Gurkha Veterans

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I am privileged to have seen the service and sacrifice of the Gurkhas to the British Army at first hand during my visit to Brunei last year, where I had the honour of being hosted by the First Battalion, The Royal Gurkha Rifles as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—a scheme that I know the Minister is a firm supporter of.

The Headquarters Brigade of Gurkhas is also located at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, which I am proud to represent, though I should clarify that the headquarters itself falls just outside the constituency. Bracknell Forest is also home to a thriving Nepalese community, focused mostly around Sandhurst. In fact, Nepalese is the second most commonly spoken language in our borough after English.

Every time I meet a Gurkha, or visit our armed forces and see how integral the Gurkhas are to our global reputation and our capabilities, I am reminded of the words inscribed on the Gurkha soldier memorial, not 500 yards from this Chamber. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for reminding us of these important words.

“Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.”

As today’s debate has already demonstrated, there is rightly deep respect for Gurkhas across this House. Today is an important opportunity to recognise all that Gurkha veterans have done to defend this country’s interests and security, and to pay tribute to them for that. That is why it is only right that we respect their sacrifice and contributions in kind.

I was proud recently to put my name, alongside a number of colleagues, to a letter to the Veterans Minister from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), who is an ardent champion for the Gurkhas. Her work on this has already been rightly highlighted today in this debate. The letter welcomed the election of a new Government in Nepal and recognised the importance of continued constructive engagement on Gurkha welfare with Nepal. I know that the Government are committed to putting the delays of previous Governments behind us and making progress where others have failed to do so. I look forward to supporting their work to achieve a fairer deal for Gurkha veterans.

One area that I would particularly like to highlight, as the Government pick up our conversations with the new Government in Nepal, is the recruitment of women into the Gurkhas. I know that this is an issue that the Government have raised previously, so can I take this opportunity to ask for the Minister’s assurances that they will continue to pursue this with the new Nepalese Government?

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I emphasise the will that I know exists in this place to work collaboratively with Nepal on this issue? I welcome the opportunity to continue the dialogue with the new Government and reinstate my support for efforts to find a resolution that properly recognises the enormous contribution made by Gurkhas to our country. Only then can we ever hope to begin to repay the huge debt of gratitude that we owe to our Gurkha veterans; and to be as faithful friends to them as they have been, and continue to be, to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for the way he introduced this debate. In particular, I think the whole House is grateful for the detailed description he gave of the very gallant service of Ghanendra Limbu and his experiences serving in the Falklands. The contribution of the Gurkhas to the Falklands is a story not told as frequently or as loudly as it should be, and I am grateful to him for putting that on the record.

I am standing in today for my colleagues the Minister for Veterans and People, who leads on Gurkha issues in the Ministry of Defence, and the Minister for the Armed Forces, who looks after the composition of the United Kingdom’s armed forces. I will pass on a number of the requests for meetings made by my hon. Friends to the Minister for Veterans and People, who is very happy to continue her discussions with Members of Parliament and, indeed, representatives of the Gurkha community. I know the hon. Member for Tewkesbury did not have time to ask his questions—luckily, his office sent me a copy of his questions in advance—so I am pleased to confirm that the Minister for Veterans and People would be happy to meet him to talk in detail through the issues he wanted to raise.

I join Members across the House in honouring the extraordinary service of Gurkhas and their families, who, for more than 200 years, have stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain, serving the Crown with unwavering dedication and courage. The Gurkhas’ legacy is woven into the very fabric of our armed forces, and successive Governments have recognised not only their unique history and contribution, but the responsibilities that the UK Government share as a result.

In that spirit, we have in place a range of measures to support Gurkha veterans and families, implemented by this Government and previous ones. As we would expect, eligible Gurkha veterans in the UK are entitled to the same welfare support as all UK veterans, in terms of access to Ministry of Defence-funded services and to the vital work of third sector organisations. We have collaborated closely with Gurkha veteran representatives, and continue to listen to their priorities and concerns. The Minister for Veterans and People met the Gurkha G10 representatives last week, and will do so again shortly.

As a result of this engagement, a range of cross-Government opportunities have been identified, and work is being done between a number of Departments to take those opportunities forwards, shaped by what Gurkha veteran representatives have told us matters most to them. This includes clearer immigration guidance, targeted outreach to improve access to benefits, and stronger support for health and social care, which was raised by a number of colleagues.

For those who have returned home to Nepal, our commitment does not end at the border. Welfare provision in Nepal is shaped to local needs, with the Gurkha Welfare Trust providing tailored support and delivering essential welfare and medical care with community programmes in Nepal, as it has in the United Kingdom. UK Government funding of nearly £10 million a year helps to sustain that work, recognising that many Gurkha veterans choose to return to Nepal and continue their lives there. In addition to the £40 million committed by the previous Government in 2019, we have provided a £24 million uplift to the medical and healthcare grant in aid already in place. The UK Government have agreed in principle to extend that support beyond 2029, and in addition we have committed to uplift support for the Gurkha welfare advice centres.

Gurkha veterans also benefit equally from the provisions of the armed forces covenant, which we are seeking to extend into law in the Armed Forces Bill, as mentioned by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I would like to recognise the work of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs in leading the charge through our new veterans’ support service, Valour, which brings Government, local authorities and the voluntary sector together, so that every veteran, including those who have served in the Gurkhas, can access the healthcare, employment, housing and mental health support that they deserve. It is about ensuring that no one falls through the cracks, and that the support is joined up across government.

I recognise that a number of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have Gurkha communities in their constituencies, and I join the praise for those communities. Although the Gurkha community in my Plymouth constituency is much smaller than those of some of my colleagues, it is none the less strongly supported across Plymouth.

Before I turn to pensions, I want to respond to two points that were raised during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) mentioned direct flights; I recommend that he speaks to the Aviation Minister about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) asked about the recruitment of women into the Gurkhas. He will know that that decision sits with the Government of Nepal rather than with the Government of the United Kingdom.

I cannot let the opportunity go by without echoing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) that Gurkha curries are absolutely delicious. The kindness and generosity that I have received from serving Gurkhas when visiting our deployed troops underlines what an important contribution they make to our military service and, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said, to morale as well.

[Peter Swallow]

I thank the Minister for all that he has said so far. We have had an incredibly harmonious debate, with views shared by Members from across the House on this important issue. I note that a Member of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), has now entered the Chamber, but does the Minister share my concern that Reform Members did not contribute to the debate? This is not the first time that we have had an important debate on defence from which Reform Members have been absent. Does he agree that if that party wants to present itself as being serious about defence, perhaps it should involve itself when we are debating important issues such as this?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point and has placed it on the record.

The matter of pensions was raised by a number of colleagues, including the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. As has been discussed, this is a challenging area. We have honoured the historical terms under which each Gurkha served. At the time of the 1948 GPS, Gurkhas were eligible for an immediate pension after 15 years’ service, typically at a much younger age than their British counterparts. Indeed, they were eligible from the age of 33. That resulted in pensions being paid for a significantly longer period than would have been available to UK service personnel at the time. I entirely understand the calls for parity, but it is important to compare like with like at the time, and I will come to what that would mean in due course.

Although the monthly pension payments under the Gurkha pension scheme may be smaller than those of their British counterparts, the Gurkha pension scheme was paid for a significantly longer period. Indeed, based on the Government Actuary’s Department report, this longer payment period means that the vast majority of Gurkha pension scheme recipients receive pensions at least as good as—and, in many cases, better than—the comparable pension for a British soldier.

It is worth noting that until 1975, British personnel who left at the point of 15 years’ service had no right to a pension at all, not even a deferred one. After the introduction of preserved pensions, soldiers who left before 22 years of service and officers who left before 16 years of service were entitled to receive their pension only from the age of 60. The Gurkha pension scheme also makes generous provision for dependants, reflecting the fact that members were expected at that time to retire to Nepal after service. Over time, that changed, and since 2006 all new Gurkha recruits have joined the armed forces pension scheme alongside their British colleagues.

Gurkhas serving between July 1997 and 2007 were given an opportunity to transfer to the AFPS. Those Gurkhas who left before 1997 receive the GPS pension. These arrangements have been tested and upheld through two judicial reviews and a case that went to the European Court of Human Rights. The courts have confirmed that the existence of different pension arrangements was not unlawful discrimination, but justified and reasonable at the time.

We have taken important steps to address immigration and settlement issues. Back in 2009, the Labour Government supported Gurkha veterans to settle in the UK alongside their families—that has been spoken about by colleagues on both sides of the House—and introduced reforms that ensured Gurkha veterans settled here and had the same access to public services as any other resident. Some 15 years later, in our manifesto, the Labour party promised to scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years and their dependants, and that includes many Gurkhas. We are working closely with the Home Office to deliver on that commitment.

Ministers and officials maintain an ongoing dialogue with Gurkha representatives, the Government of Nepal and other partners. Last year, the then Minister for Veterans and People met the ambassador for Nepal, and his successor has met a number of the G10 Gurkha veteran groups, underscoring the determination to find solutions together. A number of points were raised in the debate, and I will ask the Minister for Veterans and People to respond in detail; I recognise the very serious, heartfelt and important contributions from colleagues across the House, and I know that she will be happy to meet them to discuss this issue further.

It is important that we have clarity on these issues and understand what is possible. Governments of all flavours—the Conservative Government, the Liberal Democrats when they were in government, and the Labour Government—have maintained similar positions or the same position on pensions. However, there is still more support that can be provided to Gurkha veterans and we are happy to explore that with anyone who has an interest in these brilliant people, who have served our nation very well.

Middle East: Defence

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I have the fullest confidence. These arrangements for access, basing and overflight are well established. The relations between the US and the UK are very close. We have operated them together before, and we are doing so now.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I thank the Defence Secretary for all he is doing to support our troops in the region and protect British citizens. It is clear that a long conflict would pose real risks not only to our troops, but to energy prices and the cost of living here in the UK. Does he agree that we need to see urgent de-escalation and a reduction in tensions across the region, and does he share my concern that the Conservatives and Reform would see us dragged into a conflict that could have such devastating consequences for British lives and livelihoods?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend makes important points. I welcome his support for the first concern of this Government, which is the protection of British personnel and British citizens in the wider middle east, our bases and our allies. I know that he supports the action we have taken both before the current conflict broke out and in the week or so since.

Armed Forces Bill

Peter Swallow Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

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

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[James Cartlidge]

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

[Peter Swallow]

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

[James Cartlidge]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I am absolutely honoured to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). I am pleased to see this Bill seek to fill the gaps in the armed forces covenant. I should declare a personal interest as my husband Paul is a Royal Navy veteran, my daughter Abbi is a current Army reservist, I am a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and my husband is the armed forces champion at Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council. My husband’s last day of service was the day before we got married—denying me those amazing wedding photographs. The primary reason he decided to come out before we married was because, at that time, the support for families was weak. He told me that he did not want to receive a “Dear John” letter or miss the birth of his children. The armed forces covenant was supposed to fix that, but I have heard from service families that that is not yet the case.

One of the clearest examples of where families feel let down is in education. Although our schools are required to prioritise the children of military personnel in their admissions, and they do, so many children with special educational needs fall through the net. The process is supposed to take a matter of months, as we know, but it often takes closer to a year, and many children find themselves moved from one local authority to another part way through, leading to a need to repeat assessments and to lengthening delays. We know that specialist school places are as rare as unicorn manure, and I have heard that many families feel they cannot move with their serving member as they cannot afford to risk that change. I hope that the Minister will work carefully alongside the Department for Education on this.

[Peter Swallow]

What the hon. Member is saying is so important—more important than party politics. Fundamentally, as we work to fix the special educational needs and disabilities system, we must bear in mind the unique circumstances of those who serve our country. I thank her for raising that important point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. No longer can we just have warm words and lip service; we need action, because this contract says something very simple: “If you’re prepared to serve your country, your country must serve you properly in return.” For too long, our country has failed to honour that commitment. The latest armed forces continuous attitude survey revealed that only a quarter of our service personnel believe that they are valued by society. Let us think about that for a moment: only one in four of the men and women who wear our uniform believe that their country truly recognises what they give. That is a sign of a profound political failure over the past two decades.

My constituents in Morecambe and Lunesdale know the value of our armed forces. In 2025, 30,000 people attended Armed Forces Day in Morecambe. This year, we are having Armed Forces Day over three days, and I am sure that any Front-Bench Member would be welcome to come. Local organisations such as Healthier Heroes, the Rawthey Project, Morecambe FC Community Foundation and Bay Vets all do fantastic work supporting veterans in our area.

The armed forces covenant is also our nation’s commitment to fairness for those who serve, for our veterans, for their families and for the bereaved. That is not just in combat, but in housing, in hospitals, in jobcentres and in homes across the country. The renewal of that contract has to start with the Government. It has to be built into our law, the decisions we take here and the funding that we give. There is no better place to start than in housing, because for too long service families have been left in damp, cold and mouldy homes. That is a betrayal of their service.

Labour has therefore ended the failed privatisation of military housing, saving more than £200 million a year, and we are reinvesting that in fixing homes. This Bill creates the publicly owned Defence Housing Service, renewing nine in 10 armed forces homes and delivering the biggest upgrade to military accommodation in more than 50 years. Of course, fairness for those who serve cannot just stop at housing. The Bill extends the armed forces covenant across government, making public services legally bound to consider the unique needs of service personnel and their families. That was a manifesto commitment from this Labour Government, and we are delivering it. The Bill also strengthens the service justice system, giving service police and courts greater powers and putting victims first, with new protections against sexual violence and abuse. I recognise the first steps made by the previous Government in that regard.

[Peter Swallow]

It is so important, is it not, that we recognise, when setting out to tackle violence against women and girls, that that must extend across all of society. It cannot be right for those who are bravely serving in our armed forces to be victims of sexual violence in their workplace while they are doing the most important job there can be—defending our nation.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I absolutely agree. Our mission as a Government is to halve violence against women and girls, and that, of course, must include the women who serve in the armed forces. No one should be unsafe when serving our country. No one should be subjected to violence and abuse.

In this more dangerous world, the Bill expands our reserve forces and improves mobilisation. The voluntary increase in the recall age, for instance, will ensure that vital experience is not lost, and we know that many reservists have been asking for that. Recruitment and retention reforms are already working: recruitment is up, outflows are down, and the number of applications across the service is rising. That, of course, sits within a wider reset. For 14 years the Conservatives hollowed out our armed forces, putting plans in place without funding and overseeing record lows in military morale. They may talk about supporting the armed forces, but in government they did not put their money where their mouth was. And what do we see on other Benches? The Reform Members have not even bothered to show up today. Perhaps they are too busy making Cameo videos, or forgetting to declare hundreds of thousands of pounds of extra income and gifts. Their plastic patriotism shows no real desire or ability to make things better, just a continual desire to do our country down while listening to big money and foreign Governments, not our country and our people.

Labour, however, is making great strides to turn around the failed Conservative legacy, and is committing itself to the biggest sustained expenditure on defence since the end of the cold war. We know that we need to strengthen our armed forces in order to deal with the uncertain world that we are seeing, with its shifting geopolitics. The defence industrial strategy will ensure that the increased spending goes towards British jobs in British businesses in British towns, and I am also proud of the pay increase that we gave our armed forces.

Too often, when we speak about military heroics and service, our stories are confined to the past, but our armed forces are serving us right now, across the world. They are helping Ukraine to defend herself against Russian aggression, and, in doing so, providing a bulwark against those who would weaken democracy as a whole. They are strengthening Britain’s ties in the Indo-Pacific with the carrier strike group led by HMS Prince of Wales. They are serving in NATO missions, contributing to UN peacekeeping, de-escalating tensions in the middle east, and, of course, protecting our shores at home. To meet their dedication and commitment, the Government must deliver our side of the contract, and that is what this Bill does.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

As the MP for Sandhurst, which is in my constituency, I am incredibly proud to represent the home of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, and I am proud to speak today on a Bill that delivers on our commitment to our armed forces. The Bill fully enshrines the expanded armed forces covenant into law, increases protections for those who serve, including from sexual and violent behaviour, and establishes a publicly owned Defence Housing Service, which is backed by a £9 billion strategy to end the shameful record of the Conservative party and make sure that our service people and their families have the homes they deserve. In the south-east alone, we will see more than 14,000 military homes renewed, including in my constituency.

The Bill looks outward as well as inward. It rises to the gravity of the threats that we face as a nation today. In order to protect us, our service people must be supported, housed decently and listened to. They must also be equipped to meet the challenges before them. I am pleased that the Bill contains ambitious measures to grow and sustain our nation’s readiness in these turbulent times. The Bill will enhance our ability to mobilise rapidly by expanding our reserve pool, through increasing the maximum age limit for recall to the reserve forces, and giving my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the power to authorise recall in a conflict scenario. I especially welcome that these measures are a direct response to the strategic defence review’s call for transformation in the way that our defence and security is organised and delivered.

[Lizzi Collinge]

In Morecambe and Lunesdale we have some absolutely fantastic cadet corps. The lord lieutenant of Lancashire is looking at how to extend these cadet corps into cyber-security, which is really exciting. Does my hon. Friend agree that those cadets are vital to the future of our armed forces?

[Peter Swallow]

Absolutely. As well as our reservists, there is a huge role for cadets to play. I am so proud that the Government are committed to expanding the cadets by 30% by 2030, including by ensuring that there are more opportunities for cadets to learn science, technology, engineering and maths skills, as I am hearing they are in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Mr Bailey]

At the other end of the scale, we have seen a significant expansion of the service life that we can offer members of the armed forces. Flight Lieutenant Phil “Popeye” Powell was a special forces pilot for nearly 30 years. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that people like Popeye should be given as much time in the service to practise their craft?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow]

Absolutely. Many serving in my constituency are right at the start of their careers, but I recognise that the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst would not function were it not for the many armed forces personnel who spend a significant portion of their careers dedicated to training the next generation of Army leaders. I pay tribute to them for all they do.

I hope the powers in the Bill are never needed, but we owe it to our brave armed forces to be prepared for any eventuality. We cannot pretend that we are not living in a more dangerous world than even a few years ago, with war returning to Europe following Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The spheres in which warfare can play out are no longer limited to the physical, and by that I mean in the sky, the sea and the land. It is a fact that our information and online spheres are constantly under attack by those who would wish to see us weakened. We must go further and faster to robustly defend our society and security in all quarters.

New and developing technology is changing the nature of the threats we face constantly. It is right that measures are taken to protect security at our military bases by permitting the use of approved equipment to prevent or detect drones being used near these sensitive sites. I welcome the moves that the Government have taken to ensure that we have a modern, world-class cyber and specialist operations command, because threats to our British values, our democracy and our way of life are increasingly cyber-threats.

A nation’s defence is only as strong as those who serve to uphold it. The Bill bolsters our armed forces, and it gives personnel and their families the support they deserve, just as they support our most vital national interests every day. This is a Bill from a Government who take their responsibility to our security and to our service people seriously. I am proud to back the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend is right. There is an old saying in politics that the world is run by those who turn up. Well, Reform did not turn up.

On the reserves, I should first declare an interest. I served as a Territorial Army infantry officer in the 1980s in the 5th Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment, a NATO-roled battalion that formed part of the 49th Infantry Brigade, which in turn was part of the 2nd Infantry Division, whose core mission was essentially to reinforce what was then the British Army of the Rhine, or BAOR, in the event of world war three. Including service in the Officers’ Training Corps prior to joining 5 Royal Anglian, I did some seven years in total. I was on Exercise Lionheart in 1984 as an officer cadet and also exercised in Cyprus and West Berlin as a junior officer.

Nevertheless, I was at no time deployed on active service and so, unlike the Minister, I have no medals at all, because I never did anything that merited one. Despite that, I am still proud to carry the late Queen’s Commission, and I like to believe that had the balloon gone up, our battalion would have done our best to defend the bridge over the Leine river, which was our wartime task.

[Peter Swallow]

Can I just say, as much as we have occasionally sparred across the Chamber, what the right hon. Member just said speaks volumes for the role that our reservists play up and down the country? Whether or not they are deployed or get medals, so many ordinary men and women step forward to say that they would serve this country if push came to shove—and I say that as somebody who has not done it myself, and I hold my hands up to that. That is so important, so I want to pay tribute to what the right hon. Member said and to all our reservists.

Ukraine and Wider Operational Update

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Of course, at the end of the last Labour Government, we were spending 2.5% on defence: a level that the 14 successive Conservative years came nowhere near matching. We have a job to make up for that lost time and to make up for the hollowed-out forces that the previous Government left. The commitment that the Government have made alongside other NATO allies—to see a path to ensure that by 2035 we spend a full 5% of GDP on our security and core defence—is our guarantee for strong defence and deterrence in the future.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

For five years, against Russian aggression, Ukraine has been bravely defending not only its own border but the eastern flank of Europe. That means that security guarantees for Ukraine are also security guarantees for all of Europe. Given that, does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the leader of Reform today suggesting that he would vote against those security guarantees?

[John Healey]

I do indeed. My hon. Friend is right: a secure Ukraine is at the heart of a secure Europe and at the heart of a secure UK. That will be a consideration for all Members of this House if we get to the stage when we have a peace deal and a decision to deploy and command the multinational force in Ukraine.

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I fully respect the hon. and gallant Member; he has experience from Northern Ireland during the troubles. I served in Northern Ireland in 2003, after the troubles. We absolutely respect those individuals’ views; we also respect the statistics on those who are currently serving, which we have looked through in the Ministry of Defence. I would welcome a discussion with many of the individuals who the hon. and gallant Member mentioned. Since some of the articles came out in the press, I have had discussions, multiple times, with several of them. We need to work together to make sure they are comfortable with the Bill, and we are doing so. On top of that, we have spoken to the Royal British Legion and other veterans, but when we come down to the common denominator, the statistics show that there is not a recruitment and retention issue caused by the Northern Ireland legacy Bill. As Members well know, the moral, physical and conceptual components are critical to fighting power, but in some cases, the conceptual and moral components are one. We must ensure that the Bill protects veterans going forward, which is what I will do. We will protect the moral component.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Will my hon. and gallant Friend take this opportunity to welcome the 156 new recruits who started last week at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in my constituency? Those new recruits put the academy well on track to meet its recruitment targets for this year.

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. In this role and in my last role, I have visited Sandhurst several times; it is the best leadership academy in the country, and its “Serve to lead” motto is absolutely essential. I am sure that the 156 cadets who have just started will progress and graduate with flying colours. I look forward to them serving in the military, and enjoying their service throughout a full and wholesome career.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Peter Swallow Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

Having led Five Eyes for our country—I am very proud to have done so—it is a matter of great concern that the deal has been backed by Iran, China and Russia. I say to the hon. Gentleman that that is exactly why this is a bad deal for our country. [Interruption.] It is correct, actually, and I can point him to the references where those countries have spoken in favour of the deal.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. I am going to give her another opportunity to confirm that she agrees with our Five Eyes allies that this is a good deal. Those are the people who back this deal.

[Priti Patel]

I met our Five Eyes partners at the weekend and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they are not paying for this deal and they are not gloating about it. They see it very much as a failure of this Government. He can go and justify that to his constituents.

I congratulate the Minister on his new post and his promotion, and I welcome him to this wider discussion. He has tried his best to sell the surrender deal to the House, but the choices made by his Prime Minister, the former Foreign Secretary who is no longer in post, the Attorney General and Labour Ministers will leave Britain weaker and poorer, humiliated into giving away the sovereignty of our British territory and paying a fortune, £35 billion, to lease back a base—the point has been made a number of times—that we already own. While Labour has spent months trying to hide the details of its Chagos surrender deal and the scale of the financial cover up, it has been the Conservatives holding Labour to account constantly, exposing its shameful decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

There is something fundamental here about the negotiations—I think the Minister alluded to this earlier on. The Government were effectively just listening to leftie lawyers and advisory judgments and acting because they were frightened that their left-wing lawyer friends would pursue even more lawfare against us. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) told the Foreign Affairs Committee:

“Our view is that, without this deal, it was inevitable that Mauritius would pursue and secure a legally binding judgment against the UK. Indeed, legally binding provisional measures could also have been secured within weeks”.

The Government have never—not once—detailed what the legal threat is beyond hiding behind spurious aspects of international law.

I have to say that it is a defeatist attitude that Labour has taken. Britain is Europe’s leading defence power, a pillar of NATO in Europe and a P5 member of the UN Security Council with a right of veto. We are not bound by advisory judgments pursued by Mauritius at the ICJ—which, by the way, included a judge who is a member of the Chinese Communist party. By being vocal in conceding defeat and unwilling to defend Britain from a barrage of lawfare, Labour has let Britain’s standing on the world stage plummet, and its decisions will have serious consequences for us.

Let us talk about the money. We all know that this Labour Government are big spenders when it comes to splashing about taxpayers’ money, and the costs of Labour’s surrender treaty are astronomical at £34.7 billion—a figure which, by the way, we had to drag out of the Government Actuary’s Department because Labour Ministers repeatedly refused to disclose the cash payments when asked. In fact, because the payments are linked to inflation, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) has pointed out, guess what? The cash cost could be even higher. That means higher taxes for our constituents, which is nothing for those on the Labour Benches to crow about.

[Peter Swallow]

The right hon. Lady comes to this Chamber claiming that this deal has astronomical costs and all that, but what she will not put on the record is the cost of the deal that the Conservatives were negotiating. She can say all she wants about that being a matter for the public record, but she needs to be clear with the British public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

No, I am answering my hon. Friend. The real judge will be the British people. How will they view a Labour Government giving away £35 billion to a foreign Government? That money could be spent in this country. It is simply not acceptable at all.

[Peter Swallow]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Priti Patel]

I am going to make progress, and I have taken plenty of interventions.

The Minister touched on the base at Diego Garcia, which is one of the most important military assets in the world. It gives us and our US allies significant global reach, but the treaty undermines that position, and the Bill contains no measures to mitigate its effects.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

In the last year, we have taken huge steps to start to make good on decades of substandard housing for military personnel and their families. We have brought 36,000 military family homes back into public ownership so that we can plan exactly the sort of upgrade that the hon. Lady talks about.

On the rest of the SDR, we have announced the purchase of 12 F-35A aircraft, which will join the dual capable aircraft mission of NATO; we have launched our new £70 million campaign on cadets; and we have stood up the cyber and specialist operations command. Today, we are publishing the defence industrial strategy to make defence an engine for growth. This Government are delivering for defence and delivering for Britain.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The strategic defence review rightly highlighted the need for a whole-of-society approach to defence, including expanding the cadets by 30% by 2030. A key part of that has to include supporting more adult volunteers to give their time to the cadets. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that more adult volunteers are able to support our fantastic cadets?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Cadet forces cannot exist without the adult volunteers who support them, and they are central to our ability to increase the number of cadet forces across this country by 30% by 2030, which will give so many young people opportunities in the future.

Afghanistan

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I hesitate to be too blunt with the right hon. Gentleman, because I have a great deal of respect for him. If any applicant is not eligible under the criteria of the scheme that this House has approved and the Government have in place and operate, that can really only lead to one decision. He encourages me to look in a creative way at other options. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is very familiar with the case that the right hon. Gentleman raises. We will look at it again, but I do not want to raise false hopes for him, or for the man whom he describes so vividly, and with such concern.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I am proud that Bracknell Forest is involved in the Afghan resettlement programme, and is offering transitional support to the brave Afghans who risked their life to support our troops. Any such scheme depends on public trust, so it is concerning to hear that under the Conservative Government, we instead had secrecy, security breaches and a super-injunction. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to reaffirm two commitments: first, that this Government will continue to honour the moral obligation we owe to the Afghans who fought alongside our troops, and, secondly, that we will do so in a way that reaffirms this Government’s commitment to public transparency?

[John Healey]

I will indeed reaffirm our continuing commitment to honouring the obligations and duty that we owe to those who served or worked alongside our forces. Through the ARAP scheme, we will complete the processing of any outstanding applications, and any who prove eligible will get full relocation and resettlement support. I am glad to be able to restore a degree of that parliamentary scrutiny and transparency that our system in Britain depends on.

National Armaments Director

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Maguire]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it would absolutely help our deterrence if we could increase troop numbers. The Liberal Democrats are calling for new bonus schemes to recruit and re-enlist 3,000 personnel, allowing the Government to reach their target of 73,000 trained troops as soon as possible, meaning that they can grow Army numbers further and faster beyond that in this Parliament. I encourage the Minister to consider those proposals.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I agree that we need an increase in troop numbers, but the challenge for any Government is not only setting the important policy, but saying how they would pay for it. I therefore invite the hon. Member to set out the Liberal Democrats’ plan for paying for her proposals. Please let her not say that it will be funded by a digital services tax, like all their other policies.

[Helen Maguire]

The hon. Member will know, if he has read our policies, that our proposal costs a maximum of £60 million, which is insignificant compared with the entire defence budget. Getting us to 76,000 as soon as possible will help us with deterrence.

The Government have promised a new defence investment plan for the autumn. That gives them a vital opportunity to provide clarity about how they will effectively address the ubiquitous shortage of equipment throughout the armed forces. However, serious questions remain about why they did not think it appropriate to develop and publish the plan, or a defence equipment plan, alongside the strategic defence review earlier this month. All efforts should be made to accelerate the publication of the plan so that parliamentarians can scrutinise the Government’s proposals at the earliest opportunity.

The threats to our security mean that the Government cannot afford to delay. With President Trump casting doubt on America’s commitment to NATO, the UK must lead in Europe. That means moving much faster to reach the new 5% NATO target than the currently proposed 2035 timeline, which would take us beyond the life of even the next Parliament. I therefore again urge the Minister to convene cross-party talks so that the whole House, representing the country, can together agree a pathway to the high amounts of defence spending that our security demands.

Our attention has turned this week to security crises in the middle east, but it is vital that we do not lose sight of Putin’s continuing barbarism in Ukraine. We are currently sitting on £25 billion in frozen Russian assets. Across the G7, that figure rises to $300 billion. I recently visited Estonia, and I cannot emphasise enough how strongly the Estonians urge the UK and His Majesty’s Government to develop plans on how best to support Belgium in unlocking those assets, and to lead from the front by seizing assets across the UK. Liberal Democrats again call on the UK Government to work with our allies to seize those assets and repurpose them directly for Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction. If Putin’s imperialism is to be stopped, we must act decisively and boldly now.

We also need a strategy that looks beyond the battlefield, because supporting our forces must mean supporting our veterans, service families, and the defence industry. Liberal Democrats would put in place a long-term defence industrial strategy to protect sovereign capability, provide certainty to industry, and ensure investment in R&D, training and regional jobs.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right that the entire Bill, to an extent, is about whistleblowing, because it allows anyone in our armed forces and their relevant family members to raise a concern outside the chain of command. Effectively, that is the very heart and soul of what we propose in this legislation.

I will come to the amendment in lieu in a moment, but certainly, with that, we seek to strengthen the provisions that Baroness Goldie’s amendments propose. We agree that there is an issue that needs to be addressed within our armed forces and we recognise that there are behaviours that are unacceptable. The Ministry of Defence’s Raising our Standards work, which the Minister for Veterans and People leads on, is an important part of providing an opportunity for everyone who serves to raise those concerns and have confidence that they can do so within the chain of command, but where they feel unable to do so, there will be a route available to them through the Armed Forces Commissioner to raise those concerns. Equally, as I just mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), this is about the ability of family members, who may feel less constrained by the chain of command or the structure of the armed forces, to do so on behalf of their family unit. I entirely understand the purpose of the amendments and I agree with their spirit, but we seek to strengthen them in the amendment in lieu.

One of the key parts of the amendments was to ensure that anyone who raises a concern will have their identity protected. It worth noting that the Armed Forces Commissioner will be bound by the data protection legislation that this House has passed, meaning that the personal information and details provided by anyone who contacts the commissioner will be subject to stringent controls.

On the specifics of the word “whistleblower”, we all understand what we mean when we hear that term, and it is important that we provide opportunities for those within our services to raise concerns. However, it is not completely straightforward from a legal point of view how that is enacted in this piece of legislation. Although there is some limited precedent for the use of the term, there is no single meaning and it requires additional context to explain what it means in each case. That means some technical changes are required to Baroness Goldie’s amendment to make it operable within the Bill, which is why we seek to strengthen it.

The amendments seek to define the term in reference to certain people and topics, but importantly, no additional protections are created because the commissioner can already investigate anything that is contained in the amendment proposed by Baroness Goldie. However, it is a useful opportunity for us to restate the importance of being able to raise concerns, especially about the abuse that happens in our armed forces, and to state on the record from the Dispatch Box that there is no place for any of that abuse in our armed forces and that not only is the Ministry of Defence taking steps to tackle it but there are protections in the Bill to enable that.

None the less, I understand the intention behind the amendments, which is to ensure that people feel better able to approach the commissioner without fear of repercussions or their identity being made public. I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit behind that. A united voice from this House, saying that we will not tolerate unacceptable behaviours, will send a strong message to those watching this debate—both perpetrators and complainants—that the zero tolerance approach we want for the armed forces is one that we will all get behind.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The Minister is absolutely right. We have to have that zero tolerance approach, not only because it is right for our service personnel who sacrifice so much and for their families, but because it strengthens our whole armed forces. That is why it was so important to see that focus on personnel in the strategic defence review. Will the Minister reflect briefly on the connection between the Armed Forces Commissioner and the strategic defence review in turning around the issue we have had with retention in our armed forces and finally getting to grips with that crisis?