Armed Forces Bill

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a privilege to open for the Opposition on Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill, given the global circumstances in which we find ourselves, and the sense that the ability of our armed forces to stand up to renewed threats has not been at issue to this degree for many years.

Before turning to the Bill, I want to take this opportunity to place on record my thanks, and those of the Opposition, to a particularly special group of people: those members of the British armed forces who served in Afghanistan, in the cause of freedom and in the wake of the horrific 9/11 attack on our closest ally, the United States of America. The 9/11 attack was not just an attack against the US mainland; it was also an attack on ourselves, and not only because of the 67 British lives that were lost when the twin towers were hit, but because our western way of life seemed to be under direct attack.

So I am glad that President Trump followed his wholly inaccurate and misjudged remarks about the service of our personnel in Afghanistan with praise for our military, but their contribution should never have been in doubt. Given the immense pain that his words will have caused the loved ones of those who were lost in Afghanistan, we send a message to those families today that theirs was far from a loss in vain; it was a just cause, where British soldiers played as much a part as anyone else, and one for which we will be forever grateful.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those words. Will he associate himself with the Canadian, Danish, French, Australian and New Zealand armed forces, and those from many other countries around the world, who served alongside us in that NATO operation? They stood by us, even though article 5 does not apply to Australia or New Zealand, and lost troops in combat, yet I did not hear an apology for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his service in Afghanistan, and that of other colleagues present in the Chamber. He is absolutely right. When we debated the President’s remarks about Greenland, I made the point on the media round that Denmark had the highest per capita losses in Afghanistan, and the other nations all suffered. We all fought together because it was a common cause.

[Chris Vince]

As the shadow Secretary of State knows, I always try to find cross-party consensus. Will he join me in praising Private Robert Foster, who was from Harlow and who lost his life in Afghanistan? Members from across the House had constituents who lost their lives serving this country, and we should all be incredibly proud of them.

[James Cartlidge]

I echo what the hon. Gentleman says. I pay tribute to his constituent and to all those who sacrificed so much in that campaign.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the shadow Minister for what he has said, but let us be honest that President Trump should never have made that statement, no matter what. My constituent Channing Day gave her life in Helmand province, and I think of Colin Thompson, who was invalided out of the Army because of an injury on the frontline in Helmand. They are just two out of many. Does the hon. Gentleman not feel, as I feel for my families, hurt by what President Trump said? President Trump has apologised, but he should never have said it in the first place.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head, and I need add nothing further. We all agree and we pay tribute to all those who served in Afghanistan.

Moving on to the Bill, given its necessity to ensure that we have functioning armed forces, we will not seek to divide the House. Indeed, on national security, we should always strive for consensus where possible, as has particularly been the case on Ukraine. We have presented a united Parliament to our adversaries, which should be a source of national pride. However, as with any major piece of legislation, there will be many issues of detail that we will want to tease out in detailed scrutiny in Committee.

While we inevitably have concerns about the underlying issue of defence funding, there are many aspects of the Bill that we support in principle. In particular, I welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthening the armed forces covenant. Having been the party that first introduced the covenant, it will be of no surprise that we support moves to strengthen both its purpose and delivery. That said, when it comes to our veterans, we remain resolute in our total opposition to the Government’s policy in respect of those who served in Operation Banner to protect all of us from terrorism. The House surely cannot ignore the fact that as we debate this Bill, which is designed to strengthen our armed forces, Labour continues in parallel with its plan to repeal our legacy Act—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—and threaten a new era of vexatious claims against former soldiers. It is fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will say more about that in his winding-up speech.

On the Bill’s proposals relating to the service justice system, there is recognition on both sides of the House that we have massive lessons to learn. Work to improve the system began under the previous Government, as the Secretary of State recognised. After publication of the Atherton report, which identified cultural failings in the forces, the then Secretary of State, Ben Wallace, took steps to enforce changes so that we could better protect women in the armed forces. In 2022 we introduced a series of new policies—for example, clamping down on unacceptable sexual behaviour by introducing a zero-tolerance approach and banning instructor-trainee relationships of any sort. We also established the defence serious crimes unit. As a result of the changes we made, more people have been empowered to come forward, and service personnel who have breached those policies have been discharged or convicted as a direct result.

I particularly welcome the steps in the Bill to ensure that the service justice system protects victims of the most serious offences from further harm. The reality is that implementing cultural change in any large organisation does not happen overnight, but we will work with the Government in the forthcoming sittings on the detail of their proposals to ensure that we find a better way to deliver justice in the armed forces.

Let me move on to the proposed changes to the reserve forces. I pay tribute to all those serving as reservists, including, as was pointed out, those on Operation Interflex—they are a critical part of our fighting strength. That said, given the heightened threat level that we face today, we can surely all recognise that nations geographically closer to the Russian threat, such as Finland, draw a major part of their overall military strength and, thereby, conventional deterrence from possessing a large and active reserve.

As such, it is important that we understand more of the detail about the Government’s plans to increase the number of active reservists by 20%. That is stated in the strategic defence review, but with a vague timeline—

“most likely in the 2030s”.

We can all see that there is a big difference between 2031 and 2039, and that the threat we face is nearer. In his winding-up speech, can the Minister for the Armed Forces tell us if that will be in the next Parliament or the one after that?

We also welcome proposals to make reservist life more flexible, particularly incentivising regulars to stay in the reserves as they explore new careers. In fact, that is exactly what was suggested in the Haythornthwaite review, which was commissioned under the previous Government and delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). It made the important recommendation for so-called zig-zag careers, enabling far greater flexibility between reserve and regular service. We welcome that and will look at it further.

Let me move on to the Bill’s proposals for armed forces accommodation. Buying back the defence estate was my top strategic priority as Minister for Defence Procurement.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

You didn’t do it!

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that I did not do it. The deal was done in 1996. Who was in government between 1997 and 2010 and did nothing about this issue?

Let me speak openly. When I got the job, I went to visit defence accommodation. As I have said many times, I was ashamed, but I said, “I am going to do something about this.” My former colleague Jeremy Quin, who was the Minister before me, had brought test cases, but there was no work, and nothing had happened under successive Governments. I started the work with the Treasury and with people across Government. That deal, which took a heck of a lot of negotiation, was under negotiation with the Annington group when the general election came.

[Dr Murrison]

The truth is that there was a level of serendipity in this matter of which the current Government are the beneficiary, and that is the High Court decision on Annington Homes. My hon. Friend is being characteristically modest, because I clearly remember that he initiated this work while he was at the MOD. I am very pleased to hear that the current Government are taking it forward, which is absolutely right, but we need to lay on record the provenance of all this work and who its author is. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for that.

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We must never forget the reason for the deal in the first place.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I will take one more intervention, and then I will make some progress.

[Peter Swallow]

Is the shadow Secretary of State’s defence for the shambles and the shame of military homes that he finally acted as Defence Secretary where his predecessors had sat on their hands? Is that really his defence of the Tory disgrace of our military homes?

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for promoting me in posterity. All I can say is that when I came to the job, I was not impressed with the state of armed forces accommodation. Let us not pretend that it suddenly took that shape; in the 13 years when Labour was previously in power, it made no attempt to buy back the defence estate. I return to the point that that is why we did the deal in the first place. We all agree that those who serve our country must never be given substandard homes. The Annington deal has enabled the prospect of what could be the most exciting estate regeneration project for generations. This is the chance to deliver homes for heroes.

We had to buy the estate back, and I enabled that. That being said, delivering such an opportunity requires leadership. The reason why my first policy announcement as shadow Defence Secretary in June last year was the creation of an armed forces housing association, which created a body that could do just that—both manage the estate and deliver a comprehensive rebuild, as the best housing associations have been able to do over the years.

[John Healey]

Giving it away.

[James Cartlidge]

From a sedentary position, the Secretary of State says, “Giving it away.” It is very odd when a member of the Labour party thinks that setting up a co-operative is somehow a privatisation.

The body that the Government will create in this Bill to deliver that transformation is the Defence Housing Service. Although we welcome its ambition to improve the supply and quality of defence housing, inevitably we will want to see that its structure means that it is able to deliver as many of the outcomes that we wanted from our own policy as possible.

Specifically, one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford first proposed an armed forces housing association in 2020 was to give armed forces families proper representations on its board. Will the Defence Housing Service ensure a similar, meaningful voice for service families? Given that a priority for our housing association model was to extend home ownership throughout the ranks, not least because housing associations have access to a wider suite of home ownership products, what role will the Defence Housing Service play in delivering greater home ownership among service families?

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I know that Members across the House supported Liberal Democrat plans to introduce a decent homes standard for service family accommodation, and I am very grateful to the Government for bringing that in through recent legislation from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. However, single living accommodation is still really poor. Constituents in North Shropshire report rat infestations and being unable to sleep at night. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that single living accommodation also needs to be looked at as a priority?

[James Cartlidge]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

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

[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.

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

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

[James Cartlidge]

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

[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 ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be directing his comments at me.

[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 .

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will my hon. Friend allow me?

[James Cartlidge]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

It is all well and good to say that defence spending has increased since it was realised that the peace dividend is inappropriate for a post-Ukraine invasion situation, but the fact is that during the 1980s, when we were in the grip of the cold war, we were not talking about spending 5% in 10 years’ time or 3.5% in four years’ time; we were spending between 4.5% and 5% of GDP every single year.

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. Friend is right. The last time anyone in this country spent 5% on defence was in 1985, when President Gorbachev entered the Kremlin; spending has pretty much been down since then, under every Government. That is the point I was making.

On the current targets, Labour’s vague “promise” is to go to 3% in the next Parliament. We believe the task is far more urgent, and would go to 3% by the end of this Parliament. As a reminder of the importance of 3%—this is critical—when Labour published the SDR last June, its independent authors stated on the same day that the promise of 3%

“established the affordability of our recommendations”.

As such, with no certainty over when Labour will get to 3%, is this not why the defence investment plan—which was promised for last autumn—still has not been delivered? In his wind-up speech, can the Minister for the Armed Forces tell us whether the DIP will be published before the spring? I think that is the meteorological spring, by the way.

There is much to welcome in this Bill, but it will not succeed if defence does not have the resources needed to deliver the SDR. We look forward to debating the Bill in detail and doing whatever is possible to make it workable, but for their part, the Government need to do their bit by finally delivering the step change in defence spending that our armed forces need if they are to do the job we ask of them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary]

It is understandable that the Opposition are embarrassed about that. We need to get our troop numbers back up to a critical mass that will allow us to carry out our duties overseas.

The Government’s decision to increase the upper age limit for reserves and cadets to 65 warrants serious scrutiny. Ministers must explain whether the change will genuinely enhance operational effectiveness, skills and readiness, or whether it is simply a mechanism to inflate headline recruitment numbers without addressing the underlying retention and capability challenges facing our reserve forces.

That brings me to the important issue of defence spending, which, of course, underlies all of this. The Liberal Democrats support increasing defence spending in every year of this Parliament, and we will explain how to do it. We are calling for a clear, credible pathway to reaching 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest, backed by cross-party talks to secure long-term consensus. As part of that plan, we have proposed the introduction of time-limited defence bonds—capped, fixed-term, and legally tied to capital investment—to raise up to £20 billion over the next two years. That would allow the Government to accelerate investment in the capabilities set out in the strategic defence review, strengthen deterrence now rather than later, and send a clear signal to our allies and adversaries alike that Britain is serious about its security.

[James Cartlidge]

I heard the announcement made by the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party about the bonds. Of course, that would still be borrowing the money. It would be added to the national debt, and it would have to be repaid. The question is, where exactly would the money come from? Would it mean cutting spending or putting up taxes?

[James MacCleary]

These are bonds issued to the public and to funds in the normal way, as all these vehicles are. They would be for people to invest in, so this would not involve cutting anything. It would be short-term borrowing that would fall within the Government’s existing fiscal rules, as we explained at the weekend. This is a serious proposal to increase defence spending in the short term, unlike the proposals from the Opposition, which, I understand, are for welfare cuts—a long-term measure that would fall on the most vulnerable in society.

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. It is very generous of him. Is he saying that those bonds would not have to be repaid?

[James MacCleary]

Of course they would have to be repaid, and we have laid out this policy very clearly.

[James Cartlidge]

Where would the money come from?

[James MacCleary]

I am happy to send the hon. Member a briefing if that would be helpful to his deliberations, but of course the money would have to be repaid. These are two-to-three-year bonds that would generate an immediate injection of cash to buy the kit that our armed forces need.

In an increasingly dangerous world, standing still is not a neutral act, and warm words without funding will not keep our country safe. That is why I was relieved to see reports over the weekend that the Government are seeking to restart negotiations over UK access to the EU’s Security Action for Europe fund, which I hope speaks to a belated and dawning realisation that President Trump is increasingly posing a threat to Britain’s security and values. At the same time, I urge the European Union to approach these discussions with pragmatism, to come to the negotiating table in good faith, and to recognise that the UK is an essential security partner. This is not the moment for political point scoring, for putting domestic protectionism ahead of continental safety, or for setting the bar so high that shared European security is the casualty.

A fair deal for our armed forces community means more than just equipment and strategy; it means treating service personnel and their families with the dignity and respect that they deserve in every aspect of their lives. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a fair deal commission for service personnel, veterans and families to review conditions comprehensively and recommend improvements in pay, housing, diversity and transition services. We would allow families of armed forces personnel access to military medical and dental facilities, and improve mental health support for the whole armed forces community. We would waive visa application fees for indefinite leave for members of the armed forces on discharge and their families, and we would ensure that military compensation for illness or injury did not count towards means-testing for benefits.

These are not fringe issues; they go to the heart of the covenant between the nation and those who serve. If we ask people to be ready to give their lives for this country, we owe them more than warm words. We owe them action. In respect of housing specifically, while we welcome the Defence Housing Service, we need to go further. We would require the Ministry of Defence to provide housing above minimum standards, and to give service personnel stronger legal rights to repair and maintenance. Our recent campaigning secured a Government commitment to assess family military homes according to the decent homes standard. That is progress, but it must be implemented properly and swiftly.

We also support the recommendations of the Atherton report on women in the armed forces, and will work to establish better structures to guard against discrimination and harassment. The armed forces must be places where talent thrives, regardless of gender, and where everyone can serve with dignity.

We owe it to our armed forces to provide certainty, which makes the continued delay of the long-promised defence investment plan all the more concerning. That plan must be brought forward without further delay. We cannot continue a boom-and-bust cycle of defence reviews that leaves industry in limbo, undermines long-term investment, and allows vital skills and supply chains to wither away through uncertainty.

The Liberal Democrats look forward to engaging constructively with this Bill, and to scrutinising its provisions carefully as it proceeds through its remaining stages. We will not stand in the way of improvements that matter to service personnel and their families, but we will continue to press for more, because our armed forces deserve more and Britain’s security demands more. We will continue to call for reversing troop cuts, increasing defence spending to at least 3% of GDP, tackling the recruitment crisis and ensuring a comprehensive, fair deal for the armed forces community.

Britain’s armed forces are the finest in the world. They represent our values, defend our interests, and stand ready to protect us and our allies. They deserve a Government who back them with resources, strategy and unwavering support. The Liberal Democrats will always champion that cause, and we will always stand shoulder to shoulder with those who serve.