Armed Forces Bill

Michelle Scrogham Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

As Members on both sides of the House have said over many years, this Bill is unlike most others that come before us. It is not simply a piece of Government business; it is the foundation on which our armed forces rest. It is renewed every five years and carries with it a deep responsibility.

I am proud to stand here in support of this Bill, and to reflect the priorities of my constituents in Barrow and Furness, a community whose identity and prosperity are bound with the defence of this nation. In Barrow and Furness, thousands of highly skilled workers design and build the submarines that keep our nation safe. Families move in and out as part of service life, and veterans settle and make their homes. For Barrow, defence is a lived experience, so when this House considers how we support those who serve, people in my community are listening closely.

The Bill comes before us at a time of profound global uncertainty. The security environment has changed dramatically since the last Armed Forces Act was debated, in 2021. We face new global threats and constant cyber-attacks, and those who might wish to harm us are testing our levels of defence and resilience on a daily basis. In this context, the provisions to strengthen the strategic reserve are vital. Expanding the pool of former personnel who can be called on in times of national need recognises the enormous value of their skills and experience. Many veterans possess specialist capabilities in engineering, intelligence, logistics and cyber that cannot easily be replaced. It is right that this country should draw on their expertise in a crisis.

There is another aspect of this Bill that I welcome wholeheartedly: the decision to put the armed forces covenant fully into law. This was a clear manifesto commitment of the Labour party, and I am proud that this Government are delivering it. Unfortunately, the Defence Committee, on which I sit, found that many people in the armed forces community are not aware of the covenant or do not have a clear understanding of what it means for them. That must change.

For too long, the covenant relied on good will alone. Too often, service families and veterans have found themselves at a disadvantage, and have struggled to access housing, healthcare, education or employment because of the unique demands of their military life. Putting the covenant on a statutory footing is not about special treatment; it is about preventing unfair treatment and ensuring that those who serve are not penalised for doing so. In Barrow and Furness, I see why that matters every week. I meet veterans navigating complex systems, and I meet partners trying to rebuild careers after repeated relocations. This Bill offers something that they have long deserved: practical, enforceable recognition from the state.

I welcome the establishment of the new defence housing service. Good-quality accommodation for service personnel is fundamental to morale and family wellbeing. Too many of our armed forces families have been let down over the years by poor housing and inadequate maintenance. An end to the Tories’ disastrous 1996 privatisation of military housing, which cost the taxpayer billions, is long overdue.

Labour has always believed in strong defence. We are the party of NATO and understand that our nation’s security is the first duty of any Government. We have increased spending on defence to its highest level since the cold war and will increase it further in the coming years, but we also know that strength must go hand in hand with fairness. Supporting our armed forces means more than words; it means decent homes, proper healthcare, fair treatment in civilian life and real opportunities for veterans. This Bill makes progress on all those fronts.

The direction is the right one. We are modernising our armed forces, strengthening support for those who serve, and delivering on the promises made to them. For communities like mine in Barrow and Furness, that matters deeply. I welcome this legislation, and I look forward to working constructively with Ministers as it moves through Parliament.

Our Government were elected with a clear commitment to renew the nation’s contract with the men and women who serve in our armed forces, and with the ranks of veterans who have put their lives on the line for the UK. The message to our armed forces is clear: this Government are on your side.

Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

Michelle Scrogham Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak today on behalf of the people of Barrow and Furness as we mark this season of remembrance. Each year, we pause to reflect on the courage, duty and sacrifice of those who served, including those who never returned and those who live with the cost of service every day.

In Barrow and Furness, remembrance runs deep. Our town has long been bound to the defence of the nation not only through the proud service of the men and women in uniform, but through the hands and skills of the generations who built and maintained the Royal Navy submarines. Every steel plate and rivet crafted in Barrow is part of a commitment to peace through strength, the nuclear deterrent that has kept our country safe for over half a century. Those who work in our shipyard and those who served before them understand that deterrence is not abstract, but the quiet assurance that our nation can protect itself and prevent conflict. Their work honours the memory of those who fought to secure that peace. Alongside that proud industrial tradition stands our Army Reserve centre in Barrow, where local men and women train and serve with professionalism and pride. They embody the spirit and service that runs through our community.

My late grandfather Charles Arthur Beadell served in the second world war. He was my favourite person in the world, a devoted and fun-loving grandparent who would tell a very young me tales of war sanitised for my six-year-old ears. I had no idea until I had grown up and he had passed that those stories were a form of therapy. The horrors he saw haunted him, leaving him screaming in his sleep for the rest of his life. He had taken lives and watched those around him lose theirs. He had been blown up with his team, and being the only survivor, he was the lucky one. Yet he never once showed any bitterness towards German soldiers, and often remarked that they did not want to be there any more than him, but they were all serving their country. In a world with so much anger and hate, I think of his words of wisdom with hope.

Remembrance is not just about looking back. It is about the duty we owe to today’s veterans, reservists and service personnel. It means ensuring the success of the armed forces covenant: those who serve our country deserve not to be disadvantaged for their service. I was proud to sit on the Committee on the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, which created an advocate to ensure that those who have served are never left behind. Today, let us ensure that our commitment to peace and security continues through the work done in my constituency, in constituencies across the country and here in Parliament. We will remember them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michelle Scrogham Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

Veterans not only defended the nation while in service, but they go on to deliver the second mission of Government, which is to help us prosper. I have met representatives from Mission Community, which does a fantastic job, several times. It is worth noting that veterans who engage with our career transition pathway on transitioning to become civilians have an 88% success rate in going straight into employment. Op Ascend, which we launched at the National Transition Event, has seen thousands of families and veterans connected up with industry to move that collaboration forward. I will write the hon. Lady with details about specific industries in due course.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

This Government are resetting the relationship between those who serve and those who served. The Government’s response to the Defence Committee’s inquiry into the armed forces covenant was positive. Will the Minister provide an update on the work that is being to strengthen the covenant?

Afghanistan

Michelle Scrogham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I look forward to being called to give evidence to the hon. Gentleman’s Committee if it does launch such an inquiry. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no serving member of our armed forces is put at risk by the data loss.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

It is staggering to hear of yet another serious data breach under the previous Conservative Government. Does the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Conservative Members can bicker from their Benches, but it was clearly a mistake made when they were in power. Does the Secretary of State agree that we have inherited a chaotic and poorly managed system, and can he tell us what systems have been put in place to correct that? We must not see more systems with officials emailing an Excel spreadsheet—it absolutely beggars belief. Can he confirm that this will never happen again?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in the criticism she levels. I would just say, however, that I do not think any Minister could stand here and guarantee that there will never be another data breach, data loss or data error in that way, in the same way that no chief executive of any organisation could say so. I can say that we have taken steps to reduce the risk of that happening and that we no longer do any casework on spreadsheets, which was the technology that was available in the early days of this scheme. That was part of the problem, I think, in the inadvertent mistake made by the Defence official.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Michelle Scrogham Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Implementing the armed forces covenant is something that this Government feel strongly about. That is why we are bringing forward legislation that will implement the armed forces covenant fully into law on a national basis, so that it grips not just on local authorities but on central Government. There is real merit in implementing the armed forces covenant at a local level. There are pockets of best practice nationwide—not just in military cities like Plymouth, which I represent, but across the country. It can also be of benefit to councils and communities, so I would encourage him to continue his campaign to ensure that the covenant is properly implemented.

For too long we have heard stories of bad experiences that have gone unchallenged, some resulting in tragedy. The Defence Secretary has made it clear from his first day in the Department that there will be zero tolerance for this type of behaviour. That is why we are acting, and that is why I hope that the whole House will support this vital endeavour and the amendments to the Bill.

I invite the House to agree to Lords amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, which were made by the Government in response to suggestions made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. They have the effect of fully implementing the Committee’s recommendations to change the regulation-making power to define relevant family members contained in the Bill from the negative to the affirmative procedure.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

I recently met the mother of Jaysley Beck, who tragically took her own life after being sexually assaulted and abused within the services. I was really impressed by her mother’s strength and her campaign. Does the Minister agree that the Bill will give more powers to family members, and that maybe we can avoid these tragic incidents in future?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising a serious case and a real tragedy, not just for the family of Gunner Beck but our entire armed forces. It needs to be a wake-up call, where we recognise that the behaviour within some of our services is unacceptable and that we need to make improvements. For that very reason we must continue to support the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, because it will enable family members as well as those serving in uniform to raise genuine service welfare complaints with the commissioner.

It will not solve every problem we have with the culture in our armed forces, but it provides a route for individuals to raise concerns outside the chain of command with an independent champion. My hon. Friend mentions a conversation she had with Gunner Beck’s family, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that to make sure that we properly learn the lessons that defence needs to learn.

I am proud to come from a naval family and to say clearly from this Dispatch Box that the families of our armed forces matter. For the very first time, this Bill will give them a say and allow them to raise concerns. Family members are a crucial element of the commissioner’s remit, and we agree that the definition of a relevant family member should be subject to parliamentary debate and approval. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), raised that point on Second Reading, and we support it. We are moving it from the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure, which will enable that discussion to take place.

Lords amendment 7 is a technical amendment that is consequential on clause 3, and I invite the House to support it. Clause 3 amends section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to specify that a “person” rather than only an “officer” may decide whether a service complaint is admissible. This is an evolution of the way that the service complaints system has worked and is a prudent change to make.

Strategic Defence Review

Michelle Scrogham Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Given the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes, there are two things that I am surprised he has not welcomed. The first is the historic increase in defence spending that this Government have already put made, with an extra £5 billion in our first year in government alone; he will remember that when his party came into power in 2010, it cut defence spending by £2 billion in a year. We also have a commitment and plan to increase spending to 2.5% in two years’ time and to 3% in the next Parliament, which is an ambition that I am confident we will fulfil. He is right to say that if we are to meet the challenges of the SDR, and the challenges of reinforcing our industrial base and our armed forces, we cannot do it alone. We are not doing it alone; we are one of 32 nations in NATO. The second thing that I am surprised he has not welcomed is our security and defence partnership agreement with the European Union, which is potentially a first step to working with other European nations in the EU, and using financing that may be available in Europe to do exactly as he urges.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

I am sure that the whole House is in no doubt about just how proud we are in Barrow and Furness to be building the submarines that keep our nation safe. The commitment to expanding this country’s submarine programme, with up to 12 SSN-AUKUS boats to be built in our shipyard, is the start of the next chapter of that illustrious career. Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence spending under this Labour Government means investment in British companies, in local supply chains and in the very fabric of our communities?

[John Healey]

I do indeed; my hon. Friend is right. She is a strong champion for Barrow and its shipyard. As she will know, the investment programme that we have confirmed is about increasing the ability to produce more submarines more rapidly, and reaching the point where we can look to design, build and launch a new attack submarine every 18 months. That will allow us to respond to the threats that we anticipate in 10 and 20 years’ time, and to meet our NATO commitments.

We will succeed to the extent that we have a Government ready to invest, and a town in Barrow and a supply chain of proud workers from across the UK who are willing to lend their professional expertise to this most important mission: securing our nation’s defences for the future; contributing to a stronger NATO; and reinforcing our ability to generate jobs and prosperity, including in Barrow.

UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility

Michelle Scrogham Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The short answer is that we must do what we can with allies to make it as hard as possible for Iran to maintain both its financial support to the Houthis and its logistical, munitions and military support and supplies. We are working on that with allies and, as I said to the House earlier, the straight military action that we were conducting last night is part of the solution for the long term. It is not the whole solution.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. We have had a long-standing relationship with the US, which is our closest security ally. Does he agree that our continued work on AUKUS will help to deepen and strengthen that for all the nations involved?

[John Healey]

It will indeed. The AUKUS programme is a good example of how big defence commitments provide not just long-term deterrent commitments to our own security and that of our allies but an important economic boost, showing how defence can be a driver of economic growth. My hon. Friend, who has the privilege of representing the town of Barrow and its royal shipyard, will know better than anyone how important that combination is. It is hardwired into the approach that this Government take.

Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response

Michelle Scrogham Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Our UK servicemen and women will appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s thanks. I can give him that assurance. Most importantly, I can give him the commitment that we made to the British people at the election that the Government will increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—a level that Britain has not spent on defence since 2010.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

Over recent years, we have seen a large increase in Russian activity of this type, and it is clear that the need for subsurface protection is critical and increasing. The UK sub fleet is built at BAE Systems in my constituency, and we play a vital role in countering this threat. Will the Secretary of State comment on the support that the Government will continue to provide to ensure that the submarine fleet continues to play this central role in the defence of our nation?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. I, too, am intensely proud of everything that is done, designed and developed at the Barrow shipyard. It is central to our UK security, and has been for decades. Like me, she will be proud that the Royal Navy submarine that surfaced close to the Yantar in November, which led to the Yantar heading directly off to the Mediterranean, was built in that Barrow shipyard.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting)

Michelle Scrogham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Lady is right. The amendment says that the commissioner should make the appointment; I hope we have given the rationale for why we believe that is important. What sort of KC the commissioner employed, and how often they used them, would be a matter for the commissioner: they would still have some discretion and, as has been intimated, there are KCs and KCs.

But the principle of the amendment is that the commissioner should have access to senior legal advice because lawfare is becoming more and more of an issue for armed forces personnel. For the sake of brevity, I will not read into the record a very good article that appeared in The Spectator about why people are leaving the Special Air Service because of the issue. It is a problem for retention in the armed forces, particularly in certain units, and this is an attempt to acknowledge that.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

To refer back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North said, the amendment does say that the commissioner’s staff “must” include a King’s counsel. That would effectively tie the hands of the commissioner, firmly setting that budget. I would much rather that they had flexibility, so that they could choose who they wanted to serve within their staff; should they need a KC, they would be very welcome to get one. Including that they “must” would eat that budget, which could be used elsewhere if needed.

[Mr Francois]

I understand the hon. Lady’s question, and I do not want to get into an “angels on a pinhead” argument, but that member of staff could be part-time. It could be that on the staff of the commissioner is a qualified KC, but only brought into action when there is a specific legal aspect to be examined—they would not necessarily have to sit in their office five days a week waiting for a case to come in. If there was no work, then they would not necessarily be employed.

I accept that perhaps we should have put the words “part or full-time” into the amendment, but the key thing is that the commissioner would have access to a King’s counsel, even on a part-time basis, to deal with complaints that have a specific legal aspect, including aspects of lawfare. We did not mandate in the amendment that it had to be a full-time role.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting)

Michelle Scrogham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Amanda Martin]

Q Thank you for your service and for doing what seems to be a great job in the circumstances. You alluded to the fact that this has been a long time coming, that you have been pushing for this and that there had previously been no backlog. The aim of the new Bill is to improve service licence conditions for service personnel. I have spoken to a number of them in my Portsmouth constituency, and one of the concerns, which you echoed, is that there seems to be a delta between the people who come forward and the things that happen. How do you see a change in the commissioner role improving things for those who come forward? Some service personnel say that they still have concerns around the trust and whether it will affect their career if they make a complaint.

Mariette Hughes: Trust and confidence in the service complaints system is something that we have been driving hard as SCOAF, and that work would continue. This is what I think is interesting about the commissioner role. When we do outreach visits, I sit down and do focus groups with service personnel, where I kick all the chain of command out of the room and get them to tell me what they actually feel and experience. What is really interesting for me is that in those conversations, a number of issues, frustrations, grumbles and gripes are raised, and they are not the sorts of things that normally become service complaints, because to the individual they do not feel big enough or they do not feel that they have been personally wronged—it is just part and parcel of their service life—or they do not think that raising a service complaint will change it. We have those conversations because it relates to service complaints. It talks about that mental resilience, the things they are putting up with that chip away and then lead them to situations where they feel they have to complain.

Under the commissioner’s powers, you would be able to raise those issues and put those into reports that can be laid in the House and brought into the light—all the issues that people are telling us about, such as their accommodation or concerns around food or policies that affect their families. At the moment, I am gathering that information as good background for service complaints, but the commissioner role would be able to take that forward and say, “This is affecting all three services” or “Actually, it is affecting this service more than the other.” So this really rich information will help promote those welfare things that currently do not have enough light shining on them.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

Can I ask for your views on the German armed forces commissioner? Obviously, this measure has been modelled on that.

Mariette Hughes: You can, of course. I know Dr Eva Högl quite well. We are both members of the International Conference of Ombuds Institutions for the Armed Forces, which is a mouthful, so I will say ICOAF. We have a conference every year. She is an absolutely incredible person and has done really good things with that office. It is an interesting model for this to be based on. There are some differences that we have to be alive to. The key one for me—apologies if this comes up later—is around the terminology. Dr Högl is the Commissioner for the Armed Forces. Germany does not have a fully established ombudsman scheme in the same way that the UK does. We have 22 established schemes under the Ombudsman Association. On Eva’s website, she describes herself as “the ombudsman for the armed forces”. It is simply that the title “parliamentary commissioner” fits with their legal framework.

There are also some interesting differences. Eva has had these powers for a long time and uses them very well. However, she does not have the oversight of service complaints that I have, so this would be an extended remit compared with the German model. It is brilliant to draw inspiration from it. Being members of those communities together, we are always looking at best practice in other countries. There are necessarily some differences in this country, but it is certainly a good starting point.

[Michelle Scrogham]

Q Do you think the German model will translate to the UK?

Mariette Hughes: I think we have to build our own model; we have to look at what our key issues are. Germany is a different landscape and a different framework and has been operating for a huge number of years. We cannot just pick it up and start doing things the way they do. We need to start with what our key focuses are and how we think we can have the most impact and scale up operations, and go from that.

We might end up looking at things slightly differently. A lot of Dr Högl’s focus is on investment in defence and pushing for bigger budgets. Does that necessarily tie in with what we are seeing about the welfare of service personnel? There may be issues that cross over into that, but we would have a slightly different focus from the German parliamentary commissioner.

[Michelle Scrogham]

Q What should we be learning from the German model to make improvements here?

Mariette Hughes: For me, the best thing from the German model that I would like us to learn from and take forward is the voice that Dr Högl has within the German Parliament. She has a permanent seat; she sits in all the sessions. I am not saying that the commissioner should have that, but they should certainly have the ability to lay reports directly or have them laid in the House so that more focus is placed on this. There is absolutely no point having all this access and information and creating the reports if they do not go anywhere and nobody talks about them. That level of parliamentary oversight and visibility is what we should mirror from the German system.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for joining us. The Ombudsman Association has questioned the use of the term “commissioner” in relation to this role, on the grounds that it is usually used for bodies with less influence. What are your views on that?

Mariette Hughes: I am also a board member of the Ombudsman Association. You will not be surprised to know that my views align very closely with those of the chair of the Ombudsman Association. I understand why we are using the word “commissioner”, based on the fact that we were mirroring the German system, but as set out in the letter from the chair, the Cabinet guidance is very clear that “ombudsman” is the gold standard.

As I have mentioned, we have 22 established schemes; we have a very wide network of ombudsmen. Within my office, we have spent a lot of time trying to get people to understand the value of an ombudsman, what it is and what it does. Having been the service complaints commissioner previously, I worry that going back towards “commissioner”—going from service complaints commissioner to service complaints ombudsman to armed forces commissioner—is a step back. It feels like if we are doing that, is the next step not armed forces ombudsman? Do we not just go there straightaway?