Oral Answers to Questions

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The biggest security threat facing the United Kingdom is Russia. We are responding to that by deepening our alliances right across the NATO alliance, especially with our European friends, and we will continue to do so. We were not able to conclude the SAFE negotiations in a manner consistent with the objectives we set when we started that work, but we will continue to work with our European friends, because they are also our NATO allies. Their security is our security, and we take that very seriously.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Building European strategic autonomy is vital to deterring Putin from making further attacks on us, but that is completely undermined by attacks on NATO—the bedrock of our security—by the Green party. Does my hon. Friend agree that when our alliances are undermined for superficial political gain, the Green party is, in essence, doing the work of Putin?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right. In the space of one minute, the Green party leader veered from reforming NATO to pulling out of it altogether. The era of growing threat is far too serious for this kind of student-union, “make it up as you go along” politics. The only person cheering at the rank amateurism of the Green party leader is sat in the Kremlin. Labour is the party of NATO, and we will stand by our steadfast support for the alliances that keep us all safe every single day.

Armed Forces Bill

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

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

[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.

[Mr Bailey]

In the spirit of honesty and accepting past failures, the equipment plan that you presented this Government with had a gap in it of £7 billion to £29 billion in the MOD’s view, or £16 billion in the view of the National Audit Office. Do you accept that you handed over a hospital pass?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but when Putin invaded Ukraine, something pretty extraordinary happened: inflation went through the roof right around the world. The whole world was trying to buy defence equipment, and it still is. Guess what? That means a higher inflation rate in defence.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I am responding to the hon. and gallant Gentleman’s first intervention. Anyone coming into government should have had some sense that there was going to be inflationary pressure in the system. That is not the only reason that there is a £28 billion black hole, but it is a key factor.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I will make some progress .

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. Member for Horsham makes a strong point. It is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and I, along with other Members, have discussed in the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community. I hope that Ministers are listening and will take remedial action. Will the Minister for the Armed Forces also commit to sharing the draft guidance with the House as soon as possible? It will be issued to organisations subject to the updated duty.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

The Chair of the Select Committee is making a powerful speech. Part of the challenge with the provisions on the armed forces covenant is that delivery requires other Departments to engage and to deliver their responsibilities. Does he agree that this work needs to be loaded on to those other Secretaries of State by all those Members present today?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my fellow member of the Defence Committee. Indeed, he raises a point that we have forcefully made within our Defence Committee deliberations. I am sure that Ministers will be aware and will take appropriate action.

Turning to the service justice system measures, it is welcome to see that the Government have used the Bill to focus on better protection for victims of serious offences. Ministers know full well how much of a priority that is for our Committee. Victims of appalling crimes, such as domestic violence and sexual offences, have been continually failed by the system, and the measures in this Bill can make a positive difference for them. However, we would have liked to see the Government go further and implement our predecessor Committee’s recommendation that cases of rape and sexual assault are automatically heard in civilian courts. That was also the recommendation of the Lyons review in 2018, so will the Minister for the Armed Forces, when he responds to the debate, explain why the Government have decided not to take that approach?

Some of the most significant measures in the Bill relate to the role of the reserves. As the strategic defence review recognises, huge talent is available in our reserves, and defence does not make as much use of that talent as it could. We are pleased that the Bill attempts to change that. However, while the intentions of its measures are clear, their effect is less so. It is not clear how many additional reservists the Government expect those measures to generate, so it is difficult to know whether the Bill will make a meaningful improvement to our defence readiness, which we all know is extremely important, given the geopolitics we face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Some individuals, especially in the media and on social media, have facetiously referred to it as “Dad’s Army”, but there is a role, especially behind the scenes, that older reserves can undertake for the defence of our country.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Dhesi]

I must make progress, but I have to give way to my fellow member of the Defence Committee. I hope that the intervention will be brief.

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend will recognise Warrant Officer Bally Flora who, at the age of 66 and with 45 years of service behind him, was not ready to take to the back room. He has taken great affront at the remarks of those calling it “Dad’s Army”.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend has forcefully made that point, which reinforces what I just said. Some individuals may seek to be facetious about this, but our reserves are our pride. Regardless of their age, their talents need to be included as we defend our nation in future.

I am pleased to see the Government taking action in clause 3 to address the state of service accommodation. The Defence Committee was pleased that the Government accepted the conclusions of our hard-hitting report on service accommodation, and we hope that the new Defence Housing Service will be able to lead the renewal that is needed. It will be important that the new body can act independently in the interests of the forces community and that it is subject to detailed parliamentary scrutiny in this House.

Furthermore, I must draw the House’s attention to clauses 38 and 39, which will remove the existing statutory requirements for Parliament to approve the size of the armed forces. Parliamentary control of the size of the armed forces is a vital and long-standing constitutional principle that dates back to the Bill of Rights in the 17th century. I feel that we must be extremely cautious before proceeding with measures that would diminish that control. The Government say that these changes are necessary to allow more flexibility in how the regular and reserve forces are used. Indeed, my Committee is sympathetic to that aim. However, it is not clear why it requires the removal of the statutory guarantee of parliamentary control. The Government need to justify why the measure is necessary and consider whether there are other ways of achieving their goals that would uphold the rights of our Parliament.

In conclusion—you will be pleased to hear that I am drawing to a conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker—there is much to welcome in this Bill that will improve service life. I hope that the Government will be able to address the issues that the Defence Committee has raised and, by doing so, build strong cross-party support for the Bill as it continues its passage through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I certainly encourage President Trump to apologise. I invite him to listen to the relatives of those who died in Afghanistan, whom I talk with and listen to at remembrance services in Norton Fitzwarren, near 40 Commando camp, on a regular basis. Perhaps he would then understand the sacrifice that people made for freedom—the freedom for which Americans and Europeans died and were injured. His remarks are utterly contemptuous, and he should be ashamed of them. That shows what an unreliable ally he is to our United Kingdom.

I welcome the additional support for the covenant and for those who will be supported by it in Somerset. Through its guaranteed interview scheme, Somerset council has taken the covenant very seriously and is delivering it, but it will be effective only if the resources are there for the public services to stand behind it, as has been said by the director general of the Royal British Legion. He said it is “vital” that those delivering services are

“resourced with funding and training so that they can fully understand the purpose of the Armed Forces Covenant to ensure this change makes a meaningful difference to the lives of all those in the Armed Forces community”.

Our servicemen and women and our veterans deserve that support.

Our veterans certainly do not deserve to be considered as in any way equivalent to terrorists in Northern Ireland who sought to undermine peace and law and order, so it is right that last week’s vote overturned the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that gave immunity to terrorists. We need protections that will stand up in court, unlike the failed legacy Act, and I urge the Government to seriously consider the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), which would put in place far stronger protections for our veterans than are currently in the Bill.

Returning to the Armed Forces Bill, as the Lib Dem housing spokesperson, I was pleased to table an amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill to ensure that service family accommodation meets the decent homes standard. That amendment was ultimately adopted in section 101 of what is now the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, but timelines matter. Given past promises, the importance of meeting that standard is set out in the defence housing strategy:

“Promises have been made time and again…All homes would meet the Decent Homes Standard. That didn’t happen.”

That was under the Conservatives; let us hope that in this new era, this Government’s promises are not empty.

The new duty in the Renters’ Rights Act requires the MOD to report to Parliament on progress towards achieving the decent homes standard for service family accommodation, but the first report does not need to be made until March 2027, and the defence housing strategy contains no targets for how long it will take for service family accommodation to meet the decent homes standard. I urge the Government to give a timeline for this important commitment to our service families—our original amendment would have instituted a duty to upgrade immediately. As other hon. Members have said, we also need timelines on single living accommodation.

The Bill’s new defence housing body comes as part of a £9 billion, 10-year strategy. That is very welcome—it sounds very good—but how much of that £9 billion will be spent on civilian housing, and how much of it will be spent on service family accommodation? These questions matter. For example, the 2025 armed forces continuous attitude survey found that nearly one in three respondents described armed forces accommodation in negative terms, and nearly two thirds of respondents listed the impact on family and personal life of service accommodation as one of the top reasons influencing them to leave the armed forces. One respondent said that

“lack of assistance has significantly contributed to my decision to leave military service.”

In summary, we need to see real targets for when the decent homes standard will be met for service families and when single living accommodation will be upgraded in an organised way.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

One of the critical points of the armed forces covenant is that it extends across Government to all Government Departments, and it particularly requires our local councils to play their part and intervene. Based on the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made, can he provide some guidance on how his council will ensure that the covenant is delivered?

[Gideon Amos]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am pleased that Somerset council is leading on things such as the guaranteed interview scheme and the research it has done recently on how the delivery of NHS services to veterans matches up. There is a whole set of recommendations that I refer him to, and I am delighted that my colleagues at Somerset council are playing such a leading role in delivering the covenant. I believe we are already a covenant county—a covenant village, a covenant town and a covenant county.

We need a firm commitment, not just to deliver on the covenant but to get troop numbers back up to more than 100,000. To make that happen, the Liberal Democrats would create a £10,000 signing bonus and a £20,000 re-enlisting bonus. We also need to see the defence investment plan, so that companies such as Leonardo in Somerset maintain our vital helicopter manufacturing capacity in this country.

[Mr Bailey]

On that point, Somerset is a very important county for defence—Leonardo has a strong history of building helicopters there. Being able to bring about the investment that Leonardo requires is a key part of the defence investment plan. Will the hon. Gentleman give his views on the defence, security and resilience bank, which might be a method of bringing forward that investment without putting it on to the Government’s already indebted balance sheet?

[Gideon Amos]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution about the investment bank. I welcome any commitment that will secure the ability of the UK to manufacture helicopters at Yeovil in Somerset. That is vital not only for the medium lift helicopter, but for unmanned, uncrewed helicopters. Losing that facility would be devastating for the United Kingdom defence industry, as well as for the community around Somerset and the 3,000 jobs involved. It is vital that the defence investment plan comes as soon as possible.

Unless we fix housing, we will be undermining recruitment and retention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I welcome this Bill as an opportunity to renew our nation’s contract with those who serve and to provide further protections for our personnel and their families. As a veteran who endured the consequences of the 2010 strategic defence review, I am proud to be part of putting this right. Due to time, I will focus on just two aspects: the extension of the armed forces covenant duty and the reforms being made to our reserves.

Under this Bill, the covenant will apply to all Government Departments and policy areas vital to service life. From my work as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community and on the Defence Committee, I know that the covenant’s application has far too often been patchy, leaving people disadvantaged by service life. One clear example is its limited application to the Home Office and to UK Visas and Immigration. About 8,000 members of our armed forces are non-UK personnel—more than one in 20 of all trained regulars—yet too many still face needless barriers to building a stable life in the UK. This Government’s commitment to removing visa fees for non-UK personnel who have served four years or more is welcome, but we can and should go further.

Under the current indefinite leave to remain process, applicants can be left unable to work while their cases are processed, creating real financial hardship at the point of transition and exit from the service. That was the case for Sergeant Richie Lumsden, who, after 20 years of service to this country, found himself worrying about keeping a roof over his head simply because he came from Trinidad. With the MOD increasing the proportion of non-UK service personnel to 12%, more people will be affected unless we act. The Home Office needs to think differently, including about an opt-in system that properly reflects service. If we do not make the path fairer for our Commonwealth service personnel, they will stop coming here, which would be a failure of both fairness and foresight.

Reserve forces are critical to our strategic depth. Reservists serve under NATO command structures and are integral to how we fight wars. However, for too long the reserve offer has been disjointed and inflexible. The reforms in this Bill—increasing the upper age limit to 65, harmonising recall liability and allowing veterans to opt in—are sensible changes that reflect modern working lives.

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Member comes at this not only from having served, but from now serving on the Defence Committee. On that point about the age limit for recall liability, does he know whether any modelling has been done on what impact it might have on recruitment?

[Mr Bailey]

I do not know, but perhaps the Minister could expand on that in his response. However, I do have experience of people such as Flight Lieutenant Mark Raymond, who served under me on the airdrop team that delivered lifesaving aid to the Yazidi people. He was eventually retired at the age of 64, but only after having to apply for annual extensions each year after turning 60. That was not because his capability had diminished, but because the system would not allow otherwise. It was probably also because the Conservatives deleted the C-130, which was a very bad mistake. Reservists and planners have long argued for a more individualised approach to service, recognising experiences and skill rather than forcing people out at an arbitrary age. When war comes, it does not discriminate, and it will require the contribution of the whole of society, so our armed forces must be structured to draw on all the talent we have.

I welcome the fact that this Bill makes it easier for people to move between regular service careers and the reserves. A zig-zag model of service reflects modern careers and helps us retain invaluable experience, rather than losing it altogether. This Bill provides a platform for an armed forces model fit for the future, and one that rewards service, supports families and ensures that the covenant is real across Government. Our service people deserve nothing less, and I commend this Bill to the House.

I hope some of the issues I have spoken about, particularly those about the support of other Departments and the changes those Departments must take on board, are acknowledged by all Members in the House this evening, and that they champion them, and go out and do the work necessary to highlight such cases, particularly the examples I have mentioned. I look forward to hearing how extensions under medical capacity could benefit our service families, particularly for dental health, and how this support can be extended into parts of our nation where service numbers are high but the local populations are low.

[Alex Baker]

My hon. Friend talked about a total society approach to defence, related to the strategic defence review. Does he agree that we need a total Government approach to defence if we are to deliver on both the strategic defence review and these covenant commitments?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend, who represents the covenant town of Aldershot, for her powerful intervention. She is entirely right; it is imperative to recognise that it is nations that fight wars, not the military. In my constituency of Leyton and Wanstead, I look with great admiration at those who service the trains that run into Europe. Those trains will take our tanks and troops, in the moment of crisis, all the way up to Estonia, but that requires the Department for Business and Trade to recognise that necessary contribution, and invest in and understand the permanent structured co-operation—PESCO—offer from the European Union.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) made an incredibly important and powerful point earlier. The military and our defence forces do not just protect us abroad, but help to galvanise us and draw us together as communities, giving people meaningful work and a meaningful existence. If we do that, we will be stronger not only at home but abroad, we will make a meaningful contribution to the EU and to NATO security, and we will be able to meet our commitments far and wide, from the GIUK gap to Estonia and up into Finland. For those reasons, I am incredibly grateful to have had the opportunity to speak today, and I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow]

Absolutely. As well as our reservists, there is a huge role for cadets to play. I am so proud that the Government are committed to expanding the cadets by 30% by 2030, including by ensuring that there are more opportunities for cadets to learn science, technology, engineering and maths skills, as I am hearing they are in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Mr Bailey]

At the other end of the scale, we have seen a significant expansion of the service life that we can offer members of the armed forces. Flight Lieutenant Phil “Popeye” Powell was a special forces pilot for nearly 30 years. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that people like Popeye should be given as much time in the service to practise their craft?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I want to make a bit of progress, but perhaps later if I have time.

Turning to housing, I should declare a different interest, as this was an area I cared about very much when I served as an MOD Minister. When I left ministerial office in 2016, the then Prime Minister Theresa May commissioned me and a small team to write a report about military recruitment, including terms of service such as service housing. We eventually entitled it “Filling the Ranks”, and it was submitted to the Prime Minister, with a copy to the Defence Secretary, in 2017. The report made 20 recommendations for improving recruitment, ranging from better advertising and further expansion of cadet units through to taking a more realistic approach to minor medical ailments such as mild eczema and temporary childhood asthma. Nineteen of the recommendations were accepted and actioned, to varying degrees, but unfortunately the one that was not was to consider sacking Capita—or according to Private Eye “Crapita”. Unfortunately, I never managed to persuade our Ministers to do that, despite the company’s truly awful record on Army recruitment.

The peer review of “Filling the Ranks” was positive. However, as we were making visits to military establishments and interviewing everyone from privates to very senior officers, including on many of the issues contained in the Bill, in nearly every case within 15 minutes of talking about recruitment, we found ourselves involved in a related conversation about retention. In simple terms, we learned very quickly that there was no point widening the aperture of the recruitment tap if we could not put a retention plug in the sink.

We were, therefore, delighted to be recommissioned to undertake a second report specifically into retention, which we subsequently entitled “Stick or Twist?”, as we thought that that encapsulated the serviceman’s dilemma, and which was eventually submitted to the new Prime Minister—one Boris Johnson—in February 2020, a month before the country went into lockdown. This report touched on a number of facets of the armed forces covenant, which are also part of the Bill. I have copies of both reports here with me.

Quite a few of the recommendations in “Stick or Twist?” were adopted, and the then Defence Secretary Ben Wallace used it to persuade the Treasury to provide some extra tens of millions of pounds to improve childcare facilities at a number of bases around the country. It was worth doing the report if only for that. I should like to pay tribute to the small team that helped me to compile the two reports: Colonel—now Brigadier—Simon Goldstein, himself a former distinguished reservist; and my two researchers Mrs Sophie Doward-Jones and Mr Rory Boden, who worked tirelessly to produce two documents written in a Select Committee style, with all the work that that entails, for the attention of the Prime Minister and Defence Secretary.

Again, however, the most controversial suggestion in “Stick or Twist?” was not adopted. It was a proposal to form a forces housing association and thus bring in expertise from the registered social landlord sector to better manage service families accommodation—SFA. Frankly, at the time this was simply too much for the vested interests in the MOD’s Defence Infrastructure Organisation to accept. Nevertheless, I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Defence Secretary, announced a few months ago our intention to introduce such a body if we return to government. The Armed Forces Bill has much to say on this topic—as indeed have many Members this evening—especially in clause 3, which heralds the creation of a defence housing service. This is conceptually similar in some ways to what was first recommended in “Stick or Twist?” six years ago, but with some important differences. I genuinely look forward to debating the respective merits of the two approaches with the Minister in Committee.

The Bill also touches on the issue of the armed forces covenant, which is a matter that we have discussed in this House on many occasions. In essence, the intention is to spread the authority of the covenant to cover other Government Departments, including Education and the NHS. We have a number of suggestions for how this process might be improved—for instance, in special needs education, which we hope to explore in Committee. I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for what she said about the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham. I had the privilege of visiting the military unit there on two occasions—once in the company of His Royal Highness, the then Prince of Wales, now His Majesty the King—and I echo everything she said about the excellence of that department at that hospital in caring for those who have served their country.

The Bill goes into some detail about potential improvements in the service justice system. This touches in part on a number of quite sensitive areas, not least those highlighted by my former Defence Committee colleague Sarah Atherton in what became known as the Atherton report. We shall again attempt to explore the merits and details of those proposals in Committee.

Before I conclude, I want to refer to the remarks of President Trump about the brave soldiers who fought alongside the United States and other allies in Afghanistan. Would that he had not said such things, especially as our troops also fought with the Americans in Iraq and in the caves of Bora Bora in 2001 after the United States invoked article 5 after 9/11—the only nation ever to do that. We traditionally avoid discussing royal matters in this House, but if it is true that President Trump’s volte face on this was in some way due to royal intervention, all I can say is: God save the King.

We should endeavour to take a broadly positive attitude to the Bill, but I must caution that there are two areas where the traditional consensus might struggle. First, the Government claim to be fully committed to the two principles of the armed forces covenant—namely, that no members of the wider armed forces family, be they regulars, reservists, veterans or their loved ones, should suffer any disadvantage as a result of their military service, and that special treatment may in some cases be appropriate, especially for the wounded or bereaved. All that rings hollow, however, when we see what the Government are currently doing to our brave Northern Ireland veterans—a matter we were debating in the House just last Wednesday evening over Labour’s remedial order to undermine the Conservative legacy Act, which protects our veterans. Over 100 Labour MPs failed to back that order on the night, including, interestingly, the Prime Minister himself, who abstained, as did over half the Cabinet, including the Defence Secretary and even the Armed Forces Minister. The Government have performed 13 U-turns in the past few months alone, and we very much hope for a 14th U-turn over two-tier justice and facilitating lawfare, especially against our own vital special forces, allowing our brave Northern Ireland veterans to live out their lives in peace instead.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

No.

Secondly, with regard to readiness, as the international skies darken, we fail to see how we can improve our deterrence posture through the Government’s imposing £2.6 billion of in-year spending cuts in the MOD’s operating budget this year, thus reducing training exercises, sea days and flying hours, all in the name of short-term cash control. The Government constantly claim that they are increasing defence spending while concurrently slashing our own armed forces’ operational spending and also stalling on the defence investment plan, which we were faithfully promised last autumn. Similarly, we have been promised a defence readiness Bill, which is not ready yet. It is like a serious defence strategy turning into “Waiting for Godot”.

With those two important provisos, we welcome the Bill. I genuinely look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply, including on why he abstained last Wednesday.

Arctic and High North

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graeme Downie]

I totally agree. I will cover those points about the challenges that we face in the Arctic from both those powers.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech; I thank him for securing today’s debate. A recent article in The Guardian highlighted how UK-based companies continue, shamefully, to be part of the supply chain for Europe’s imports of liquefied natural gas from Russia. While I am pleased that the UK has committed this year to transitioning towards a ban on the provision of maritime services for vessels carrying Russian LNG, does he agree that the UK should work with its European allies to phase out dependency on Russian LNG entirely and to identify where we continue to have high dependency on an adversarial and unreliable Arctic in the High North?

[Graeme Downie]

I absolutely agree that we must do more on all those points. Russia seeks to dominate the Arctic routes militarily and economically, while China positions itself as a near-Arctic state investing in infrastructure and shipping lanes to secure influence over future trade corridors. We must understand our geography and prepare ourselves to reflect our position as a frontline country in a new, unstable and increasingly violent world.

We must help the British public to understand that what Vladimir Putin chooses to do anywhere will harm their lives on a daily basis. When he illegally and brutally invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was our most vulnerable constituents who paid the price through increased energy bills. Any action he takes in future will hurt the same people the most, and it is the first duty of Government to protect them.

The subsea cables and energy assets in the North sea are not abstract; they are national lifelines underpinning energy supply, jobs and our digital economy. Disruption to those systems would have immediate consequences for households and businesses across the UK. I have asked written questions of both the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero about steps to defend physical energy and infrastructure assets. As a senior member of the energy industry put it to me, “If a Russian submarine appears next to one of our installations, who do I call?”

We know that Russia understands the importance of the High North and Arctic because we are seeing a new and unprecedented military build-up. There have been reports of new air bases in Murmansk, increased deployment of air defence systems and a new fleet of ice-capable vessels for Arctic power projection. Vladimir Putin is not retreating; he is acting deliberately to rebuild what he sees as a large Russian empire.

During a recent visit to Estonia, I heard that Russian land and maritime forces, cyber-capabilities and other hybrid tactics threaten the Baltic nations. Estonians were also clear that peace in Ukraine, while of course welcome and something that we should all be working towards, would not end the threat to Europe. Putin will not exist as a quiet European neighbour. As he sees it, he must maintain Russia’s prestige by joining the global competition alongside the US and China. He will not allow Russia to be seen as a secondary power. He will redeploy and reinforce in what he sees as his sphere of influence.

As the upgrades that I mentioned made clear, one of Putin’s priorities will be in the UK’s own backyard of the High North. The peace that we all want to see in Ukraine would not reduce the threat to the UK; it could increase it, and we must be prepared for that. That brings me to the action in the north Atlantic last week to seize the Russian-flagged tanker, Marinera. I fully support that, and hope that we see additional action in the future over the Russian shadow fleet. That demonstrated the effective co-operation between the US and the UK and the increased capability that we can bring to bear. However, it also comes with warnings. First, the UK must show that it can defend its interests in the area alone as well as with our allies.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

My hon. Friend continues to make an excellent speech. The Trump Administration have shifted both words and power to highlight the challenge in the Arctic and the High North from Russia and China. However, the United States drew down its peripatetic air force deployments across the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap over recent years.

Europe and the UK have not covered the GIUK gap with fixed deployments, despite its proximity to our borders. As my hon. Friend made clear, that is something that we must do independently to protect Europe from Russia and maintain our open sea lines of communications. Given the UK’s nuclear submarine enterprise and our leadership role in the joint expeditionary force, does he agree that the UK and Europe must take the lead in protecting and securing the Greenland and Iceland gap?

[Graeme Downie]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. Those are two points I will come on to, as to why the UK must act independently but also with our European allies in the High North and the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap in particular.

We must always remember that Putin will respond to actions, not words, and we cannot afford to sleepwalk unprepared into a geopolitical High North and Arctic. Secondly, as with any bully, Putin will feel the need to retaliate after the actions last week, but it might not be against the big kid of the USA; he could act against the UK. That is not something that should make us scared, but it should highlight that we must be ready for a response from Russia in one domain or another and make sure that we are able to respond and defend ourselves effectively.

I commend Ministers for initiatives to strengthen our armed forces, including raising the service pay, bringing housing back under public control and strengthening industrial partnerships across the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) mentioned, we have also increased investment in the joint expeditionary force working with High North allies. In both visits to Estonia and the US, that was mentioned as something that the UK should continue to do to implement effective security measures as actions, not merely words.

New Medium Helicopter Contract

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for his questions. He will have heard my first answer, which answers some of his questions, which said that the NMH decision will be made as part of the defence investment plan. That will be announced shortly, so I will not be able to give him an answer today. I continue those conversations with Leonardo, as indeed I have today. It is important that we continue having those constructive conversations because I understand the importance of Yeovil not only to his constituency, but to our wider defence ecosystem and, as a south-west MP, to the wider region as well. Leonardo is expert in not only building helicopters but servicing them, and I am excited about some of the work it is undertaking on autonomous helicopters, as well as its wider business interests across the UK, especially in electronics and other areas. I am happy to continue conversations with the hon. Member about this, as I will do with the company and with the trade unions representing the workforce.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

It is not only the highly skilled jobs and sovereign capability brought by Leonardo’s investment in Yeovil that are at stake; we must also recognise the opportunities for social mobility that industries such as this create for young people from across the country and from every background. I note that the NMH programme existed in the previous Government’s unfunded £29 billion equipment plan. Their failure to prioritise the programme and deliver the defence funding that such hard decisions need—[Interruption.] It is in the National Audit Office report. That failure means that we need the defence investment plan to make the decisions necessary to secure our country and European security.

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right about two things. First, defence is an engine for growth. That is why we are investing more of the increasing defence budget in British companies. Secondly, the Conservatives left huge swathes of their equipment programme unfunded—a problem that we are sorting out because of the mess that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) left.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s echo of my pride in the way that the UK, under his Government and stepped up again under this Government, has led on Ukraine, and his echo of my pride in the way that Britain remains united behind Ukraine. He is right about his three conditions. They are part of ensuring what this House wants to see, which is not just peace but one that is lasting and secure.

The importance of the discussions and agreements, and in particular the comments from Special Envoy Witkoff yesterday about the US’s commitment to security guarantees that sit alongside and match European-led guarantees through the coalition of the willing, could not be more important. They will form the basis of the confidence that President Zelensky can have in going into the negotiations. We hope that they will add extra impetus to those negotiations, and in the end it will be a matter for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, and the deal that they strike with President Putin. In the meantime, we lend all the support we can to President Trump, who is doing what only President Trump can, which is potentially putting the pressure on Putin, bringing the parties together, and trying to broker the deal that will finally put an end to this terrible war.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the bravery of our service personnel, who will have to consequence-manage the result of such a military action. This ship was part of an expanding global security threat. It was used to fund the war in Ukraine and the nefarious activity that occurs here in the UK, such as the sub-threshold attacks and the payments received by Reform politicians such as Nathan Gill. We must wake up, because these attacks undermine our sovereignty and our way of life. It is asinine for the Opposition to use moments such as this to progress false arguments about the ECHR and rules of engagement for events that we are not at presently. Does the Secretary of State agree it is imperative that the Opposition stand up, show which side they are on and sack the shadow Attorney General?

Oral Answers to Questions

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The Government’s ambition to repair the damage that the previous Government did to our defence will be made clear in the defence investment plan. The roadblock to our safe entry will not change in reality, but to support our ambition we will need long-term financing vehicles that enable multilateral offers and help us to get the best value for public money so that we can protect this country against Russian aggression. Can the Minister provide us with any information about the work he is doing with other Departments to ensure that vehicles such as the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank are brought about?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the importance of defence and security being a whole-of-Government endeavour. It is not just about the MOD, which is why we have a renewed and refreshed working relationship with the Treasury, working hand in hand to increase defence spending. The defence investors advisory group, which will publish its findings in the new year, will look at new financing methods to bring more investment into defence, just as we are working more closely with our colleagues across Government to increase our warfighting readiness, improve skills and make sure that defence can be an engine for growth in every nation and region of the country.

Russian Ship Yantar

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

The hon. Member is correct that Russia does remain a threat. With the ongoing conflict in Ukraine causing over 1,000 casualties a day, it is the biggest threat that the UK has faced in a generation.

As we progress and we hear the Opposition’s criticism of the Government, trying collectively to convince us that we are not doing anything, it is worth noting from my perspective of 24 years of service that we watched the degradation of defence, with the armed forces facing their lowest morale, equipped with equipment that was not fit for purpose, going alongside ships that had not left docks in years, and with families in houses with leaky homes and damp. We had to put up with delay, decrepitude and downgrading of all our defence capabilities.

Now, for the first time in a generation, the military is looking at an increase in defence spending and, with the strategic defence review, integrated missile defence, “NATO first”, and by 2027 running a Steadfast Defender with a whole-of-society approach. We are putting £4 billion into uncrewed systems and £1.5 billion into munitions. The defence readiness Bill is another legislative process to push further changes through by the end of this Parliament.

On elements at the tip of the spear, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, looking into the details, that recruitment and retention is not one. Indeed, we inherited the smallest Army since Napoleonic times due to recruitment and retention issues under the previous Government. Before the Conservatives start lecturing us, a year and a half into our government, on how decrepit our defence is, and downplaying our soldiers, Air Force and those individuals in the Navy, they should take some responsibility for the mismanagement of the defence portfolio for the last 14 years.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The Yantar’s presence within our waters makes clear Russia’s threat to our democracy, and I am grateful for the service of the brave men and women of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force who protect us. Within the context of the Defence Committee’s recent report, can the Minister highlight how our Government’s leadership of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group and our treaties with Germany and France are essential in ensuring that we reset our relationships and ensure that democracy is safe within Europe?

[Al Carns]

I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his contribution.

Since coming into Government, we have signed the Trinity House deal with the Germans and renewed the Lancaster House deal with the French. We have done the world’s biggest-ever frigate deal with the Norwegians, bringing in tens of billions in investment. We have done a Typhoon deal with the Turkish, and we have secured a UK-EU security and defence partnership. We have led the coalition of the willing with the French. We have taken on the UDCG, which has generated billions of investment for Ukraine. We have done deals with the EU, US and India. I would argue that this is like an episode—a really bad one—of “Deal or No Deal”.

Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I welcome Turkey’s order for 20 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft. I appreciate that it is good news for the UK, good news for the workers at Warton and Samlesbury and good news for BAE and the future production of GCAP. The Government have confirmed that the Turkish jets are tranche 4 aircraft, with the first of the order due to be delivered to the Turkish air force in 2030. The Government refuse to disclose the number of aircraft that will be delivered each year, but have confirmed that it will not impact our ability to conduct the RAF Typhoon phase 4 enhancement programme or, at the back end of that process, the manufacturing of GCAP.

I recently asked the Government what estimate the MOD has made of the contribution of Typhoon jets to GDP. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry told me:

“The biggest contribution of defence to GDP is peace and security.”

While in abstract I share that sentiment, it was not really the answer that I was looking for. Typhoon has been one of the UK’s most successful defence export programmes in recent years, with £1.4 billion in export contributions annually and over £30 billion of value to the UK economy, which is more than double the £12 billion initially invested. The programme contributes around £1.6 billion to the UK economy and helps to preserve our sovereign fighter jet manufacturing capability.

Under the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency, the industrial subsystem production and workshare agreements across the partner nations arrangements dictate that the UK leads on manufacturing the front and rear fuselage, windscreen and canopy, fin and rudder, engine bay doors, foreplane and a range of major avionics systems, which make up 37% of each Typhoon aircraft. For both UK aircraft and UK-led export orders, final assembly takes place at Warton, where the major equipment components, which have been manufactured in Samlesbury by BAE Systems, are ultimately assembled. To that end, it would be good to know how much the order of 20 Turkish jets will create, given the satellite industries that orbit the final assembly and certification processes. Including the Turkish order, there are 154 Eurofighter Typhoons awaiting delivery across the partner nations of Germany, Italy, Spain and Kuwait. How many of those planes will receive final assembly at Warton?

What is the plan to ensure that there is no skill fade in the intervening years? While it would be nice to imagine a Kanban-style lean manufacturing process that sees Typhoons rolling off a production line every few days, these jets take several years to construct. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that those responsible for airworthiness testing and certification are kept current and competent between now and 2029, when the first Turkish jets will be approaching completion?

Beyond the order, it is worth addressing what assurances the Turkish have been given about the longevity of the jets. The Turkish air force will not receive the last of the jets until 2035, but the out-of-service date for the RAF is 2040. How will the jets be upgraded after we retire them? How will upgrades be delivered at the Warton and Samlesbury plants when they are focused solely on GCAP? The Typhoon is scheduled to remain in service with air forces across Europe and the middle east until the 2060s.

Our four remaining tranche 1 aircraft are based at the Mount Pleasant complex in the Falkland Islands, and I had the pleasure of visiting No. 1435 Flight earlier in the year to better understand their role in air defence and quick reaction alert for the south Atlantic islands. However, the handful of remaining tranche 1 Typhoons have an out-of-service date of 2027. Can the Minster confirm whether these will be replaced with tranche 2 or tranche 3 aircraft? If so, which other squadron will lose a flight?

As I mentioned, the current Typhoon fleet—our 67 tranche 2 and 40 tranche 3 planes—has an out-of-service date of 2040, but in a written answer to me on 24 September, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry stated:

“Typhoon will continue to serve as the backbone of the UK’s Combat Air Force until at least the 2040s.”

Can the Minister confirm whether the out-of-service date of Typhoon is 2040 or well beyond that?

I recently asked the Government about the scope of the planned upgrades for Typhoon, specifically with regard to the mark 2 European common radar system, defensive aid suites, avionics and weapons. The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry confirmed that those would be outlined in the forthcoming defence investment plan, which it is rumoured will not be published until December.

The upgrade programme is due to take place over the next 15 years—coincidentally, the same as the aircraft’s remaining lifespan. The Minister has previously informed me that the phase 4 enhancement—P4E—upgrade programme is in the system definition de-risking phase of activity, following the system definition contract last year. The full scope of the P4E capability package has not yet been agreed, and without that agreement the programme cannot progress on to the design, development and demonstration phase. With that in mind, it appears unlikely that the P4E programme can be accurately outlined in detail in the defence investment plan.

With the best will in the world, we know the Government are not about to pull the trigger on a domestic Typhoon order. We cannot afford them, and they clearly do not fit into the combat air succession plan. Having read the strategic defence review, it is clear to me that Typhoon is seen as an integral part—the backbone, in fact—of our combat air capability, but the MOD clearly wishes to pursue exquisite capability, irrespective of the opportunity cost.

The current plan sees a mixed fleet of Typhoon and F-35B. I stress the “B” because, frankly, the announcement on the F-35A is a red herring. We are yet to receive the remaining F-35Bs of the current tranche. The remainder are set to be delivered by March 2026, taking our total to 47, with one written off having fallen into the sea. The mooted 12 F-35As are a straight swap for 12 F-35Bs from the next tranche. Those F-35As were pitched as dual-capable aircraft, and would therefore form part of the NATO nuclear mission. If that is the case, why will the F-35As be assigned to 207 Squadron’s operational conversion unit? Using the planes as a training fleet workhorse does not scream nuclear readiness. How many of the jets will be held at readiness?

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the highest echelon of pilots—those who are best trained—will be the operational conversion unit instructors? Therefore, the 12 aircraft allotted to the nuclear mission will be the leading edge of the force’s capability, so it makes eminent sense for that part of the force to deliver it.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this field, being the decorated RAF pilot that he is. However, I also take that as Government confirmation that the OCU instructors will potentially form the backbone of our NATO dual-capable nuclear readiness force. Can the Minister confirm that when he sums up?

I know this is a trick question, as the Minister probably does not know what the nuclear readiness plan is, and I do not think the RAF knows either, given there is currently no timeline for gaining nuclear certification. At this point, it is worth noting that, in February, the US Marine Corps—by far the biggest user of the F-35B—changed its programme of record to more than double its order of the carrier variant, F-35C, while reducing its F-35B order by the same amount. Our carriers are not equipped with cats and traps, so the F-35C variant is a non-starter, but we should note the direction of travel of the US Marine Corps, given the combined arms nature of its brand of expeditionary warfare.

The Government have stated that the introduction of the F-35A variant will support the stand-up of a third frontline F-35B squadron, but the F-35A variants will not enter service until the 2030s—we have not even ordered them yet—and that is quite aside from the certification of nuclear capability. When will we achieve initial, and then full, operating capability for the F-35A with nuclear certification?

Crucially, our F-35s are not capable of conducting missions alone. It is not often discussed, although we have already mentioned it here, but the F-35 cannot yet carry the Meteor missile, MBDA’s beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile. The Government have previously confirmed to me that the current estimated timeline for the Meteor’s in-service capability is the early 2030s. Our top-of-the-range jet fighter currently has no stand-off air-to-air missile capability. It is effectively unarmed in the face of a near-peer aerial adversary against which we cannot expect to have day one air superiority.

In July, the previous Minister for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), told me:

“Block 4 modernisation will include the integration of UK-unique weapons and upgrades to air-to-surface and air-to-air weaponry.”

That would appear to be an aspiration, not a guarantee. Options for future Meteor development are still under consideration by the Meteor partner nations of France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Sweden, and the aim is to have reached consensus by the end of the year. Can the Minister provide an update on the progress made at the recent working-level discussions in September and October?

This issue was also recently identified by the Public Accounts Committee in its excoriating report, “The UK’s F-35 stealth fighter capability”, which highlighted:

“The Joint Programme Office…has invited the UK…to include a UK weapon in its so-called digital accelerator which it hopes will speed up delivery. In the meantime, the Department told us that as part of its Defence Investment Plan it is considering buying other weapons that are already available and integrated.”

In his response, can the Minister outline what off-the-shelf weapons the Government are currently considering buying as an interim solution to this problem? How do they intend to integrate an interim stopgap weapon?

At present, the solution is actually Typhoon. Yes, in order to use our very expensive, top-of-the-range, invisible-to-radar, fifth-generation F-35s, we have to fly them alongside our not-very-invisible-to-radar, fourth-generation Typhoons, because only they can carry the payload to defend them in air-to-air combat. I am not sure this is exactly what was intended by the hybrid airwing outlined in the strategic defence review.

That is before we point out that an independent carrier strike group is irrelevant if we need a land-based plane to support our carrier-based capability, and that for the F-35B to be in range of a target, the carrier would have to be in range of hostile ballistic missiles that we cannot feasibly protect them against. The future air dominance system, which will be its primary air defence shield, comes in the form of the Type 83 destroyer, for which the final business case is not due to be submitted to the Treasury until 2028—the 2035 initial operating capability for Type 83 already looks ambitious. I digress, and discussions on the limitations of designing our military strategy around our capability, rather than the other way around, are for another day.

The F-35’s out-of-service date is 2069, by which point some of our 138 airframes will be over 50 years old—older than any combat jet the RAF has ever had in service. What will be the final fatigue index of those airframes by then? Given the rapid development of uncrewed platforms, are we really going to rely on an ageing crewed jet as the backbone of our combat air capability in 2069?

Having covered a fair amount of ground, I close by reiterating that the recent Typhoon deal with Turkey is a good thing, but I fear there are an awful lot of unanswered capability questions regarding our air power. While the answers to all these questions are for the next month, when they will be published in the defence investment plan, the Minister knows well that I will circle back on every single one of those points—he probably suspects I have a tracker monitoring their status.

With that in mind, we need a clear and concise air power strategy, because talk of autonomous collaborative platforms and hybrid air wings is premature. It should be noted that the Chief of Defence Staff, in his previous role as Chief of the Air Staff, stated this summer that the RAF has

“no major equipment programmes planned for the next 15 years. We have what we have for the near and medium term.”

The question is not when the defence investment plan will be published, but whether it will have anything in it when it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Baker]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I will talk about radar shortly.

Our heritage enables QinetiQ to work in deep and purposeful partnership with the MOD, the Royal Air Force and the Air and Space Warfare Centre to provide mission-critical engineering outcomes. Its engineers, scientists and analysts are not merely maintaining aircraft but redefining what is possible.

Through the engineering delivery partner programme, and using facilities provisioned under its long-term partnership agreement with the MOD, QinetiQ provides expertise that keeps the Typhoon at the forefront of modern air power. When operational demands intensify, it is QinetiQ’s engineers who ensure that every airframe remains structurally ready for the challenges ahead. When pilots require new systems or improved safety equipment, it is QinetiQ’s aircrew systems specialists who deliver the rapid and safe clearances that protect lives.

When the RAF sought to extend the life of the Paveway IV precision weapon, it was QinetiQ’s analytical judgment and engineering insight that made it possible, delivering greater capability and saving the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds.

Led by QinetiQ across the country—at Boscombe Down, Coningsby, Malvern, Bristol, Lincoln, Warton and, of course, Farnborough—more than 200 engineers are working to ensure that every Typhoon mission, from routine training to live operations, is safe, effective and one step ahead of the threat. Their work on mission data, conducted side by side with the RAF, turns complex streams of information into operational advantage, ensuring that our aircrews have the intelligence they need in the moments that matter most.

Looking to the future, QinetiQ is supporting the development of the European Common Radar System Mark 2, a next-generation capability that can be tested on its dedicated flying testbed. That will take the Typhoon’s radar performance to new levels and stands as a testament to the strength of British science and engineering.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

On that point, what is critical in our present epoch is that we are able to iterate technology fast, and to adapt to make the things we have more lethal, rather than just bringing new wants and designs. One of the pet strengths—

Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Remembrance is truly a moment of national unity. From bereaved service families to the veterans of the second world war, our country comes together to honour the service and sacrifices of those who have ensured our collective safety and security. Like many veterans, I carry deeply personal memories shaped by conflict and comradeship. We remember those who came before us, but also those we served alongside—many of those I served with in Afghanistan and Iraq sadly did not come home.

Like many Members of this House, this weekend I was in my constituency attending services of remembrance. It was an immense privilege to stand alongside Royal Air Force cadets from 12F and 241 squadrons, Army cadets from 30 music detachment of Waltham Forest, Scouts, local families, people of all faiths, our councillors and fellow veterans, looking not only back but forward with hope.

It was that spirit of looking forward that made what happened next very special to me. At the memorial service in Leytonstone, I met four black servicemen spanning four generations of post-war service: Alan, Peter, Chris and Orlando. I brought them together to meet one another because each represented a chapter in our nation’s post-war story of service. Alan Sealy was in the Prince of Wales’s Own Regiment of Yorkshire, serving in the 1960s in Aden. Peter Barnett was in the 7th Parachute Regiment, the Royal Horse Artillery, and served in Germany and central America in the 1970s. Chris Nije was a royal marine in 42 Commando, and served in the middle east, Germany and Northern Ireland in the 1990s. Orlando Asumang is an RAF cadet starting on his journey to fulfil his dream of becoming a pilot, as I once did.

What united us was remembrance itself and the pride of service. For Peter, it was getting his red beret and his wings. For Chris, it was going from Bethnal Green to jumping out of aeroplanes. For Orlando, it was being able to lay a wreath on behalf of his Royal Air Force squadron 12F. Experiences of duty and service pass from one generation to the next. As we stood there, five black men remembering our ancestors and friends alongside our neighbours, and listening to faith leaders reading from the Bible, the Torah and the Quran, I was reminded that remembrance belongs to everyone.

Sadly, in 2025, there are those who seek to taint this sacred moment with their prejudice. That is why it is so vital that we stand loud and proud in honouring the service of people from every background, every faith and every circumstance, especially those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of the freedoms that we all share. Remembrance reminds us that unity itself is part of the legacy entrusted to us. I shared some of my thoughts with Peter, who wisely suggested that we should all head to the pub afterwards, because after all, what could be more British than that?

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.

On 22 May, the Prime Minister signed a landmark treaty with the Republic of Mauritius that guarantees the continued UK operational control of Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Luke Pollard]

So soon!

[Mr Bailey]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent appointment. It is important, right at the outset, that we understand that there has been almost no change in position. I refer him to the comments of the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) in 2023, when he stated that his

“primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 151.]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that that has not changed?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that the hon. Member also wants to make a speech. I would not like him to use up his whole speech in an intervention in the first 10 seconds of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

rose—

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

rose—

[Luke Pollard]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman and then to my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I will return to the Green Book in a moment, but will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey). I am trying to be fair to everyone.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the Minister place that £101 million in context? Perhaps the US or other nations have entered into such agreements. Will he make reference to the value for money that we received for the deal?

[Luke Pollard]

The deal represents broadly 0.2% of the defence budget. The total deal represents less than the cost of the unusable personal protective equipment acquired by the previous Government and burnt during the first year of the pandemic. A helpful comparator useful for the House to know about is the French base in Djibouti. Recently, France agreed a deal with Djibouti worth €85 million per year to rent a base. Diego Garcia is a larger—15 times larger—more capable and more strategically located military asset and, importantly, it is not next to the Chinese naval base that sits next to the French one in Djibouti. As a comparison, that is useful for people to understand in terms of present value.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie]

rose—

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

rose—

[Priti Patel]

I will return to that point in a minute.

On top of what else is wrong with this surrender deal, it is a fundamental betrayal of the British Chagossian community, whose rights have been ignored and neglected. I pay tribute to them. They have joined us today in the Gallery. If I remember rightly, this is the fifth or sixth time they have joined us to show how strongly they feel about the deal.

The deal undermines the defence and security interests of this country, and it brings a risk of the destruction of the unique marine environment and a failure to protect the future of the marine protected area. From refusing to grant this House a meaningful debate and vote on the treaty when it came, to the scenes in the Mauritius National Assembly—I hope Labour MPs watched the debates in the Assembly, where the Prime Minister was gloating about how easy it was to secure concession after concession from the Labour Government—and the deceit, misinformation and gaslighting of the British people through to the £35 billion cost to hard-working British taxpayers, which will be used to fund tax cuts in Mauritius.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I met our Five Eyes partners at the weekend and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they are not paying for this deal and they are not gloating about it. They see it very much as a failure of this Government. He can go and justify that to his constituents.

I congratulate the Minister on his new post and his promotion, and I welcome him to this wider discussion. He has tried his best to sell the surrender deal to the House, but the choices made by his Prime Minister, the former Foreign Secretary who is no longer in post, the Attorney General and Labour Ministers will leave Britain weaker and poorer, humiliated into giving away the sovereignty of our British territory and paying a fortune, £35 billion, to lease back a base—the point has been made a number of times—that we already own. While Labour has spent months trying to hide the details of its Chagos surrender deal and the scale of the financial cover up, it has been the Conservatives holding Labour to account constantly, exposing its shameful decision.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I come back to the right hon. Lady’s point about security. I must have misread our colleagues in the US Department of Defence when they told Defence Committee members, some of whom are sat behind her and heard the same words, that they did not understand her consternation about the deal—but let us assume that she has not put that in an incorrect way. If there was not a problem, will she please explain why her party started the negotiations?

[Priti Patel]

For the benefit of the House and everyone, to provide absolute clarity again, it was the Conservative Foreign Secretary who ended all discussions on this matter. I say it again: in all respect to Lord Cameron—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend has summed it up: the whole process is completely inadequate, with no transparency and no dispute resolution mechanisms. This is just too messy, given that we are talking about the defence and security of the country. Again, this is exactly why we should have been able to debate the treaty on the Floor of the House and give it the scrutiny that is required. Let us hope that the Prime Minister and his lefty lawyers are not involved in the dispute resolution mechanisms, because Britain will come out worst. As we know, when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.

At the press conference announcing the signing of the treaty, it was interesting to hear the Prime Minister almost gaslighting critics of the treaty by comparing them—that is, us—to China, Russia and Iran as he arrogantly declared his views and position. On 4 and 11 June in the House, he said that the treaty “has been opposed by our adversaries, Russia, China and Iran”. We know that 6,000 miles away, at the celebration party press conference in Mauritius, China was singled out by the Mauritian Government for praise. According to the press release, Deputy Prime Minister Paul Bérenger noted that China’s

“unwavering support played a critical role in the international recognition of Mauritian sovereignty.”

A few days later, the Chinese ambassador issued Mauritius with “massive congratulations” on securing the surrender of the Chagos islands. This summer, the Mauritian Government published a press release saying that the President expressed “gratitude” for China’s “unwavering support” for Mauritius’s sovereignty claim over the Chagos archipelago.

Iran has also been supportive of the Mauritian claim for the Chagos islands, with its ambassador saying earlier this year:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has always supported Mauritius’s position regarding the Chagos issue. So, Chagos belongs to the Mauritian people. We support its return and have made many efforts in the past toward that goal.”

As for Russia, when meeting Putin, the former Mauritian President Vyapoory stated:

“We appreciate the support of Russia in our claim for our sovereignty on Chagos.”

Ministers have been asked in parliamentary questions for the evidential basis of the Prime Minister’s claims about the apparent opposition of those three countries who threaten our interests, but they have not come forward with it. When the Minister responds, will he finally explain the grounds behind the Prime Minister’s malicious, almost spurious, remarks, or apologise for those claims? All the evidence shows that, far from opposing the surrender treaty, our enemies actually back it, which means that Britain is weaker.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will not. I know that the hon. Gentleman will speak later.

I turn to the British Chagossians. As well as undermining our security and defence interests and ripping off British taxpayers, Labour has betrayed the British Chagossians. Members on both sides of the House have recognised and acknowledged that the Chagossian community has faced injustice and hardship. Their removal from the Chagos islands is a source of great and profound regret. I pay tribute to the Chagossian community in Britain for their campaigning, and to Henry Smith, our former colleague as Member of Parliament for Crawley, who kept pursuing and raising the issue, and who fought in the House for their rights. As a result, we gave the community new rights in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which Labour voted against. I hope that the Minister can give assurances that those rights will not be undermined by the citizenship measures in clause 4 of the Bill. Because of that past, it is so important that any decisions made about the future of the Chagos islands are made with the community in mind, and that their needs are fully respected.

Ten years ago, when the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), was the Opposition’s spokesman, he said:

“The people of Chagos must be at the heart of decisions about their future…the UK Government have a fundamental moral responsibility towards the islanders that will not go away.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2015; Vol. 601, c. 192WH.]

But this treaty fails them. I have met the community many times and heard their concerns and frustrations; I think everyone in the House will acknowledge their frustrations. They feel that they have been ignored throughout the process, and that the treaty has no guarantees for them. There is a £40 million Chagossian trust fund that UK taxpayers will capitalise, but the UK and the British Chagossians will have no control or say over how it will be used or controlled by the Government of Mauritius. I highlight that point because the Chagossians feel strongly—they fundamentally know—that they cannot trust the Government of Mauritius. The Bill and the treaty make no provision for the British Chagossians to benefit from the trust fund, or be involved in its governance; nor are they guaranteed any right to visit the Chagos islands. Those decisions will be controlled by Mauritius once sovereignty is surrendered.

Hon. Members across the House who have spoken up for British Chagossians know of their fears. It is right that I amplify those fears, or at least raise them in the House, because their voices have not been heard. Now is the time for them to be counted, for their voices to be heard, and, importantly, for their rights to be defended.

Another damning indictment of the Bill and the treaty is the way in which they fail to safeguard the 640,000 sq km marine protected area. Its unique biodiversity enables important marine research to be conducted. In just the last few weeks, a study that included researchers from Exeter and Heriot-Watt universities and the Zoological Society of London was published. It noted:

“Our results provide clear evidence for the value of the Chagos Archipelago VLMPA for protecting a diverse range of large and mobile marine species.”

Yet all we have heard thus far from the Government is warm words about intentions to continue with an MPA. No details have been published.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is willing to give explanations, will he please explain why his party chose to start the engagement but has at no point explained the rationale for doing so?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I promise that I will come to that, but I wish to deal in a logical order with what Ministers have themselves said to justify their actions.

On 5 February, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office answered another urgent question. In answer to my plea to give us more clarity on exactly what legal basis the Government were acting on, he said:

“We currently have unrestricted and sole access to the electromagnetic spectrum, which is used to communicate with satellites and which is guaranteed and governed by the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations body based in Geneva. If we lose it we can still communicate, but so can others.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 760.]

I understand the point that he was making, but he did not explain how that issue might lead to a binding court ruling against the UK, and he did not even take a second opportunity to do so when asked about it again by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp)—those interested can find that answer in column 762.

Luckily, however, my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary called a debate on this subject in Opposition time on 26 February, which was answered by the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds).

She repeated:

“Without a negotiated solution with Mauritius, it would pursue its legal campaign…That would lead to an inevitable, legally binding judgment,”.

She was then interrupted, but went on to say that

“in that kind of situation”—

presumably that is the delivery of a binding judgment against the UK—

“we would unfortunately see international organisations following that determination, such as the International Telecommunication Union.” —[Official Report, 26 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 874.]

If we put all those ministerial utterances together, we are going round in circles.

The Government say that they have to act because of the inevitability of a binding court judgment against the UK. They mention the ICJ, but the ICJ cannot make a binding judgment against the UK on this. They hint at ITLOS cases, but those refer to ICJ decisions. The Government then say that they are worried about the actions of the International Telecommunication Union, but when pressed that seems to mean actions that would follow a binding court judgment. We are back to square one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

If I might just answer my hon. Friend before doing so. Admiral Lord West has immense experience and knowledge. If the Defence Committee should decide to look at this, it might well ask him to give evidence on the basis of his considerable experience in the area.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the right hon. Member explain how UNCLOS enables intelligence activity, and then perhaps why we have represented the views that we have on the basis of our experience and understanding?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I will come on to UNCLOS. As the hon. Member knows, it is an organisation that has expressed a view, but not one that is binding on the United Kingdom. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the former Attorney General, set out very clearly the various international opinions that have been expressed but which are not binding or mandatory for the United Kingdom to follow. That is critical to this debate.

[Mr Bailey]

Will the right hon. Member please explain, then, what the limits of UNCLOS are on the sovereign space—sea, land and air—around Diego Garcia, as they stand and as they are extended in the agreement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

It could have been any Sir Keir —there are so many of them. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This Government have decided that instead of fighting for Britain’s interests, all they will do is turn around and capitulate.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will not. The problem is that this case is not just about these islands, or the issues we are debating today; it is about the way in which Governments approach these debates.

Just in case we are in any doubt about the changed nature of the use of law against us, it is worth looking at the timeline of these events—which is completely coincidental. We know, because colleagues have mentioned it, that in the 1960s a deal was done, a payment was made, Mauritius accepted it and we moved on. Just after the Falklands war, a legal action was begun, using Mauritius and extending a claim. Just after the Falklands war, the KGB started to fund the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. By the way, it is not me saying this—it is in the Mitrokhin archive; it is all public. Just after the Falklands war, when the Soviets realised that they did not have the military power to defeat NATO, they started experimenting with lawfare, and we have seen them do it again and again. If Members would like to read reports on this issue, Policy Exchange very kindly published a report by me in 2013, and another one in 2015—“Fog of Law” and “Clearing the Fog of Law”, for those who have trouble sleeping.

Since then, we have seen lawfare grow. We have seen states using the power of lawyers against the interests of the British people time and again, and the trouble with the capitulation we are seeing today is that it is not just about Diego Garcia, these islands or this interest; it is about the question of whether or not this Government will stand up for the British people, and for our security and our interests. Let me sketch out a hypothetical situation for you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is possible, although I hope it is not necessary, that British troops will be asked to do some peacekeeping in somewhere like Ukraine. It is possible that they will have to leave at a moment’s notice with the equipment they have, without the ability to re-equip—simply to go with the best that they have. It is possible that countries like Russia will object.

We know, because we have seen it happen in the late 1990s and all the way through the 2010s and 2020s, that the Russian Government and others have encouraged legal action against our armed forces. To be honest, Governments have been poor on this issue since 1999—Labour Governments initially, and then Conservative Governments—so it was very welcome that Lord Cameron stopped this, recognising that a different position could be taken. Sadly, this Bill reverses that position. It reverses the presumption that our Government, the British Government, will represent the legal interests of the British people and fight these cases. Instead, they will capitulate. The problem is that capitulation is what got us into this problem in the first place. We can look at the Bici case in Kosovo in the late 1990s, where we settled rather than fought, or at cases in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we settled rather than debated—rather than going to court and seeking a judgment. Those cases created precedents, and I am afraid that this Government are creating another precedent.

I know that the Minister will say that the Governments of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, and many other places have correctly said that this case has no connection to them. I am delighted that they have said so, and they are right, but they are sadly mistaken in thinking that that means nobody will test that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I rise today not to upset a Speaker or Deputy Speaker—let us see how this goes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Let us succeed.

[Mr Bailey]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am proud to speak in favour of the Bill. I do so as a proud former member of our armed forces, having devoted 24 years of my life in uniform to the safety and security of this nation, particularly in intelligence gathering, where UNCLOS is a tool of the trade. That experience shapes my view of the Bill. I find it rich to hear lectures on national security or faux patriotism from the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), whose party spent 14 years hollowing out our armed forces.

The Bill exemplifies the forward-looking, effective and patriotic approach that this Government have taken to our security and our place in the world. It is a major achievement to be implementing an agreement that will ensure that our base on Diego Garcia can operate securely in conjunction with our allies—notably the US—until at least 2124.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Not yet.

Allied naval, aviation and communications assets will be able to protect UK interests across a vast area of the western Indian ocean and beyond throughout the next century, no matter the change, turmoil or insecurity that the coming decades may bring.

The agreement provides the UK and our allies with the freedom of action necessary to guarantee the security of the base. This is detailed in a great many ways by the treaty, but I will highlight just three. First, we will have joint control over the electromagnetic spectrum communications and electronic systems. Secondly, we will have joint control over whether any security forces—military or civilian—will be permitted, except for our own and those of the United States and Mauritius. Finally, we will have joint control over any land development and any construction of sensors, structures or installations at sea. These are very broad and flexible rights; they apply not just to Diego Garcia, the 12-mile boundary within which territorial sovereignty extends or the 24-mile boundary surrounding it, but to the entire Chagos archipelago of 247,000 square miles.

What the Opposition have missed is that it is not what UNCLOS precludes but what it allows that is the threat. When it comes to the activities of third parties, control will be joint between the UK and Mauritius. This joint control will give us the ability to veto decisions if, after engaging fully with our Mauritian partners through the joint commission, we are ultimately unsatisfied about the security risks in a way that we cannot now. Within 12 miles of Diego Garcia, our control will be unrestricted, not joint; the same will apply to our rights, and those of US forces, to access Diego Garcia by air and sea. This will deliver the control that our armed forces need to keep the base secure over the decades to come.

In achieving the agreement, we have bolstered our relationships with key allies and partners, including India, as I will come to later, but first and foremost with the United States. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) has left the Chamber, because I have some questions for him.

We need to be clear about the games that Opposition parties have been playing over this issue. Reform and the Conservatives have attempted to undermine this agreement at every stage, damaging UK interests and trying to drive a wedge between the UK and our allies. We saw the same approach from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in his anti-UK PR campaign on Capitol Hill last week, and I note that I can see none of the Reform party present.

As I have told this House from personal and professional experience, the United States military and its allies value written agreements and long-term guarantees. Our allies rely on the same kind of lease agreements to underwrite their own bases, so they see that this model can stand the test of time despite huge geopolitical shifts, and all of us can see that too.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge said that we should save the base for our unilateral action, but he did not once explain how we would pay for operating and maintaining a base unilaterally. Instead of recognising the benefit of these negotiations, as a way to bolster our cross-Atlantic alliances and increase the value of our contribution to Indo-Pacific security, the Conservatives have repeatedly tried to undermine the process that they themselves started. Thankfully, they have failed. Our international partners have welcomed this agreement, and it now falls to us to ensure that the necessary changes are made in law so that the treaty can come into force and we do not let down our allies.

By far the strongest international advocate for this treaty is India. India is, as we know, an utterly indispensable partner in ensuring that the region remains free and open for navigation and UK trade. India is already a geopolitical force to be reckoned with, and her power and importance as a balancer preventing Chinese domination will only grow over the decades to come. The continuation of the UK and US forces on Diego Garcia, while resolving the question of sovereignty, aligns our strategic interest more strongly with India’s and helps to counter anti-UK rhetoric from the likes of Russia, which can still have influence by playing on the legacy of the anti-colonial struggle. The Conservatives conceded that by starting negotiations about sovereignty. I have asked them all repeatedly about that, and not one of you—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. You were so close to succeeding. Let us try to get the language right.

[Mr Bailey]

I did not receive a single response from any of them, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I have mentioned colonial history, which is going to get some Conservative Members very excited and make them want to use patriotic-sounding rhetoric about the concept of sovereignty, which, as I have just explained, they do not themselves understand. I will take the issue head on. The simple fact is that despite its name, the British Indian Ocean Territory has never been British in the way that Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands are. It has never had a resident population who were British and said with one voice that they wanted to remain so. Perhaps the Chagos islanders could have had such a population if history had gone differently, but they were robbed of that opportunity when the territory was created.

I welcome the apology from the Minister earlier, and I was grateful to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) speak so powerfully about this matter. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response shortly. Sadly, we cannot turn back the clock. What we can do is what we are doing: giving the Chagos islanders a pathway to permanent citizenship and integration here if they choose it, while supporting resettlement options within the agreement reached with Mauritius.

The absurdity of making a big song and dance about sovereignty is reflected in one simple fact. As the explanatory notes to the Bill point out, the UK has always committed to returning the islands to Mauritian sovereignty when they were

“no longer needed for defence purposes.”

That was part and parcel of the decisions made when the British Indian Ocean Territory was created. All that is happening through the treaty and the Bill is the creation of a more secure and durable solution that safeguards those defence purposes; and we are making good on our promise that the UK’s sovereignty would be continued only temporarily, not forever.

When the flag of the British Indian Ocean Territory—the flag of a tarnished endeavour—is lowered on Diego Garcia, the Union flag will be raised in its place: the flag of a modern, forward-looking nation of which Government Members are proud. By passing the Bill, we will not only address the growing vulnerability of a vital military asset, but entrench our alliances and our position in the Indo-Pacific, furthering Britain’s interests across the world.