Defence Investment Plan

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

This £300 billion increase in defence expenditure will be paid for by every single Department. The Secretary of State is right to say that there is a world of insecurity and conflict out there, but where is the foreign policy strategy? Where is the policy to reduce tensions? Where is the policy to try to bring about ceasefires in the terrible wars that are going on? Where is the policy to deal with the real insecurities in the world—climate change, global inequality and poverty?

[Dan Jarvis]

I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman and I are unlikely to agree on the best approach when it comes to expenditure and defence, but I hope he will recognise that we have published the defence diplomacy strategy, and that we work closely across Government to align our resources and make sure we are contributing responsibly, along with our international allies. We take our obligations very seriously, not least as a leading member of NATO, but fundamentally this Government have an absolute requirement to make sure we safeguard our national security. That is a priority for this Government, as I hope it would be a priority for any Government, and we have to ensure we have appropriate levels of resource to do that. That requires prioritisation and difficult decisions, and that is what we have done.

Armed Forces Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Dual nationals serving in foreign armed forces: war crimes risk—

“(1) This section applies to a person (‘the individual’) who is—

(a) a British national or a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and

(b) a member of the armed forces of a foreign state.

(2) Where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual has participated in, ordered, or failed to prevent conduct that constitutes a war crime within the meaning of Article 8 of the Rome Statute, the Secretary of State may—

(a) refer the matter to the Attorney General for consideration of proceedings under the International Criminal Court Act 2001,

(b) direct that the individual’s British travel document be suspended pending investigation, subject to section 41C, and

(c) notify the International Criminal Court of the individual’s British nationality and last known address in the United Kingdom.

(3) A suspension of a travel document under section 41B(2)(b) must not exceed 90 days without renewal.

(4) The individual to whom section 41B applies must be—

(a) informed as soon as reasonably practicable of the grounds for any action taken under section 41B(2), and

(b) afforded a right of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

(5) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance to the armed forces, relevant intelligence agencies, and border authorities on—

(a) identification of British nationals serving in foreign armed forces,

(b) information-sharing arrangements with the International Criminal Court and relevant foreign jurisdictions, and

(c) the circumstances in which action under subsection (2) is appropriate.

(6) For the purposes of this section—

“British national” has the meaning given by section 50(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981;

“Rome Statute” means the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998 (2187 UNTS 90).

(7) Nothing in section 41B or this section limits the protections afforded to an individual under the Human Rights Act 1998.”

NC1 and NC2 ensure that the United Kingdom does not extend the immunities and privileges afforded to visiting forces under the Visiting Forces Act 1952 to forces from states whose commanders are subject to ICC proceedings, and creates a framework for referring dual nationals suspected of war crimes to prosecutorial authorities.

New clause 3—Veterans: housing and employment data duty—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, in each calendar year, collect and compile data on the following matters in respect of persons who have served as members of the regular forces (‘veterans’)—

(a) the number of veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness within the meaning of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 and Part 2 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014;

(b) the number of veterans who are unemployed and claiming Universal Credit or Jobseeker’s Allowance, disaggregated by—

(i) length of unemployment;

(ii) age and gender; and

(iii) service branch and rank on discharge;

(c) the number of veterans in contact with local authority housing or homelessness services;

(d) the number of veterans placed in temporary accommodation by a local authority;

(e) the number of veterans who have presented themselves as having suicidal ideation and those who have committed suicide;

(f) trends in the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) over the preceding five years.

(2) For the purposes of collecting data under subsection (1), the Secretary of State—

(a) must request and receive data from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, local authorities, and such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate,

(b) may require local authorities in England to provide data as to veterans within their area who have approached them for housing assistance, and

(c) must consult Veterans UK and any other bodies the Secretary of State considers appropriate in designing the data collection methodology.

(3) The Secretary of State must, not later than 31 March in each year, lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) the data compiled under subsection (1) for the preceding calendar year;

(b) a comparison with data from the two preceding calendar years;

(c) the steps taken or proposed to be taken by the Secretary of State, or by public authorities subject to the duty in section 343AZA of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (as amended by section 2 of this Act), to reduce rates of homelessness and unemployment among veterans; and

(d) an assessment of whether those steps have been effective.

(4) The report under subsection (3) must include, in respect of veterans who have left the regular forces within the preceding three years—

(a) the proportion who entered employment within three months of discharge;

(b) the proportion who were provided resettlement support under a scheme administered by the Ministry of Defence; and

(c) the proportion who were provided with suitable accommodation within one month of discharge.

(5) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for a person independent of the Ministry of Defence to review, and report to Parliament on, the methodology and reliability of data collected under this section at least once every three years.

(6) In this section—

“homeless or at risk of homelessness” is to be construed in accordance with sections 175 to 177 of the Housing Act 1996;

“regular forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act);

“veteran” means a person who has served as a member of the regular forces for a period of not less than one day and who is no longer serving as such a member.”

This new clause imposes a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to collect, compile, and annually report to Parliament data on rates of veteran homelessness, suicide and unemployment, including trends, actions taken and their effectiveness.

New clause 4—Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or children of serving or discharged members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years—

“(1) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 is amended as follows.

(2) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 after “Forces” in paragraph (b) insert—

“(c) in a case where the application is made by a person who is a spouse or child of a member or previously serving member of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.

(3) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 in paragraph (b) leave out “(a) and (b)” and insert “(a), (b), and (c)”.”

This new clause would amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.

New clause 5—Review of mental health support for veterans—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passage of this Act, conduct a review of the adequacy, accessibility and effectiveness of mental health support available to veterans of the armed forces.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must assess the extent to which mental health support available to veterans meets their needs, including specific information about availability of such support based on—

(a) age,

(b) sex,

(c) service branch,

(d) rank,

(e) length of service,

(f) time elapsed since leaving service,

(g) operational deployment history,

(h) conflict or operation in which the veteran served,

(i) geographical location within the United Kingdom,

(j) whether the veteran resides in a rural or urban area, and

(k) any other characteristic the Secretary of State considers relevant.

(3) A review under subsection (1) must examine—

(a) levels of provision of specialist and non-specialist mental health services for veterans;

(b) waiting times for assessment and treatment;

(c) access to NHS and charity-provided mental health services;

(d) barriers to accessing support, including those arising from geographical isolation, transport availability, digital exclusion and workforce shortages;

(e) rates of referral, treatment completion and clinical outcomes;

(f) rates of suicide, self-harm, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety and other mental health conditions among veterans;

(g) differences in outcomes between veterans who served in different conflicts or operations;

(h) the effectiveness of arrangements for identifying and supporting veterans most at risk of mental ill health;

(i) reliance on charity support.

(4) In conducting a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) veterans’ organisations,

(b) service charities,

(c) NHS bodies,

(d) devolved administrations,

(e) local authorities, and

(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) Upon completion of a review under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament indicating the findings of the review.

(6) A report under subsection (6) must include recommendations for improving mental health support for veterans, particularly those groups identified as being at elevated risk of poor mental health outcomes based on the review on which it is based.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the adequacy and effectiveness of mental health support available to veterans.

New clause 6—Review into reservist facilities—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review into reservist facilities in rural areas.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider the quality, accessibility, and refurbishment of reservist facilities.

(3) The review under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into reservist facilities in rural areas.

New clause 7—Digital archive of Armed Forces Standing Orders—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must put in place a plan for the digital archiving of all Standing Orders issued to Armed Forces personnel, to be completed within 12 months.

(2) Once the digital archives under subsection (1) are established, the Secretary of State must carry out a review every six months to ensure they are up to date.

(3) Under this section, “Standing Orders” means the body of permanent regulations, issued by units or formations, which govern the conduct, administration, and procedures of personnel.”

This new clause would add a requirement for the Ministry of Defence to ensure the indefinite digital archiving of all standing orders issued to the Armed Forces.

New clause 8—National Veterans’ Commissioner (England)—

“After section 366 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert—

“366A National Veterans’ Commissioner (England): establishment

(1) Within 6 months of the passing of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England (“the Commissioner”).

(2) The Commissioner shall act independently in carrying out the functions of the office.

(3) The Commissioner’s functions shall include but are not limited to—

(a) promoting the interests of veterans in England;

(b) monitoring the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England;

(c) reviewing the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families;

(d) identifying barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services;

(e) making recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans.

(4) In exercising the functions under subsection (3) the Commissioner may—

(a) carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans;

(b) consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations;

(c) publish reports and recommendations.

(5) The Commissioner shall prepare an annual report on the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.

(6) The Commissioner may at any time prepare a report on any matter relating to the interests of veterans in England.

(7) The Secretary of State must lay any report prepared by the Commissioner under this section before both Houses of Parliament.

(8) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for—

(a) the provision of staff, accommodation, and other resources as they consider necessary for the Commissioner to carry out their functions, and

(b) the publication of the Commissioner’s reports under this section.

(9) The Commissioner is to be appointed for a term of three years and may be reappointed for one further term.

(10) The Secretary of State may remove the Commissioner from office only on grounds of—

(a) incapacity,

(b) misbehaviour, or

(c) failure to discharge the functions of the office.

(11) In this section—

“public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998;

“veteran” means a person who has served in His Majesty’s armed forces.””

This new clause would require the Government to appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England and sets out its functions.

New clause 9—Exemption from the European Convention on Human Rights for Deployed Members of the Reserve Forces—

“A member of the regular or reserve forces who has been deployed for operations under this Act may not be subject to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of that deployment.”

This new clause would make provision for the members of the regular or reserve forces who have been deployed under this Act to be exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights for that period of deployment.

New clause 10—Laying of the Defence Investment Plan—

“Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament, if they have not already done so.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a Defence Investment Plan before both Houses of Parliament within 3 months of the passage of this Act, if they have not already done so.

New clause 11—Overseas operations and the European Convention on Human Rights—

“After section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 insert—

“(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that any overseas operation is, or is likely to be, significant, the Secretary of State must authorise for the United Kingdom to make a derogation under Article 15(1) of the Convention.

(2) In this section —

“overseas operations” means operations of Her Majesty’s forces outside the British Islands in the course of which members of those forces may come under attack or face the threat of attack or violent resistance;

“Her Majesty’s forces” has the same meaning as in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (see section 374 of that Act).””

This new clause reinstates a duty, removed during passage of the Overseas Operations Act 2021, requiring the Secretary of State to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights during significant overseas operations.

New clause 12—Feasibility study on a Forces Housing Association—

“(1) Within 6 months of the passing of this Act , the Secretary of State must publish report on the possibility of establishing a Forces Housing Association (FHA).

(2) The report must examine the proposals in Chapter 5 of the 2020 Report “Stick or Twist – A Report for The Prime Minister into Retention in HM Armed Forces – and how to improve it.”

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the merits of establishing a Forces Housing Association (FHA) as opposed to the proposed Defence Housing Service.

New clause 13—An armed forces retention strategy—

“(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State lays before Parliament the Ministry of Defence Votes A paper seeking Parliamentary authority for the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for service with the armed forces in the following financial year.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay alongside the Votes A paper an armed forces retention strategy.

(3) The retention strategy must include—

(a) an assessment of the current rates of retention across the regular and reserve forces,

(b) an explanation of the steps the Ministry of Defence is taking to improve retention to meet the maximum numbers of personnel set out in the Votes A paper, and

(c) an assessment of the findings of the most recent Armed Forces Continuous Attitudes Survey and its findings regarding satisfaction with service life.”

This new clause would require the Government to lay an armed forces retention strategy alongside the annual Votes A paper on the maximum number of personnel to be maintained in the Armed Forces.

New clause 14—Independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention—

“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the processes for recruitment and retention across His Majesty’s forces.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider—

(a) the efficiency and consistency of recruitment processes across the Royal Navy, the regular army, the Royal Air Force and the reserve forces,

(b) the effectiveness of steps being taken to improve diversity and inclusion within His Majesty’s forces,

(c) the impact of the quality of defence housing (including single living accommodation) on the retention of service personnel, and

(d) the impact of the medical discharge process on retention and transition to civilian life.

(3) A report of the review must be laid before each House of Parliament no later than 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause requires the Government to commission an independent review into recruitment and retention in the armed forces and lay the report of the review before Parliament.

New clause 15—Duty to provide medical records on discharge—

“(1) This section applies where a person ceases to be a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a complete copy of the person’s service medical records to be provided to the person no later than one month after the day on which the person is discharged or otherwise ceases to be a member of those forces.

(3) Those regulations may specify the manner and form in which service medical records are to be provided under this section, including provision for records to be transferred directly to a civilian health body with the person’s consent.

(4) In this section—

“health body” has the same meaning as in section 343AZB;

“service medical records” means any records relating to the person’s physical or mental health care and treatment created or maintained by or on behalf of His Majesty’s forces during the person’s period of service.”

This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that all service personnel leaving the military receive a complete copy of their medical records within one month of their discharge date.

New clause 16—Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer—

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 343C (Establishment and functions of veterans advisory and pensions committees) insert—

“343CA Establishment and functions of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer

(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to be the Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer.

(2) The general function of the Officer is to oversee the mental health care and treatment provided to veterans by the health bodies specified in section 343AZB.

(3) In exercising their function, the Officer must, in particular, monitor and assess the extent to which health bodies are complying with the duty imposed by section 343AZA (Duty to have due regard to the covenant) in relation to the mental health and well-being of veterans.

(4) The Officer may require a health body to provide such information as the Officer considers reasonably necessary to discharge their functions under this section.

(5) The Officer must prepare an annual report on the exercise of their functions and the general state of veterans’ mental health care and treatment in the United Kingdom.

(6) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Officer’s annual report before each House of Parliament.

(7) In this section, “veteran” means a person who has at any time been a service member.””

This new clause establishes the statutory role of a Veterans’ Mental Health Oversight Officer.

New clause 17—Personal independence payment reassessment exemption for amputees—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for persons who have experienced an amputation as a consequence of their membership in the armed forces to be exempt from personal independence payment reassessments except in instances in which such persons have requested a reassessment.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “personal independence payment” has the meaning given by Part 4 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that persons who have experienced an amputation as a consequence of their membership in the armed forces are exempt from personal independence payment reassessments.

New clause 18—Report on disregard of armed forces compensation in means-tested benefits—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must prepare a report on the potential merits of disapplying consideration of compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in calculating entitlements to other means-tested income benefits.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(3) The report under subsection (1) must consider compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in calculating—

(a) Pension Credit entitlements, and

(b) any other means-tested benefit where compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme is not currently disapplied in entitlement calculations.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the potential merits of disapplying consideration of compensation accrued from the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme in calculating entitlements to other means-tested income benefits.

New clause 19—National Standards, Funding and Monitoring of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty—

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After Section 343AE (Sections 343AA to 343AD: guidance) insert—

“343AEA Armed Forces Covenant Duty National Standards

(1) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance establishing clear and consistent national standards for the discharge of the duties imposed under section 343AA to 343AD (“the Covenant Duty”).

(2) The national standards must—

(a) set minimum requirements for compliance by relevant public bodies,

(b) promote consistency in the quality and accessibility of services provided to members of the armed forces community across England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and

(c) require relevant public bodies to demonstrate due regard in a manner capable of objective assessment.

(3) Relevant public bodies must have due regard to the standards issued under this section.

343AEB Funding and Support for Delivery

(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that sufficient funding is made available to support the effective implementation of the Covenant Duty.

(2) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain a dedicated Covenant Duty Training Programme, which shall—

(a) provide accessible training and guidance to relevant public bodies,

(b) promote awareness and understanding of the purpose and scope of the Covenant Duty among staff and decision-makers,

(c) support the sharing of best practice between relevant public bodies, and

(d) include provision for capacity-building where required.

(3) In determining the allocation of funding under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to variations in local demand and the particular needs of the armed forces community.

343AEC Reporting and measuring framework

(1) The Secretary of State must establish a framework for the monitoring and evaluation of compliance with, and impact of, the Covenant Duty.

(2) The framework must include—

(a) defined performance indicators and outcome measures,

(b) requirements for relevant public bodies to collect and report data relating to the Armed Forces Community in a consistent manner,

(c) annual independent review of the effectiveness of the Covenant Duty, and

(d) mechanisms to identify and disseminate learning and best practice.””

This new clause would create a requirement for guidance that sets national standards of Covenant Duty delivery across the country, for funding and resources to support delivery and to require monitoring of compliance with the duty.

New clause 20—Armed Forces Covenant report: required content—

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 343A (Armed forces covenant report), after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) An armed forces covenant report must—

(a) include an assessment of compliance with armed forces covenant duty national standards under section 343AEA,

(b) include analysis of outcomes for the armed forces community, and

(c) include recommendations for improvement.””

This new clause, which is consequential on NC19, would require the Armed Forces Covenant report to include detail on compliance with national standards, outcomes for the armed forces community and recommendations for improvement.

New clause 21—Reporting on the Defence Investment Plan—

“(1) Every six months after the passage of this Act for the duration of this Parliament, and every year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would compel the Government to publish and lay before Parliament a regular report on the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan every six months during this Parliament, and annually thereafter.

New clause 22—Report on the impact of Defence Investment Plan delays—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment of the delays to the implementation of the Defence Investment Plan.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of such delays on—

(a) small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) within the UK defence supply chain,

(b) military procurement, equipment capability timelines, and operational readiness, and

(c) the financial sustainability of defence sector businesses.

(3) In preparing the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) representatives of small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence sector, and

(b) the Defence Suppliers Forum.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a one-time report within six months of the Act’s passage assessing the impact of Defence Investment Plan delays on military procurement and defence businesses, with particular focus on SMEs.

New clause 23—Assessment of the reserve forces estate—

“(1) Six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the conditions of the reserve forces estate.

(2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of—

(a) catering provisions,

(b) personal hygiene provisions, and

(c) support for existing and new reserve forces.

(3) The Secretary of State must consult the RCFA in conducting an assessment under subsection (1).

(4) Under subsection (1) “reserve forces estate” refers to all properties managed by the RFCA.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the reserve forces estate six months after the passage of this Act and every three years thereafter.

New clause 24—Review of Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must review offences included under Schedules 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider whether any offences pertaining to domestic abuse which have been classified under Schedule 1 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 may be instead classified as an offence under Schedule 2 of that Act.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the classification of offences under Schedule 1 and 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006; it would create a specific requirement for the classification of domestic abuse offences to be considered.

Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 4, line 15, at end insert—

“and to the district and borough councils of Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would add the district and borough councils of Northern Ireland to the meaning of “local authority” in relation to the armed forces covenant.

Amendment 3, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Continuity of plans for special educational needs

(1) Within a year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must make regulations to make provision for a plan for special educational needs awarded to a person who—

(a) is a child of or dependent upon a person serving in the Armed Forces, and

(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when posted.

(2) The regulations made under subsection (1) must ensure that, if a person is required to move from one base to another as part of their service in the armed forces, any plan awarded to their child or dependent under subsection (1) must be automatically transferred to the relevant authority.

(3) A person to whom subsection (2) applies shall have reasonable time to negotiate a named school for their plan under subsection (1) with the relevant authorities.

(4) Under this section, “a plan” means—

(a) in England, an Education and Health Care Plan;

(b) in Wales, an Individual Development Plan;

(c) in Scotland, a Co-ordinated Support Plan;

(d) in Northern Ireland, a Statement of Special Educational Needs.”

This amendment would allow serving families, with a child for whom they have been awarded an Education and Health Care Plan or equivalent Special Educational Needs support, to transfer that support without penalty if they are required to move bases, for operational or other reasons, from one area to another.

Amendment 4, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements

(1) Within a year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of adoption and fostering arrangements for a person who—

(a) is a serving member of the Armed Forces,

(b) has entered into negotiations about potentially adopting or fostering children, and

(c) is required to move base as part of their military service.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must ensure that if a service family is required to move from one base to another, for operational or other reasons, any adoption or fostering arrangements they have made with their existing local authority should be appropriately transferred to the appropriate new local authority.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “appropriately transferred” means any adoption or fostering arrangements shall not be disrupted as a result of the transfer from one local authority to another.

(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for minimum residency requirements for adoption or fostering in a local authority to be waived for any service family which is required to move from one local authority jurisdiction to another, for operational or other reasons.

(5) Service families to which this section applies shall have an opportunity to renegotiate potential adoption or fostering arrangements with the new local authority, including prior to transfer to their new posting.”

This amendment would require adoption and/or fostering processes being undertaken by a service family to be automatically transferred to the appropriate local authority if that family is required to move bases as part of their service in the armed forces.

Amendment 5, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“343AZC Continuity of NHS secondary care services

(1) Within a year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the continuity of secondary care treatment for a person who—

(a) is a dependent of a member of the regular or reserve forces who is receiving secondary care services from a health body in one part of the United Kingdom, and

(b) becomes ordinarily resident in another part of the United Kingdom when the member of the armed forces to whom that person is dependent is posted.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for relevant health bodies to take reasonable steps to ensure that any course of secondary care treatment being provided to the dependent is transferred to an appropriate health body in the area to which the dependent relocates.

(a) the dependent’s treatment or place on a treatment waiting list is maintained upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and

(b) the dependent will not require a new referral form from a general practitioner or other primary care professional as a condition for continuation of treatment upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.

(3) Regulations under this section must include a requirement for a national authority to issue guidance on—

(a) the transfer of patient records,

(b) the continuation of treatment pathways upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies, and

(c) the preservation of waiting list placement upon transfer of responsibility of care between health bodies.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision for NHS secondary care services to be appropriately transferred where a person who is dependent on a member of the armed forces must become ordinarily resident in an area for which a different NHS body is responsible for care.

Amendment 14, page 6, line 43, at end insert—

“343AZC Communication regarding armed forces pensions

(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of communication with former service personnel about their armed forces pension.

(2) An assessment under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include—

(a) a review of the number of armed forces pensions which have been unclaimed,

(b) the impact of the current armed forces pensions system on former service personnel, and

(c) an assessment of the effectiveness of introducing an annual letter distribution service to inform former personnel of their pension entitlements.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

“former service personnel” means a person who has completed their services in the armed forces.

(4) Within six months of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice for communicating with former service personnel about their armed forces pension entitlements.

Amendment 15, page 6, line 43, at end insert—

“343AZC Transfer of medical assessments

(1) The Secretary of State must review current practice for the transfer of medical records and services for armed forces personnel upon their transfer to the reserve forces.

(2) A review under subsection (1) is not limited to but must include an assessment of—

(a) the time and costs associated with current practice, and

(b) the costs and benefits of introducing a case-by-case approach for determining whether a reassessment of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services is required upon their transfer to the reserve forces.

(3) Within one year of the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review current practice regarding the transfer of armed forces personnel’s medical records and services upon their transfer to the reserve forces.

Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 7, line 15, at end insert—

“(4) The Defence Housing Service will operate within a multi-year budget, which must be set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.

(5) This must specify both capital (CDEL) and revenue spending (RDEL) on the Defence Housing Service, over the period of the Defence Investment Plan”

This amendment would ensure that Defence Housing Service’s budget is set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 8, page 7, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) improving the satisfaction of service personnel and their families with the accommodation provided.”

This amendment would make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service.

Amendment 9, page 7, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) providing earmarked accommodation, as far as practicable, to facilitate members of the armed forces spending time with their child where they have a child arrangements order.

(f) for the purposes of subsection (e), a “child arrangements order” has the meaning given by section 8 of the Children Act 1989.

(g) “contract visits” for children of service personnel, who do not live with them (in accordance with any relevant court order).”

This amendment would make the Defence Housing Service responsible for providing accommodation to facilitate members of the armed forces spending time with their child where they have a child arrangements order.

Amendment 13, page 8, line 24, at end insert “and single living accommodation”.

This amendment would add single living accommodation to the definition of defence housing to ensure that defence housing standards apply to single living accommodation as well as service family accommodation.

Amendment 10, page 9, line 27, at end insert—

“(4) The Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service, once appointed, must report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.”

This amendment requires the Chief Executive of the Defence Housing Service to report directly to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces regarding the performance of the Defence Housing Service.

Amendment 12, in clause 13, page 34, line 33, at end insert—

“115C Duty to refer sexual offences and domestic abuse to civilian police

(1) This section applies where a service police force or the tri-service serious crime unit is made aware of an allegation that a person subject to service law, or a civilian subject to service discipline, has committed a relevant offence in the United Kingdom.

(2) The Provost Marshal of the relevant service police force, or the Provost Marshal for serious crime, must immediately refer the allegation and transfer the investigation to the relevant civilian police force, and inform the complainant of their right to have the investigation referred back to the relevant service police force and military courts.

(3) If the complainant requests that the case be transferred back to the military courts, the jurisdiction over the investigation and subsequent trial must be transferred back to the relevant service police force and military courts.

(4) In this section—

“relevant civilian police force” means the civilian police force for the area in which the alleged offence took place;

“relevant offence” means—

(a) any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003,

(b) an offence involving domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, or

(c) an offence of attempting or conspiring to commit an offence within sub-paragraph (a) or (b).

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify further offences which are to be treated as a relevant offence for the purposes of this section.”

This amendment requires the Service Police and the Defence Serious Crime Command to refer all allegations of sexual offences and domestic violence to the civilian police forces for investigation and subsequent trial in the civilian justice system, with the option for the complainant to transfer their case back to the military justice system if they prefer.

Amendment 6, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert—

“(iii) a retired holder of such a rank.

(iv) NCO’s – down to the level of Corporal, or equivalent.”

This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial. It would also allow soldiers down to the rank of Corporal (or equivalent) to sit on Court Martials.

Amendment 7, in clause 33, page 54, line 43, at end insert—

“69C Notice periods for recall

(1) Those reservists in Army Reserve Group A, or its equivalents, shall, following the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2026, have their standard notice reduced from readiness category R9 (180 days) to R7 (60 days).

(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘Army Reserve Group A’ has the meaning defined in the Reserve Land Forces Regulations 2026.”

This amendment would increase the readiness requirement for reservists in Army Reserve Group A from 180 days to 60 days.

Government amendment 2.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The amendments I have tabled concern the right of British nationals to engage in foreign wars. What brought them about is reports that British nationals have been involved in Israel Defence Forces activities in Gaza and other places. To prevent this from happening in future, my amendments would amend the Visiting Forces Act 1952 to give the Secretary of State power to undertake some form of legal action against those individuals. To me, it seems very obvious and very important that if, as a general principle, we say that British nationals should not be allowed to fight for a foreign force, or to engage in a war in another country under a different command, we should do something about it legally. My amendments are quite widely supported and very carefully drafted, and I hope that the Minister will understand why I tabled them and their importance.

I never thought that in my lifetime, we would be able to watch genocide taking place live on television, as is happening in Gaza. My amendments clearly state that if cases are taken to the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court, that would be enough to trigger action by the Secretary of State in this country. That is why I tabled them, and I hope that the House will take them seriously and support them.

[Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The Bill has four key themes. First, it creates the Defence Housing Service, which is a fantastic move forward; it will change for a generation how our people are looked after in service family accommodation. Secondly, it will make major improvements to our service justice system, which is another fantastic move forward. Thirdly and most importantly, it will look at how we renew our reservists. It looks at how we extend duty for our strategic reserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who I may refer to again in a few minutes. It is important to place on record the respect he has engendered across the House by resigning on an important issue of principle relating to the defence of the realm, which is, after all, the most important duty of Government, above all others. He and I have debated for five months on this Bill. We have not always agreed, but we have always dealt with each other respectfully. That respect has only been enhanced by his recent decision.

I rise to speak to new clause 11 and amendments 3, 4, 5 and 11 in my name and that of my hon. Friends. I will get into the detail of those amendments and the new clause in a moment, but before I do, I observe the courtesies of debate and congratulate the new Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), on her recent field promotion. We hope that she enjoys herself in her new post, but I caution her that there appear to have been further command changes back at the chateau as of today. We shall have to see how she fares in the re-brigading exercise that will inevitably follow, but for today, well done.

In the meantime, this Bill, which had its Second Reading back on 26 January, has been extensively debated—when the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill received both oral and written evidence; in the Select Committee’s debate phase; in Committee of the whole House on 2 June; and now on Report and Third Reading. The Opposition’s summing-up speech tonight will come from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed).

Over nearly five months, we have spent more than 40 hours taking evidence, conducting visits and debating this important Bill. As today is the culmination of its consideration in the Commons before it moves on to further scrutiny in the other place, I should say that throughout, we Opposition Members have attempted to act as a critical friend to the Bill. We have been able to do that mostly in a relatively consensual manner, although there have been occasional points of disagreement, as I suspect there may yet be this evening.

New clause 11 relates to a derogation from the European convention on human rights in the event of overseas operations under the auspices of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the proposition of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), despite the fact that I was born in his constituency, in Crouch End—or “Creuche Ende”, as the estate agents call it today. When we debated this matter in Committee, we tabled a similar new clause, based on the wording of the 2021 Act. It said that Ministers should at least consider derogating from the ECHR, if not doing so might constrain the operation of our troops when deployed overseas and leave them potentially fighting a ruthless enemy with no moral scruples, who behaved as the Russians did in Bucha during the invasion of Ukraine. Because of the ECHR, our troops could effectively be fighting with one hand tied behind their back, and could fear lawfare being used against them, perhaps even decades later, potentially at Russia’s behest. Unfortunately, the Government have been completely hopeless on this, and we have therefore firmed up the wording in our revised new clause; it says that Ministers “should” derogate in such circumstances. The principal argument, however, remains the same, and I hope that Ministers might yet be persuaded to accept the new clause.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I remind the Opposition spokesperson that new clause 1, which I tabled, would prevent the Secretary of State authorising the entry of members of visiting forces from states whose commanders are subject to International Criminal Court arrest warrants or proceedings of the International Court of Justice. I do not see how that is a problem for anyone who respects and understands the importance of international law in bringing an end to conflict, or preventing conflict. Surely the Secretary of State should not allow people to come and operate here when they have an ICC arrest warrant against them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I am afraid that I do not have time, but I would emphasise that what I have outlined does not remove the ability for councils in Northern Ireland to pledge their support as a covenant signatory. We will work very closely with colleagues in Northern Ireland to uphold covenant principles in practice.

In my former role as Minister for Veterans and People, I recently met the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), to discuss the concerns behind amendments 3, 4 and 5. We will continue to work as a Government on the best way to address those concerns in practice. Last month, I met the Minister for School Standards, who has agreed to look into the concerns raised, particularly about improving support for service families when they move.

The better route is not a rigid statutory fix; rather, it is practical improvements through existing systems. The covenant legal duty statutory guidance already gives public bodies a flexible framework for taking account of the particular challenges that service families face. However, let me be clear that considering the statutory guidance and supporting the duty is not optional; once it is in force, public bodies subject to the duty must have regard to it in their decision making and policy development. Special educational needs, adoption and fostering, and NHS continuity are incredibly important issues, but they are not well addressed through rigid legislation—the systems are different, the legal frameworks are different, and the decisions involved often depend on professional judgment. Our focus is on improving continuity in delivery, so that service families get better support without unintended consequences.

Turning to new clauses 1 and 2, the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 give effect to the provisions in the statute of the International Criminal Court. As such, they are the applicable regime for the issues raised by those new clauses, rather than the Visiting Forces Act 1952. The International Criminal Court Act exercises jurisdiction over individuals, rather than states, and any request to the UK from the ICC in respect of a warrant or investigation would be dealt with under the International Criminal Court Act as the appropriate applicable legal framework. I would add that the International Criminal Court Act already enables UK courts to prosecute relevant offences committed by UK nationals outside of the UK, irrespective of whether they are a member of a foreign military organisation.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the Minister give way?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I am afraid that I have little time, so I must make progress.

New clause 17 would exempt certain service personnel and veterans from routine reassessments or reviews of the personal independence payment. While I recognise the intention behind the amendment, it is important to note that the PIP is a civilian welfare benefit, administered by the Department for Work and Pensions. Once someone has been awarded the armed forces independence payment, it is paid for life. It is not subject to periodic reviews, and there is no requirement for reassessment; it is specifically designed to provide stability and certainty for those with the most severe, life-changing injuries sustained in service. It is set at the same level as the highest rate of PIP or disability living allowance, whether or not the recipient has any care needs.

Although I recognise the intention behind new clauses 19 and 20, a national standard is not required. I hope that what I have outlined provides the necessary assurances to the House that these new clauses are not necessary, and I ask that they be withdrawn. I commend amendment 2 to the House.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or children of serving or discharged members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years

“(1) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 is amended as follows.

(2) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 after “Forces” in paragraph (b) insert—

“(c) in a case where the application is made by a person who is a spouse or child of a member or previously serving member of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.

(3) In Table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications) in 9.18 in paragraph (b) leave out “(a) and (b)” and insert “(a), (b), and (c)”.”—(Ben Obese-Jecty.)

This new clause would amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Strategic Defence Review: Funding

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his service. He sends me a lot of written parliamentary questions, but I recognise that he does so because of his service. I can happily confirm to the House that we are replacing our entire Land Rover fleet. I was on Salisbury plain only a few weeks ago to announce the replacement vehicle competition, and I look forward to businesses coming in on that.

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, in a business of £60 billion-plus—that is the size of the MOD budget—it is normal to have in-year budget management. I do not really understand how that can come as a surprise. If a £60 billion business did not have any budget management, which is pretty normal in business affairs, there would be real questions about it. That was normal under his Government, and it is normal under this Government. We are increasing defence spending, with £5 billion extra in our budget this year.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Defence spending is rising rapidly in China, Russia, the UK, the US and all over Europe. In every country in the world, there is pressure on welfare budgets and there are increasing levels of human and social inequality. A global environmental disaster is on the horizon. At the same time, the agencies for peace—such as the UN and its agencies—and overseas aid budgets are being cut. Global inequality is getting worse, and the conditions for future wars are being created. What plans do the Government have to put some energy into a UN-led peace process to bring a cessation to the dreadful conflicts going on around the world? Where is the investment for peace in the future, or are we going to continue down the road of spending more on arms and less on people’s human needs?

[Luke Pollard]

I might spend more of my time in secure rooms at the Ministry of Defence without my mobile phone, but I do know that the right hon. Gentleman spends a lot of time in this Chamber hearing from Foreign Office Ministers about our work to call for a lasting peace, not just in Gaza but in the wider middle east. We continue to do that; we continue to invest in that. The world is a more dangerous place every single day. That is why we are increasing defence spending to deter aggression. The point of our armed forces is to deter aggression, and then—and only then—to defeat it if necessary. He is right to say that the consequences of conflict are frequently felt by the most vulnerable. That is precisely why we are continuing to call for peace, not just to end Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine—a free and independent sovereign nation—but to bring a lasting peace, with a two-state solution, for Gaza and Israel in the middle east.

Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the photographs that appeared on No. 10’s Twitter feed, to which I referred in response to the earlier question about the publication of information. He will also recall—perhaps from his time as a Defence Minister—that in 2021 the then Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, also met Alex Karp.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Does the Minister really understand the depth of anger and feeling across the country when people read and hear about Palantir—the way in which it has wormed its way into Government contracts and the national health service, and its behaviour on behalf of the Israeli Defence Forces in the destruction of Gaza and other places using artificial intelligence technology? Do we really want to be involved with a company like that? Can we not just distance ourselves from Palantir altogether and have an ethical procurement policy across Government—not just in the Ministry of Defence, but in other Departments as well?

[Luke Pollard]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s long-standing position on a number of the items he asks about. I have been clear to the House today that we will continue to work with our US friends—they are our closest defence and security partner. Where appropriate, we will look at working with US technology firms that can provide best-in-class products that deliver increased defence for our armed forces and our nation. We will continue to do that, as well as investing in UK firms.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The legal analysis that this Government have received, and indeed that the last Government received, showed that the position of UK sovereignty over the Diego Garcia military base was putting the base’s operation at risk. The reason why the last Government began the negotiations was to secure the continuing operation of the base, and it is the reason why we are doing so. Securing the future operation of that base is the primary concern of this Government. Indeed, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), it was the primary concern of the last Government as well. That is what this deal secures, and it is really important that that is understood clearly: the base is what matters in relation to its continuing operation, and that is what this deal secures.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman first and then come to the hon. Gentleman.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Could I ask the Minister to return to the human cost and the human story? In 1968, the Chagossians first began to be removed from Diego Garcia and the archipelago. Their treatment was abominable and disgusting by any stretch of the imagination. It needs a bit more than a statement of regret; it needs a full-hearted apology to all the Chagossian people for the way they were treated.

Since there is a legal judgment that the Chagos islands in their entirety, including the archipelago and Diego Garcia, should return to Mauritius, is this treaty not just completing work that was not properly done in the 1960s? Would the Minister confirm that the question of returning to live on the outer islands is agreed, but be clearer about the Chagos islanders who want to return to Diego Garcia, either to visit or to reside, in the future? History has treated them badly, and that needs to put it right.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I always respect the right hon. Gentleman, and I could put him down to speak because of his knowledge—if he wants me to, I can certainly add him to the list—but it would be better if we had shorter interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

That is precisely why my FCDO colleagues are working very closely with Mauritius to ensure that the money that is included in the treaty, and the obligations that both the UK and Mauritius sign up to in the treaty, are fully delivered so that the Chagossians receive what this treaty says they should receive. That is a really important part of the treaty.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Have the meetings undertaken by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), included all the Chagossian groups, including the Chagos Refugees Group, based in Mauritius?

[Luke Pollard]

The Minister of State has met a full range of groups, including the group mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Lamb]

It is incredibly unfortunate that the Chagossians have not been given that opportunity—that is my view. Had we given them that opportunity, whatever the outcome, I would have had no problem honouring that because we are talking about their land; it is not our land.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Member is speaking very well on behalf of his constituents. He will acknowledge that the argument for Chagossians having a right of nationality and abode in Britain was hard fought by many of the Chagossians, and some of us who were here at the time were pleased to support them in that. Yes, there are differences of opinion among Chagossians, including the Chagos refugee association, which, broadly speaking, supports this treaty, but does he not think that it is time to bring all the communities together and recognise that they have achieved an enormous amount in gaining the right of return and the right of residence, at least on the archipelago?

[Peter Lamb]

There is an enormous challenge, as I am sure the right hon. Member is aware of from his many years working with the group, in the number of disparate voices. Crawley borough council had taken it on itself to work with the different community groups, helping them to come together and form a coherent voice, out of the belief that they will only ever secure what they are all seeking by having one coherent, democratic voice for the community. Unfortunately, the deal emerged during the course of that process so there has not been that opportunity, and its timing has, to an extent, driven a rift through that community.

I am not naive; I am certain that the Bill will proceed today, so let me turn to the question, “What next?” Although mention of the Chagossians is made in the wording of the deal, I remain concerned, as other Members have alluded to, that there are gaps that leave the Chagossian people at risk. While there is the option for Chagossians to be allowed by the Mauritian Government to return to the islands, there is no requirement in the deal that that happens. There is no guarantee that any Chagossian who does return to the archipelago will not face restrictions that prevent permanent habitation, even at a subsistence level of economic activity. There is no guarantee at this time that the trust fund that is being created will be in the control of the Chagossians and used exclusively to address the consequences of their forcible removal from the islands. There is no guarantee that returning Chagossians will not face a 10-year prison sentence for questioning Mauritian territorial integrity through taking on British citizenship.

I know that many remain upset that Diego Garcia remains off limits for permanent habitation, with a view that some creativity could be used to enable rehabilitation without affecting security, particularly given the prolonged period in which asylum seekers have been present on that island. I say all this because I want to urge Ministers to continue to engage on these matters with the Mauritian Government to give the Chagossians certainty over their place in this deal.

Closer to home, there are many challenges facing Chagossians who choose to exercise their right to UK citizenship. Chief among those problems, as with so many other issues, is housing. As part of our national housing strategy, we need to ensure that every UK citizen has access to good-quality housing, and that includes British Chagossians, who, by the legal complication of their citizenship, despite having lost their homes in Chagos, receive none of the support offered by relocation schemes to other groups. That creates enormous pressures on local authorities near airports and leaves many Chagossians living in dilapidated housing conditions, if they can find accommodation at all. With the second worst housing crisis in the country, the reality is that Crawley borough council cannot on its own owe the entire country’s housing duty to the Chagossian people; a national strategy is needed.

There are challenges around access to language training and support services, which often lead Chagossians to be highly reliant on other members of the community. I regret to say that for the enormous amounts of goodwill and charity on the part of that community towards other members of it, we have had instances of that trust being abused in the form of fraud. We need a mechanism for qualifications issued in Mauritius to be recognised in the UK, and for children and young people to transition into UK educational systems—something that is complicated by the differences in term times.

Lastly, there is a desperate need for facilities for the Chagossians to preserve their unique, intangible cultural heritage, which sits at the heart of an individual’s identity and which forced deportations have to a large extent erased. With so few first-generation Chagossians left, if we do not act now, this is likely to be the last generation that sees its culture on the earth. I know that Foreign Office Ministers are meeting with Chagossian groups and have been working to get funding moving again. I am hopeful that these meetings will continue and that progress can be made on these and other challenges.

I say to all Members in the House today that this House has done enormous harm to the Chagossian people, all the way from their enslavement to the present day. I believe that handing these islands to Mauritius without their consent risks making some of that harm permanent. Nevertheless, it is within the Government’s power to address many of the consequences of forcible deportation so long ago. Regardless of the outcome of today’s vote, I beg Ministers to let this be the start and not the end of the process of making things right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Yes, I absolutely can. I am not a lawyer, but I would say it is crystal clear in the sentence the hon. Gentleman has just read: “mutually beneficial”. What the democratically elected Government of the day decided, through Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, who I said—if the hon. Gentleman was in the debate earlier, he would have heard it—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says he has other things to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suggest that if he thinks this is very important, he should have been here for the whole debate and not just intervene on a debate that I think is about national security. I repeat the point to him: the Foreign Secretary at the time ended the negotiations because, as the then Prime Minister said, “mutually beneficial” was deemed not to have been the case.

I want to touch briefly on the arguments put forward by the Government about hiding behind international law. I cannot do it justice like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, but it is clear that the Government keep hiding behind judgments that they have to follow. I remind the Minister again that it is not a binding judgment. If the Government had chosen to challenge that non-binding judgment, he would have had the support of those of us on the Opposition Benches. The Government decided not to do that and have accepted a non-binding judgment and fast-tracked the capitulation and surrender of a British overseas territory for the first time in a long time. The Minister could have challenged that decision, because it was non-binding. I shall let the record stand with the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, who went through the numerous international structures that this Government have signed up to and set out how we did not have to follow that.

Lastly, clause 2 is absolutely disastrous. The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) spoke of the historical context here. I congratulate and commend the hon. Gentleman for his speech; he is an incredibly brave and principled man who stands up for his constituents. Under clause 2, this Government have decided unilaterally to recognise that Mauritius has sovereignty over the Chagos islands. I remind the House and the Government that Mauritius has never in the historical context of the Chagos islands had sovereignty, and that this Government have chosen to give sovereignty over the islands to a country that has never had it.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will in a second.

Some, including the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), have said that we want to “return” the islands. I say that is impossible, because it is not possible to return sovereignty to a country that never had sovereignty in the first place. This is a decision and a negotiation undertaken by this Government, and they should hang their heads in shame over the way they have done it.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The agreement that was reached between the British and Mauritian Governments in 1965 was to separate the Chagos islands from Mauritius. Decolonisation processes of the UN and all others have confirmed that it should never have happened, and that they should never have been separated. If they had never been separated, we would not even be having this debate today.

[Paul Holmes]

I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, because it was clear in the negotiations that took place in the ’60s, when the United Kingdom paid Mauritius, that Mauritius actively accepted that it had no sovereignty claim over the islands, and that stands in international agreements from times gone by.

This Bill is a bad deal. It is a bad deal for the United Kingdom and for our constituents; and it is a bad deal because of the money that this Government have decided to spend, and because of their decision to tax people while spending £35 billion overseas. The Government have abandoned the usual norms of the traditional Governments of this country of standing up in a transparent way for the way we act internationally; they have decided to abdicate their responsibility in doing that.

This is a bad deal for this country. It has been welcomed by malign international partners, it has undermined our defence, and it will cost us billions. Above all, with this Bill, the Government have abandoned and avoided every scrutiny mechanism within the House of Commons that would enable hon. Members to challenge them and get the answers that this House quite rightly deserves—[Interruption.] Government Members say that we have the chance today, but I remind them that many, many Members have asked questions of Ministers about the legal position on refusing this, and Ministers have been unable and unwilling to provide answers in the context of the international law that we have spoken about to do that.

This is the day that the Labour Government showed the British people out there, as well as the Chagossians in the Public Gallery today, that they do not stand up for the people of this country. They did not stand up when we saw that international law might go against us. They chose to abandon their responsibilities to protect the people of this country and the military assets that this country has in the overseas territories.

I predict that, in the four years ahead, this £35 billion surrender treaty will come to haunt this Labour Government. I remind Government Members that after they have gone through the Lobby and voted for the Bill tonight—after they have read out their Labour party briefing saying that it is the right thing to do—they will have to knock on doors and explain how they gave £35 billion of taxpayers’ hard-earned money to a country that never had sovereignty over this British overseas territory. They should hang their heads in shame, and I think they will do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I am pleased to be able to say something in the debate. The points made about the history of this really need to be amplified a bit more. It was a disgraceful deal, done in 1965 by the then Labour Government, that created BIOT and led us on the pathway to expelling the Chagos islanders from both Diego Garcia and the wider archipelago. That was done when Mauritius was still a British colony, and the US was putting on a lot of pressure to get a base to fuel the Vietnam war. That was the context in which the deal was done.

The treatment of the Chagos islanders, which has been written about extensively by some brilliant writers, was unbelievably brutal. They were dragged out of their homes, put on boats, and sent to either Seychelles or Mauritius with no rights, no acknowledgment and no real support whatsoever. They lived for a long time in poverty in both those places. Former Members of the House who have sadly passed on did quite a lot to try to support them. The late Tam Dalyell, former MP for Linlithgow, went to Mauritius to meet Len Williams, the new governor-general at the time, and asked why people were sleeping on the streets of Port Louis. He was told, and from that point, he took up the cause of the Chagos islanders, because he thought they had been disgracefully treated. The late Robin Cook also took the matter up, both at the time and much later, when he became Foreign Secretary. We should pay tribute to them for what they tried to do.

The reality is that it was the Chagos islanders themselves who managed to get some decency and recognition. Olivier Bancoult, who has become a great friend of mine, first wrote to me in, I think, 1988. It was a beautiful handwritten letter, saying, “Dear Mr Corbyn, could you do anything to help the Chagos islanders?” We kept in touch. Indeed, I have met him many times since, including recently at the launch of his book.

The Chagos Refugees Group was founded, and it operated from Olivier Bancoult’s house. It made demands on the Mauritian Government, demands on the British Government and enormous demands on somebody who later became the British high commissioner to Mauritius, namely David Snoxell. He and Olivier Bancoult did not always get along. The latter’s pressure on David Snoxell was enormous; he once went to the extent of locking him in his office until they had a proper meeting. Olivier Bancoult is a feisty guy, and the group are feisty people. We should recognise that the group’s determination brought about compensation and a litany of court cases all over the country and the world. I have been to many of the hearings; I have heard arguments made in the decolonisation committee and at the UN Human Rights Council, and at a whole series of court processes in Britain to try to get compensation and recognition of the rights of the Chagos islanders.

Today, we are dealing with the consequences of the unbelievable heroism of the Chagossian people, who have been seeking recognition and justice. I regret that there are now differences within the Chagossian community. Tam Dalyell and I strongly supported the move to get a right to British nationality for Chagos islanders, and to amend the relevant nationality Act. That was eventually achieved, and that is how, I am pleased to say, they now have unfettered access to this country. I am also pleased that the treaty continues to include that unfettered access. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, can explain what discussions he has had with all the elements of the Chagossian community. The last thing we want to see is division in a community that has suffered so much, and deserves so much decency and recognition.

If the Chagos islands in their entirety are not passed over to Mauritius and Mauritian sovereignty, there are two consequences. First, there will be even greater dishonesty than we thought there was in 1975, and secondly, Britain will be in breach of an ICJ judgment. If that is what people want—if that is what Conservative and Reform Members want—so be it, but they would be acting illegally by hanging on to the islands. BIOT will go, and there will be Mauritian sovereignty over the whole area.

I supported the principles behind the marine protection zone, although I did not support the no-take element that was included at the beginning. I wanted Chagos islanders to be able to return to the archipelago, and to undertake sustainable fishing and so on. I am assured that the Mauritian Government support and recognise the need to preserve the pristine beauty of the ocean around there. I am less convinced that the military and the United States forces are equally committed to the preservation of the natural world and the environment. The record is not good—not perfect. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, can assure us that there will be proper inspection, not just of the outer islands, but of the seas and the land of Diego Garcia.

It is wrong that the islanders were removed. It is right that they have an opportunity to return, which is what they have always campaigned for. I find it unfortunate beyond belief that they will only be allowed to visit Diego Garcia. Imagine if we could only visit the home where our parents lived, or the graves where many of our relatives had been buried. There is an emotional relationship there that will be broken by the refusal of the right of abode in future. I understood from previous discussions with the Minister and others that there could be a possibility of the return of a right of abode. I am not sure; maybe he can reply to that.

Am I happy about there being a huge military base on Diego Garcia? No. Am I happy about the rhetoric that has been used in this debate, which seems to be cranking up the idea of yet another cold war, when we should be looking for a world of peace, rather than one of war? I find that depressing, and not really fit for this debate.

There is a right of people who live under colonisation to achieve their independence. That was achieved by Mauritius, but it was thwarted in 1965. By agreeing now to return all the islands and the archipelago to Mauritius, we are completing a process that should have taken place in 1965, prior to Mauritius’s independence in 1968. Had that happened, and had there been no separation and creation of BIOT in 1965, we would not be having this debate today, because the issue would simply not have arisen.

Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I cannot confirm the anticipated in-service date beyond saying that we are hopeful that we will get the aircraft as soon as possible and that we will be able to use them as soon as possible thereafter, subject to all the usual requirements to get something in service. That is as good as I can do for the hon. Gentleman today, I am afraid.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The Minister just confirmed that the UK adheres to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That treaty requires the declared nuclear-armed states not to allow proliferation and to take steps towards nuclear disarmament. What the Minister has announced today is an increase in nuclear capability, with the construction of new nuclear warheads that can obviously be used anywhere in the world by airdropping them. Can she explain how it is possible to say that this announcement is in compliance with the NPT when it is so obviously and clearly the very opposite of that?

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong, I am afraid. It is in compliance with the non-proliferation treaty. The NATO nuclear mission would carry US nuclear weapons, which are already subject to the non-proliferation treaty. What we are announcing today is the buying of aircraft that are capable of assisting with that mission, not the purchasing of new nuclear weapons. I hope that is clear for the right hon. Gentleman.

UK Military Base Protection

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I often find the phrase “Flip it to see it” is useful to identify whether there is inbuilt bias in how we approach a topic. As he suggests, if we were to flip Palestine Action to a number of other groups, it would clearly be regarded with the same seriousness with which the Government are approaching it. I am very glad that the strong message, on a cross-party basis, has gone out today that what we saw in Brize Norton is unacceptable and that it is right that we take measures to keep our national security safe.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Could I ask the Minister to think carefully about the contributions made today by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) concerning naming somebody as a terrorist, when they are in fact protesting about the appalling events in Gaza and the treatment of children by Israeli forces? It is surprising that in the Minister’s statement, which described a lot about the military situation all over the middle east, he said not one word about the illegal occupation of the west bank, the illegal occupation of Gaza and the deliberate starvation, contrary to all aspects of international law, of the civilian population of Gaza. Can we not deal with the fundamental issue, which is the illegal activities of the Israeli Defence Forces in those scenarios?

Strategic Defence Review

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is a powerful voice and advocate for that approach and for Telford. He will welcome the additional UK investment under this Government, which means that we will have a new gun barrel factory in his constituency that will bring new jobs and prosperity. That is part of defence investment driving future economic growth in this country.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The world is in the midst of an arms race. Last year, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, $2.7 trillion was spent on arms—a 9% increase on the previous year. The Secretary of State is proposing a substantial increase in defence expenditure by this country. I find it sad and disappointing that in the review there is no analysis, documentation or process for how we reduce tensions around the world, bring an end to existing conflicts, and enhance and empower the world’s institutions, such as the United Nations, to avoid conflict in future, so that we can deal with the real issues of insecurity—poverty and hunger—that force so many people around the world to become refugees. Surely we could be doing things in a way that brings about a more peaceful world, rather than just pouring more and more money into weapons.

[John Healey]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s argument and point of view. He overlooks the fact that the strategic defence review draws on more than 8,000 submissions, which were part of the material on which the reviewers based their recommendations and vision. I simply say to him that we deter those conflicts that have such massive human and economic costs by being strong enough to defeat the adversaries who would do us harm. That is why NATO has been the most successful defence alliance in history over the last 35 years, and that is why we will step up and play a more leading role in NATO for the future.

UK Nuclear Deterrent

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

Well, it was a question of two halves. I agree with the hon. Lady on the first half, and I am grateful for the cross-party nature of what we can achieve here. It is a source of great pride to all Defence Ministers that our strong support for our nuclear deterrent and our national security was in the Labour manifesto, which enjoyed incredible support at the last general election. We are not only bringing forward a strategic defence review that will update our capabilities, but bringing forward our commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP to April 2027—three years before anyone thought that was possible. It is thanks to the brave decision by the Prime Minister that we can renew our capabilities and increase our deterrent capability as a country.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

It was a Labour Government led by Harold Wilson in the 1960s that initiated the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and it was during the cold war that the number of nuclear warheads was reduced by the five declared nuclear weapon states. This announcement by the Secretary of State, and today’s talk of increasing nuclear warheads, is in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and is at variance with the global nuclear ban concept of getting rid of nuclear weapons. How is the world made safer by the ability to destroy it more times over than exists at present? Where is the strategy for nuclear disarmament? Where is the strategy for peace?

[Luke Pollard]

I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman’s question comes from a heartfelt and personal belief in nuclear disarmament. On this side of the House, we support international disarmament obligations to the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and the obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. I gently say to him, however, and to all hon. Members, that we are facing increased nuclear threats as a nation not just from established nuclear powers, but from the risk of proliferation of nuclear technology, especially as that technology becomes more mobile, portable and miniaturised. It was precisely for that reason that that featured as part of the strategic defence review that the Defence Secretary will detail further shortly.

UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

In reply to an earlier question, the Secretary of State talked about the devastation in Yemen, with 11 million people in desperate need of help and support, and the civil war conditions that pertain there. On the armed intervention that Britain made yesterday, we all need to know where it will lead, what the end game is, whether we are involved in an internal war in Yemen, and what the long-term implications of our involvement are. Ultimately, there has to be some kind of peace process in Yemen, just as much as there has to be in Gaza and elsewhere in the region. Does this action bring peace nearer, or does it exacerbate the danger of a widening conflict?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House of the extreme hardship faced by many Yemenis in what has been a war-torn country for years. The strikes last night were designed to reduce and prevent the risk of further Houthi attacks, and they were done because we were able to take out an important facility where the Houthis had been manufacturing the very weapons used to target international shipping and our own.