Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Calvin Bailey and Alex Baker

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability

Debate between Calvin Bailey and Alex Baker

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[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—

Defence committee

Debate between Calvin Bailey and Alex Baker

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his points. I join him in thanking our servicemen and women for their service and recognising their sacrifices. On the role of the Armed Forces Commissioner, the report states in part 3 that there have been no recognisable measures of success. The Minister and his Department will have to take that on and bring forward some answers. It is probably within that framework that the Armed Forces Commissioner will have some role. However, it is a critical failing of our application of the armed forces covenant that success is not measured, so it is not monitored almost anywhere.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for representing the Defence Committee. Labour’s commitment to fully enshrine the armed forces covenant in law is a vital step in recognising the sacrifices made by our service members and their families. However, our report examines some significant gaps in coverage. In particular, I highlight the treatment of non-UK personnel and their families. Unlike other routes, the immigration status given to serving and recently discharged personnel does not allow them to work or access social security. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Ministry of Defence to resolve this issue with the Home Office well in advance of the covenant’s expansion?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important point. She does a great job in representing the home of the British Army and raises the issues consistently, both with the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community and on the Defence Committee—indeed, she did so throughout the inquiry.

My hon. Friend’s point is powerfully made because it supports what the forces’ families federations brought forward in their evidence. They pointed out that:

“There is no other immigration route in which someone legally in the UK isn’t allowed to work or claim benefits whilst their application is being decided.”

That is a massive travesty and a failure, and an example of the armed forces facing a unique disadvantage. It is exactly the sort of anomaly that an updated covenant should attempt to address.