, the Government like to wrap themselves in the comfort blanket of arguments about the past, even when they are wrong. At Prime Minister’s questions on two occasions in recent weeks, the Prime Minister has repeatedly misrepresented what Ben Wallace actually said about defence spending. His point was not that defence spending fell under the Conservatives, but that it fell under all Governments following the end of the cold war and the so-called peace dividend. To be partisan about that observation is to hide from the truth that we all have to face up to: that the world has completely changed.

I am incredibly proud of what we did in government to stand by Ukraine before most other nations acted, but, irrespective of what happened before, it must be obvious that we need to spend far more on defence and far more than the Government are planning.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

Wait a minute. That is why Labour is making in-year savings of £2.6 billion at the MOD and has a black hole of £28 billion—because the extra cash it is planning for defence is simply not enough.

[James Cartlidge]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) first.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting. I fully understand that the shadow Secretary of State wants the Government to spend more on defence, and I think we all share that aspiration, but he must welcome the increase in spending that we have committed to—the biggest increase since the cold war ended.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman does not have to apologise for interrupting. He offered to intervene, and I accepted; that is how this place works, and his intervention was entirely fair. To be frank, yes, spending is increasing, but it is not increasing anything like enough in relation to how much costs are going up. When I first became shadow Secretary of State and was calling for 2.5%, I said that that would only stabilise things—I was very open about that. I did not say that it would lead to a much bigger force and all the other things we would like to see, but we can all see what has happened. President Trump has been very clear that he wants to see NATO members spending much more and much more rapidly. We all know what the reality is: the United States is going to be doing less, focusing on its priorities. We need to do more, which means much higher spending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Arthur]

The right hon. Member is being generous with his time, but I feel that he is giving a glass-half-empty speech. He will know that overall recruitment to the armed forces has increased substantially. The latest figures, published in December, are 13% up, and the number of people leaving the forces is dropping. We heard from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) that when he was Defence Minister he argued inside Cabinet for more money to go to defence. As the right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet at the same time, was he joining in those calls?

[Steve Barclay]

When I was in the Cabinet we were also responding to a global pandemic and to the energy inflation as a result of Ukraine. What I am highlighting is that we have an Armed Forces Bill under the hon. Gentleman’s Government in which the Minister is saying that reservists are critical. I am simply pointing to their record and their future plans.

I am conscious of time, so I will move on to housing, which is covered in clause 3. Colleagues will know that just last April The Guardian reported the Prime Minister as telling the Cabinet that he wanted to stop outsourcing decisions to quangos, so it will come as no surprise to colleagues across the House that the Bill sets up yet another quango. In fact, the last Armed Forces Bill took a year to pass, so this quango will not be in place until more than halfway through the Parliament, on an issue which Ministers themselves could be making decisions on. The Prime Minister is telling his Cabinet one thing, and the Bill is doing the exact opposite.

More importantly, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) spoke about how Ministers will have oversight of the new body in terms of the targets. I am afraid I have some news for him: I struggle to find any targets in the Bill. I asked the House of Commons Library what the targets were for this Parliament on housing, and the answer came back that there were none. There are no targets, and yet housing is apparently a huge priority. One could perhaps take comfort at least from whom the Government have put in charge of the housing improvements, as they have appointed a new permanent secretary, but the cross-party Public Accounts Committee published a report just last week—I have not had to go through the archives—in which its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), says:

“I have served on the Public Accounts Committee for twelve years. In all that time a 98% failure rate in a public sector initiative amounts to the most catastrophic fiasco that I have ever seen on the Committee”.

The report itself says:

“The Department designed the schemes in a way that exposes it to both poor quality work and fraud…There was virtually no attention from senior officials and the Department did not know whether the scheme as a whole was or was not working for at least two years”.

It therefore seems a surprise that just three months ago, the Defence Ministers appointed the permanent secretary of that Department to be the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Defence, in charge of its flagship programmes, including a housing programme. I ask the Minister, had he read the National Audit Office report when the permanent secretary was appointed?

I have a specific question for the Minister regarding clauses 28 and 29. Can he confirm whether any review has been conducted of Army discipline since the general election? If so, was it published, and if it was not, why not and will it be published before Committee stage? In his summing up, can the Minister explain how a Bill that speaks so much about the importance of the military covenant is consistent with removing protections from our Northern Ireland veterans?

On the issue of veterans, the Minister announced Operation Valour last May. The Department took six months before it put out a job advert, and it has still not appointed or announced anyone in that post. Can the Minister advise the House why it has taken nine months to appoint someone and when that appointment will be made? Finally, where are the incentives in the Bill? Where are the incentives for employers to recruit reservists —where are the tax incentives and the join-up across Departments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in support of the Bill, which renews not just the legal basis of our armed forces but our nation’s contract with those who defend it. In my constituency, the armed forces are our

neighbours and our friends. From the families who live on the Dreghorn military estate to those based at the Colinton and Dreghorn barracks, we see them daily around the barracks, picking up their kids at school, and buying food at the supermarket. When the weather is bad, they deliver groceries to the community’s older people. Today, this Labour Government are telling them: “We have your back.”

For too long, the standard of military housing has been a national scandal, as we have heard. We cannot expect people who would gladly risk their lives to protect this country to live in accommodation that is damp, mouldy or cold. That is why I am incredibly proud to welcome our £9 billion military housing strategy—the biggest settlement in a generation. It will lead to the renewal of more than 3,000 military homes in Scotland alone. Most importantly for my constituents, up to 415 homes in Edinburgh South West could—and, I hope, will—benefit from that landmark investment. This is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about dignity. The provision is backed by action on household budgets, too, with more than 10,000 military personnel in Scotland getting the biggest pay uplift in two decades. We are putting money in their pockets and a decent roof over their heads.

Let me turn to veterans, of whom there are tens of thousands across Scotland. The armed forces covenant has for too long, been a “best effort” rather than a guarantee. I join others in paying tribute to the many people across the UK who were concerned by the American President’s comments last week. Many constituents got in touch with me to say that they were offended. They will remember that, back in 2009, the 3rd Battalion, the Rifles, deployed to Afghanistan as part of a 1,400-strong battle group. When the battalion returned to Colinton, 30 personnel had lost their lives—the biggest loss of life in a single battle group in 60 years. Thousands of people lined the streets as the battalion marched the streets from the barracks down to Colinton parish church. We have heard calls for Aldershot to be made a covenant town, and for Portsmouth to be made a covenant city, so I think that Colinton should be a covenant village, given its support for the armed forces—not just then, but always.

At the general election, we promised to extend the covenant to every area of Government, and the Bill delivers on that promise. For the first time, this Labour Government are extending the covenant’s legal duty across all areas of central Government, and we are working with devolved Governments and local authorities to make it happen in their areas, too. That means that social care, employment support and other public services will be legally required to consider the unique circumstances faced by forces personnel and their families, particularly in respect of schools.

Unfortunately, while the Labour Government use the force of law to protect our veterans, there is concern in Scotland that the SNP Government in Holyrood has been cutting dedicated veterans’ support since 2023. We need only consider NHS Lothian, in which Veterans First Point, which provides support for veterans, has been cut. Many people are concerned about that, including members of the Scottish Government Cabinet with whom I have discussed it. It feels as if the Scottish Government are managing decline and scaling back support, but I hope that we will set an example for them today.

The investments from the UK Government come at a time when the stakes could not be higher. We face the most serious set of geopolitical threats for at least a generation, and Scotland will be a key part of the home front in the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. When I speak to members of the armed forces in Edinburgh South West, they look at what is happening and the geopolitical situation with tremendous professionalism. By fixing housing and boosting pay, we are enshrining the covenant in law and ensuring that people at the heart of our defence are ready for the challenges ahead.

Armed Forces Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

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

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It was a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee, and I thank the Clerks and all those who made it run so smoothly.

Today I will focus on one area.

“I certainly think it is bizarre that there is not an English commissioner. That is 85% of the veteran population, while the other 15% have three commissioners to represent them. I would certainly support that.”

Those are not my words, but those of retired Lieutenant Commander Susie Hamilton, the Veterans Commissioner for Scotland, in response to a question from the Minister for the Armed Forces on the Select Committee earlier this year, regarding whether there should be a veterans commissioner for England. The view shared by all three commissioners for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland is that the circa 1.4 million veterans who live in England lack their own veterans commissioner. They believe it is vital that we have parity and consistency across the nations, and an independent statutory advocate for veterans in England, so today I once again call for a national veterans commissioner for England, as proposed in new clause 3.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and apologise for interrupting her flow. The point about consistency across the UK is important, and I support the creation of a veterans commissioner for England. In Scotland, the role is particularly important, because the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans in the Scottish Government is not a veteran, but a career politician. I think he moved from working for the party to working for an MSP, so that is the difference. The commissioner is a really important role in Scotland, as it bridges that gap. Will the hon. Lady join me in encouraging the SNP Government to create a veterans Minister who is himself or herself a veteran?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

You will be pleased to hear, Chair, that I will be relatively short. I am proud to welcome this Armed Forces Bill. It represents a vital step towards renewing our contract with those who keep us safe. As an MP with Redford barracks, Dreghorn barracks and RAF Kirknewton in my constituency, this Bill is of immense pride to me, but it is also of urgent necessity.

I will focus on new clauses 3 and 5, but I start by welcoming the increased investment that underpins this renewal. Our new £9 billion defence housing strategy will be the biggest renewal of military accommodation in half a century and our forces families will benefit. I can see that already in Edinburgh South West. For too long, the state of service accommodation, as we have heard already, has been a source of deep frustration, but now it is slowly becoming a source of envy in my constituency as people watch these homes being upgraded. I am happy that this landmark strategy will significantly improve the state of service housing up and down the country. I have to thank the Minister for the Armed Forces for stepping in. The MOD was about to sell surplus homes in my constituency on the open market, but he stepped in to make sure that they were instead transferred to the council. Those ex-Army homes are now council homes, which is a fantastic outcome.

New clause 3 relates to support for veterans. The Royal British Legion has rightly highlighted the outstanding vacancy for a veterans commissioner for England, which was advertised just a few days before the last general election. That is something we have to question. In Scotland, we have long seen the clear impact of our veterans commissioner, which I spoke about earlier, and it is only right that England has one too. I urge the Government to think about the issue seriously, but two points have to be considered. First, we have to look at the existing Veterans Commissioners to understand what is working and what is not, and to build on best practice. Secondly, Operation Valour is being rolled out at pace and at scale, so we have to get the interaction right between the Veterans Commissioner and Op Valour. We want action in this area, but we also have to show a little caution to make sure that we get it right first time.

Through new clause 5, we have an opportunity to tear down some of the unfair barriers facing non-UK armed forces personnel. I welcome the intent behind the new clause, which seeks to amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications from spouses and children of current or former service personnel. A constituent recently raised with me the painful administrative hurdles affecting Commonwealth soldiers, veterans and their families who now call Edinburgh, Scotland and the wider UK their home. I met him at a fantastic open evening at the All Nations Christian Fellowship church on Oxgangs Avenue that culminated with some excellent food. He said that Edinburgh was his home now and he told me how proud he was to serve in 3 Rifles. I have never met anybody prouder to serve in our armed forces, despite the fact that he was not born in the UK. He also told me how he had lost some of his friends in Afghanistan. He is an amazing man in all sorts of ways, but I was ashamed to hear that he is expected to pay visa fees for his family to settle in the UK. He has left the forces now and is a proud veteran, but he is on a modest income. The fees he faces are incredible for him. He was not just advocating for himself—he is not a selfish person—but for others in his network too.

It is right that the Government take this issue seriously. If someone is prepared to lay down their life for this country, their family should not face a financial penalty to live in it. We must give these brave individuals a fair and dignified pathway to settlement. I accept that is best led by the Home Office, but this debate has shown that Members from across the House, and certainly those in the Chamber, want to see action—I do not think anybody opposes that. We have to remember that, and we have to demand action. I am hopeful that this Bill will finally deliver the settlement that our military deserves. The promise is there, but we must ensure that it is matched by our delivery of housing, recruitment and fairness.

I want to make three final points. The journey of this Bill will not be completed today; there will be other opportunities to amend it, and I hope that we will find space for the intent behind new clauses 3 and 5.

There is no bigger supporter of devolution than me, but there is nothing worse than being on the wrong side of the border when it comes to accessing services. Military families who move between England and Scotland really feel the difference in childcare. It has different impacts, depending on the children’s age. If someone’s spouse happens to be a teacher, moving from Scotland to England, and vice versa, can be a huge hurdle. As we think about amending this Bill to make lives better for our armed forces personnel, the House should think carefully about families who move between England and the devolved nations, and make sure that we have a safety net in place so that they are never disadvantaged through serving our country.

The last time I mentioned RAF Kirknewton, I made the point that it is the home of 661 Volunteer Gliding Squadron—the net zero fleet of the air force. It flies a fleet of four Grob Viking T1 gliders, and provides excellent experience for the Royal Air Force air cadets. What I did not say is that RAF Kirknewton is also the home of a meticulously recreated world war one Sopwith 1½ Strutter aircraft, which has been built by the Aviation Preservation Society of Scotland. I mention that because the big military installations in my constituency—Redford and Dreghorn barracks, and the airbase—have fences around them, but that does not mean that they are not well connected with the community.

When I am out in Colinton, I meet serving armed forces people at the bus stop, at the school gates and in Colinton Mains Tesco. I do worry about the diet of some of our younger servicemen, but that is perhaps a debate for another day. When Colinton primary school closed due to snow a few years ago, it was the Army that came down and cleared it. Perhaps the parents were desperate to get their kids back to school—we have all been there! When there was a barbeque at the school a couple of years ago, it was the Army that provided it. Service personnel brought with them the rarest piece of military equipment that I have ever seen deployed: the Army’s bouncy castle, which was fully camouflaged. I have no idea what the Army does with it the rest of the year—perhaps there is a written question there somewhere.

In my constituency, particularly around Colinton, the armed forces are fully integrated. This is something that I and local people cherish, and I really hope that this Bill and the covenant are about creating, maintaining and sustaining that kind of culture; all of us here have a duty to maintain that.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I thank everybody involved in bringing the Bill to this point today, particularly Ministers and members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. It has been a serious amount of work, because this is not a typical Armed Forces Bill through which we are performing our constitutional duty in this House to renew our armed forces; it goes much further than that. It pushes forward our armed forces covenant and makes it real across the country, it finally gives our armed forces the housing and justice that they deserve, and it gives our reserves a true role to play in the defence our nation. That is why we have to pass the Bill. Some really important amendments have been tabled, and I particularly want to cover Government amendment 9 on the armed forces covenant, and Government amendments 48, 51 and 54, which relate to the new defence housing service.

First, the armed forces covenant goes to the heart of this country’s commitment to our armed forces. We have talked about it so much for so many years, but in reality is it justly applied across the country? This Bill goes to the heart of that question, and tries to put the covenant into practice. When we talk about our armed forces, we are talking about a community of those who have served of 4.5 million people, including 2 million veterans who are alive today. Yet for many of them, support has depended less on the principles, and more on a postcode lottery. For too long, the covenant has been the right idea, but too often the wrong experience on the ground.

We have had the principle of no disadvantage, yet delivery has been uneven and inconsistent. Let us take my county of Hertfordshire as an example. It has 11 councils, including four in my constituency. I can tell hon. Members from my own experience that the way those councils apply the covenant varies tremendously. Amendment 9 is so important because it applies the covenant to the new combined authorities, which we will soon have in my county. By expanding that legal duty, we are recognising the simple truth that the decisions that shape people’s lives—in housing, planning, local services—are not all taken in one place, and if the covenant is going to work, it has to exist everywhere that those decisions are made.