Armed Forces Bill

Fred Thomas Excerpts

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

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in support of the Bill and the Government amendments tabled today, which improve housing, strengthen protections for serving personnel and their families, and ensure that our armed forces are prepared for the challenges of an increasingly uncertain world. Much of this debate rightly focuses on structures, powers and processes, but the strength of our armed forces ultimately comes down to the brave men and women who choose to serve our country, and the families who support them.

In South East Cornwall, we see that every day through the close connection between our communities and the Royal Navy. People arrive from across the UK to begin their service careers at HMS Raleigh, and many leave with lifelong friendships, skills and a deep sense of purpose.

The recruits of Gould 25/37 successfully passed out from their initial naval training just recently. I know the whole House will join me in congratulating them on this significant achievement and in wishing them every success as they begin their careers in service to our country. One recruit marked the occasion in particularly memorable fashion, by proposing to his now fiancée; I hope the Minister will join me in congratulating Cameron and Lexi on their engagement and in wishing them a long and happy future together. Their engagement is a reminder that places such as HMS Raleigh are not simply training establishments; for many, they are where futures are built and the values of service, commitment and community are lived every day.

As we consider the Bill, we must remember that behind every policy and every provision are the people who make our armed forces great. That is why I particularly welcome Government amendments to clause 3, which creates a new defence housing service, as I think about that young couple and the home they hope to build together. We cannot hope to strengthen recruitment, retention and national readiness if service personnel and their families are living in unacceptable accommodation.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, I have many serving folks in my patch. We have a particular issue in Plymouth related to South West Water, which I know she also deals with. Unlike their neighbours, when there are outages, people in service accommodation cannot immediately access compensation pay. While their neighbours who are not in service accommodation pay South West Water directly, those in service accommodation go through a kind of third-party service and therefore do not get that compensation immediately. The Minister is well aware of the matter, because he helped me out with some related casework last year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must look at that in the Bill, to ensure that people in service accommodation get compensation just as quickly as their neighbours and are not disadvantaged by being in the forces?

[Anna Gelderd]

I agree that we must work together on these important issues. We cannot hope to strengthen our recruitment, retention and national readiness if the accommodation is unacceptable. The Bill delivers a landmark programme of investment to build, renew and repair military homes and put forces families first. The Tory privatisation of military housing cost taxpayers billions, while leaving many service personnel and their families in accommodation that simply was not good enough.

I also welcome amendments to clause 2 on the expansion of the armed forces covenant, which will extend to recognise that service life presents unique challenges, including frequent relocations, disruption to education, difficulties accessing healthcare and impacts on family life. Ensuring that public bodies properly recognise those challenges is an important step towards delivering the support that serving personnel, veterans and their families truly deserve. This issue matters to our armed forces. We know that military morale fell to deeply concerning levels under the previous Government—something that should worry every Member of this House.

I represent a constituency with proud military communities, and I know the challenges faced by serving families and children with special educational needs and disabilities. Frequent moves can disrupt education and support networks at the very moment when stability is most needed. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome the work being undertaken in partnership with the Department for Education to improve continuity and support.

I am also particularly pleased to welcome the amendments to clause 7 to strengthen protections against sexual violence, domestic abuse, stalking and harassment. Violence against women and girls remains one of the greatest challenges facing our society. No one should ever face abuse, intimidation or violence, and certainly not those who serve our community in this way.

In a few weeks’ time, I will have the privilege of attending another passing-out parade at HMS Raleigh. The Minister has previously joined me to meet veterans in Torpoint, home to one of the country’s largest veteran populations; I hope he will accept my invitation to revisit South East Cornwall at the earliest opportunity, to meet the recruits who represent the bright future of our armed forces and to discuss the vital role that my constituency continues to play in supporting our nation’s defence.

This Bill recognises that a strong armed forces depends on strong people, strong families and strong communities such as mine, and I am proud to support it. I look forward to seeing the difference that these measures will make for those who serve.

Armed Forces Bill

Fred Thomas Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Lady for a very helpful intervention. I will come to the NHS in a moment, but during the Bill’s earlier stages we have suggested that if the Government do not feel that they can accept this amendment—amendment 3—in this primary legislation, which was our preferred route, now that we know there will be a new Bill on special educational needs, they should seek to address the problem in that Bill, and because it is a Department for Education Bill, hopefully local education authorities will then give it considerable weight. So we are in absolute agreement about that route, and, if I may say so, what the hon. Lady has said about education Ministers is heartening.

Amendment 4 makes, in a sense, the same argument as we have made on the EHCPs with regard to fostering or adoption by service personnel. Amendment 5 argues, in a similar vein, that military personnel who transfer from one military location to another should not lose their place on any NHS waiting list as a result. Again, there is forthcoming legislation on NHS reorganisation, and we hope that this issue can be tackled via that legislative route. I believe this is a relatively straightforward moral argument, in all three cases, and I hope that the Government may yet accept the logic of what we are putting forward this evening.

Let me now turn to the subject of funding for the proposed new Defence Housing Service. As I said during the Select Committee stage of the Bill, there is almost universal agreement that we want to improve the quality of accommodation for service personnel and their families. The remaining area of contention is how best to achieve that, given that there is almost complete unanimity on the desired end state.

Nevertheless, following media reports—especially in The Sunday Times—Opposition Members are increasingly concerned about the possibility that money for capital improvements, and even maintenance, may now be taken away from the Defence Housing Service before it is even born, and reallocated to other priorities in Labour’s very long-awaited defence investment plan. We know from evidence sessions on the Bill that there is already a plan for the Defence Housing Service to reduce the spending on housing maintenance by 25%, compared to current practice. That sounds worrying, although officials, and indeed the previous Minister, were keen to stress that they believed the new Defence Housing Service would be able, by renegotiating certain contracts and the actual operation of maintenance, to do this more efficiently.

The proof of the pudding for all that will be very much in the eating. However, what we understand is now being proposed is that the capital allocations for the Defence Housing Service will be raided in order to fund other defence priorities elsewhere. That process will only be exacerbated if, as has been widely reported, the amount of money that will be available for the DIP—if and when it is finally published—will be the lowest of the three options widely canvassed in the press, namely an additional £10 billion of spending on defence over the next four years.

Given the challenges faced by defence—which were laid out starkly by both the former Defence Secretary and the former Armed Forces Minister in their powerful resignation letters—£10 billion over four years will not even touch the sides. Let me humbly remind Labour Members that all three authors of the strategic defence review, which was published over a year ago on 2 June 2025, were adamant that the price tag for delivering Labour’s much-vaunted SDR would be defence spending of at least 3% of GDP. What is on offer is clearly nowhere near that. Indeed, in his scathing resignation letter, the former Defence Secretary said that all that was being offered to him was an increase in defence spending from 2.6% of GDP this year to 2.68% of GDP by 2030—in other words, a 0.08% increase over four years. Those numbers completely and utterly demolish Labour’s constantly repeated mantra that they are now funding

“the biggest…increase in defence spending since the Cold War.”

That is simply not true.

However, the situation is even worse than that. In addition to the headline “increases”, which are now minuscule, as the resignation letter starkly reveals, last year, at the Treasury’s behest, the Labour Government introduced a target of making efficiency savings—“cuts” in plain English—of some £2.6 billion from operational and revenue spending in the Ministry of Defence. What that means in practice is fewer ship days at sea, fewer hours for our pilots to fly, and fewer exercises on Salisbury plain. Incredibly, in this financial year—2026-27—the efficiency savings target has now been increased to £3.5 billion of cuts, which means even more operational and revenue spending reductions than last year.

For Labour to continue the mantra that it has provided the largest increase in defence spending since the cold war, in the face of these self-imposed, Treasury-driven in-year cuts, simply destroys any credibility that the Government had that they really are striving to keep this country safe. This is not the result of enemy action—unless one regards the Treasury as the enemy, which many in the military now do. This is a self-inflicted wound brought about by a Labour Government who are completely paralysed by inaction, and who now have no idea whatsoever of how to credibly fund the defence of this country.

In the light of today’s events, it remains to be seen whether the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will attempt to introduce any order into this chaos. If he does, he and his new Chancellor—whoever that turns out to be—will still have to say how the Labour Government are going to pay for it. Are they going to increase borrowing, which will frighten the bond markets, or are they going to cut welfare, which would probably provoke a Back-Bench revolt?

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Which would you do?

[Mr Francois]

We would reduce welfare spending and spend it on the defence of the realm. That is our policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for opening this debate and speaking to his new clauses. I will shortly speak to the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) on behalf of my party and to others tabled by my hon. Friends.

It is particularly appropriate that we should be holding this debate at the start of Armed Forces Week. Like many Members, I look forward to attending Armed Forces Day in my constituency, at Pingle field in Bicester on Saturday. We will raise the flag to salute the service and sacrifice of our incredible armed forces and their families. If previous years are anything to go by, I will again disgrace myself in misdirecting a bomb disposal robot under the patient eye of a member of the defence explosive ordnance disposal, munitions and search training team, which is based at the Bicester garrison.

[Fred Thomas]

The hon. Member mentions bomb disposal. He may not know that we have seen two significant bomb disposal events in Plymouth in the last couple of years. Does he agree that Armed Forces Day this Saturday is a great opportunity to thank our military community for keeping safe everyone who lives in residential areas, especially in Plymouth, where there is unexploded ordnance from world war two?

[Calum Miller]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his intervention. I quite agree with him that the work of our brave service personnel in the bomb disposal units and those who train them—as I say, at the Bicester garrison in my constituency—deserve to be celebrated. I would resist the temptation to say that I hope everybody’s Armed Forces Day go off with a bang.

The skill and commitment of our armed forces reflect the best of us, and it is a privilege to speak today on this Bill. I believe there is much in the Bill that should be welcomed and that deserves our support. Crucially, it renews the statutory basis for our armed forces, extends the armed forces covenant duty across Government, introduces a Defence Housing Service to oversee and implement improvements in the quality of accommodation for our troops, and reforms certain aspects of the service justice system.

The right hon. and gallant Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has energetically taken the Government to task for their spending pledges, yet I regret that the Conservatives did not apply the same energy to supporting and protecting our armed forces during their time in office. The scandalously poor quality of service personnel housing serves as the clearest evidence that they allowed a dogmatic commitment to outsourcing to blind them to how they were failing our armed forces.