Armed Forces Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

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.