Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Phil Brickell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I say politely to the hon. Gentleman—for whom I have a lot of time, and I respect his military service—that that comparison we have seen of the British Indian Ocean Territory with the Falkland Islands is shameful. I have seen the tweets from the Conservative party asking, with a map of the Falkland Islands, “Are they next?”—a shameful comparison, which stokes the flames of division and threatens the sovereignty of such overseas territories. Let me be clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth from the Foreign Office has been clear at the Dispatch Box: there are no changes or implications for any other British overseas territories. Indeed, the British overseas territories support the deal. I hope that we will not need to revisit this again, but any implication that seeks to apply the experience of BIOT to other overseas territories is unhelpful to them. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman wishes to create no question marks over those overseas territories.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

To go back to the point that the Minister was making earlier about control, can he confirm to the House that, contrary to the reasoned amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), we are not ceding control of the Diego Garcia military base, consistent with clause 3?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. On the reasoned amendments, my colleague who is to conclude the debate, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, will respond to some of the details of the reasoned amendment selected by Mr Speaker. However, there is a lot of misinformation about this treaty, and I believe that in some cases it is deliberate misinformation to confuse the picture. Clearly, securing the operation of the base is the priority of this Government and of this treaty. Indeed, I believe in good faith that it was the priority of the previous Government as well, which is why they started the negotiations and held them for 11 rounds, and why we concluded them, because we agreed with the previous Government that securing the future operation of the base was the priority. That is why they started them; that is why we completed them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right. At the end of the day, the real judge of this will be the British people.

[Phil Brickell]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill, which safeguards our national security and protects our constituents.

Diego Garcia is one of the most important military bases in the world. From that facility, Britain and the United States project stability across the Indian ocean, the Gulf and the wider Indo-Pacific. The base has been vital in the fight against terrorism and piracy for many years. Today, it is indispensable in containing the growing reach of the Chinese Communist party, as others have said. Beijing is building ports, airports and naval outposts right across the region; its so-called “string of pearls” is designed to encircle and dominate. If we are serious about standing up for the values that we hold dear—human rights, democracy and, at its heart, freedom—Diego Garcia must remain secure and undisputed, which can be achieved only through the treaty that the Government have concluded.

Conservative colleagues may huff and puff, as they have been doing ad nauseam over the past few hours, but let us not rewrite history. As has been pointed out, it was not Labour that opened negotiations with Mauritius.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Phil Brickell]

I will make some progress, if I may. I wanted to intervene on Opposition Members earlier, but was not allowed to.

It was the Conservatives who rightly described the situation in 2022 as unsustainable, and it was they who held 11 rounds of talks on sovereignty. In 2023, when he was Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) said that he wanted to conclude a deal soon. At the time, when they were in government, Conservative Members recognised that the base’s legal status was under serious threat, and that an interminable sovereignty dispute risked paralysing operations.

Let me make a quick point about international law. In reflecting on the ICJ advisory opinion, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said that it is an international court that few have heard of. Those kinds of reckless throwaway remarks undermine the United Nations’ highest judicial organ. She mentioned that we are a permanent member of the UN Security Council. There are judges sitting in the ICJ who are elected by members of the General Assembly, and through the Security Council. Although we have had judges sitting in that international court since its inception, we have not since 2018, which is a source of much shame for the country at large. I hope that she will take back those remarks denigrating the international system of law that underpins our international work. Let us not forget, after all, that in the 1940s, the United Kingdom was the first country to submit a case for arbitration by the ICJ. [Interruption.] I ask those Opposition Members who are chuntering: where were you when those 11 rounds of negotiations took place? I know that two years is a long time in politics, but have you already forgotten—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I wasn’t anywhere, and I have forgotten nothing. Will Members please be careful about the language they use in the Chamber?

[Phil Brickell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Labour has finished what the previous Government started—what was left to us after former Prime Minister Liz Truss let the genie out of the bottle in starting negotiations with Mauritius in 2022. That was reported, and much maligned, by Matthew Parris in The Spectator at the time—let us not forget that. This Government have sought to strike a deal in Britain’s best interests, given the legal mess that they inherited. Let us be clear: this agreement secures the future of the Diego Garcia base. Britain retains control of the base, as the Minister confirmed in response to my intervention near the start of the debate. There is a protective buffer zone, and no foreign security forces will be on the outer islands. There will be a robust mechanism to prevent interference, and for the first time, Mauritius has agreed back the base’s operations. That is a huge strategic win.

What about cost? Let us get this clear, because some of the disinformation coming from the Conservative party is concerning; it is unnecessarily setting hares running about the future of other British overseas territories, including the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. The overall cost has not changed from that negotiated with the former Mauritian Prime Minister, and suggestions to the contrary are simply false. When set against the cost of inaction, the financial component is modest. It is far cheaper than the spiralling costs of legal uncertainty, and far cheaper than the price we would pay if Chinese expansionism went unchecked in the Indian ocean. For a fraction of our defence budget, we will secure a cornerstone of global stability. Let us not forget that the agreement will have an average annual cost that represents 0.008% of total Government spend, according to the Government Actuary’s Department.

[Dr Pinkerton]

Earlier in his very carefully crafted speech, the hon. Gentleman said that this deal protects freedom. One of the freedoms that citizens of the British overseas territories to which he referred most appreciate is the freedom to determine their own future. Why does he think that Chagossians should be made an exception and denied the right to determine their own future?

[Phil Brickell]

I am sure that the Minister will come to that in his closing remarks. I have to concur with other Members that the way the Chagossians were treated in the ’60s and ’70s was utterly shameful. I am proud that there will be rights of return, and the ability to visit.

Conservative Members claim to be the champions of defence, but that is not borne out by the facts, which include an 18% cut in defence spending in their first five years in government, and their shrinking the Army to its smallest size since the Napoleonic era. In how many years out of 14 was the target of 2.5% of GDP spent on defence hit? Zero. They should not lecture Labour Members on national security. The Government’s plan is straightforward, transparent and serious. We have the largest increase in the defence budget since the cold war; we are rebuilding alliances that previous Governments wantonly vandalised; we are acting where there was dither; we are governing in the national interest; and, importantly, we are securing the long-term future of the Diego Garcia base.

It is clear that a binding adverse judgment against the UK was inevitable. Since 2015, 28 international judges have expressed views on Chagos sovereignty. That was under the previous Government, and not one of those 28 judges backed Britain’s claim. Without an agreement, our ability to operate the base would have been compromised. Overflight clearances would have been at risk, contractor access would have been uncertain, communications would have degraded, costs would have soared, and investment would have fallen. Who would that benefit? I put that to Conservative Members, but I will give them a clue: it is not Britain, and not Britain’s allies. This deal secures Diego Garcia, cements our role in the Indo-Pacific, strengthens our ability to push back against Chinese influence, and shows that Britain is a dependable ally that takes national security seriously.

I wish to make a closing remark on the reasoned amendment by the Reform party, in the names of the hon. Members for Clacton (Nigel Farage), for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who seem not to be present. I will read out a part of it that I am gobsmacked nobody has picked up on in this debate:

“because the reason for the UK-Mauritius Treaty and for bringing forward this Bill follows a judgment from the International Criminal Court, from which the UK does not recognise judgments as binding, only advisory”,

they will oppose this Bill. I want Reform to answer: which case before the International Criminal Court is it referring to? Is Reform suggesting that, were it to come to power, it would not recognise the binding judgments of the International Criminal Court? Will it take us out of the ICC? Unfortunately, Reform Members are not here to respond.

The Conservatives opened the door to this treaty. Labour inherited a legal mess, but it has delivered a deal in the long-term national interest. For a small cost, we have achieved a huge strategic win. That is why I am proud to support this Bill, and I will vote with the Government tonight.

Ukraine

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

In reminding the House about the Ukrainian families who are in Rugby, my hon. Friend reminds us that this is a war—an invasion—that has forced many to flee their home. Many are still receiving shelter from UK families, and I pay tribute to those who are offering that shelter. We have been willing to back President Trump in his bid to secure a negotiated peace in Ukraine from the outset, and we look to this next stage as a hopeful sign. We will do whatever we can to reinforce his efforts to put pressure on President Putin now and to bring him to the negotiating table.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany, may I take this opportunity to welcome Monday’s joint chairing of the Ukrainian Defence Contact Group by the Defence Secretary, alongside his German counterpart, Boris Pistorius? I also congratulate the Government on today’s landmark bilateral treaty between the UK and Germany, signed here in London, between the Prime Minister and Chancellor Merz, on mutual defence, security co-operation and industrial collaboration. The treaty demonstrates our determination to stand up to Putin’s continued acts of aggression, wherever they may take place, as well as the Government’s enduring commitment to Ukraine.

[John Healey]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s role in the all-party parliamentary group on Germany. The new coalition Government in Germany are making a massively welcome contribution to increased support to NATO and to European security. I welcome that greater contribution. I note that the Federal Ministry of Defence is still led, very ably, by a Social Democratic Party of Germany Minister, Boris Pistorius. I especially welcome that at the heart of the new friendship treaty, which Chancellor Merz and our Prime Minister will sign today, is the Trinity House agreement that Boris Pistorius and I struck back in October: a deep defence agreement, for the first time, between the UK and Germany. It means that we will do so much more together as two nations, but also as two nations within NATO.

Ukraine

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that there must be security guarantees, and the US Defence Secretary said as much. These are all matters for any negotiations that take place. Of course, we will be supporting Ukraine, and we have made it quite clear that there cannot be a peace that does not involve Ukraine or that it does not support.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Can the Minister assure the House that it is UK Government policy that not only must Ukraine be involved in a peace and in securing its territorial integrity, but it is only the Ukrainian people—not President Trump, nor President Putin—who can determine the destiny of Ukraine?

[Maria Eagle]

We have said that Ukraine must be involved in those negotiations, and that peace negotiations need two sides to come an agreement. It therefore clearly follows that the Ukrainians must be content with whatever the process comes up with. There must be security guarantees, and the peace must be durable—everybody agrees with that.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Collier]

I rise to lend my full support to this Bill, and I will shortly speak to the amendments in the name of the Opposition. The Bill represents a long-overdue step towards supporting the welfare and rights of service personnel and their families. I have a brother in our armed forces, and I am grateful to have a Government who recognise the value of being challenged to deliver more for our service personnel and for military families like mine. The introduction of the Armed Forces Commissioner is an opportunity to provide independent and robust oversight to ensure that we in this place, and all parts of Government, do right by all who serve.

Our nation and its armed forces are inseparable. In Burton and Uttoxeter, we have so many military families like mine; we feel immense pride in the service of our loved ones. At a moment’s notice, they stand ready to protect our nation and all that we hold dear. Regardless of whether it is a soldier posted overseas, a sailor patrolling distant waters or a pilot protecting our skies, their wellbeing, and that of their families, should be at the heart of any Government policy. This Bill achieves precisely that by establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner who can investigate, advocate and hold the system to account. The commissioner will not just respond to complaints, but proactively examine the issues affecting service life, from housing and healthcare to the transition to civilian life and the schooling of service children. The role will deliver real improvements, and it will challenge this Parliament and this Government, so I hope that those on the Front Bench are fully prepared for that.

I am mindful of amendments 9 and 10. Although their intentions may be laudable, I think they miss the point. Amendment 9 proposes that the commissioner’s remit explicitly include pensions and death-in-service benefits for serving and former members of the armed forces. That might seem fair at first glance, but I am firmly of the view that the amendment is unnecessary and risks undermining the effectiveness of the commissioner’s work. As defined by the Bill, the commissioner’s role is already expansive, covering the full spectrum of welfare concerns for service personnel and their families.

Amendment 9 risks narrowing the commissioner’s focus, and could lead to a disproportionate allocation of time and resources to one area at the expense of other pressing welfare concerns. The commissioner must have the freedom to determine their priorities, based on the evidence that they receive from service personnel, veterans and their families. The commissioner’s work should not be restrained by this Parliament prescribing specific areas of focus, no matter how good its intentions. Let us trust that the Bill gives the commissioner the independence that they require to do the job effectively. To prescribe excessively is to risk diluting the authority and focus of this legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) said. He was bang on the money, if the House pardons the pun.

Similarly, amendment 10 seeks to explicitly include issues affecting children, family and dependants. Although I fully recognise the importance of supporting the families of our service personnel, this amendment raises several concerns. The commissioner’s role is already designed to allow them to advocate comprehensively for the welfare of service families. There is no doubt that issues such as education allowances, special needs tuition and housing fall squarely within that remit. The commissioner must have the flexibility to address the full spectrum of welfare issues, and must not be bound by a rigid checklist dictated by this House. We must trust that the commissioner will engage with service families effectively, without Parliament micromanaging their work. I am sure that all of us in this House have topics that we would want the commissioner to focus on, but the point is that it is not up to us.

This Bill represents progress, and a move towards ensuring that our military personnel and their families feel heard, valued and supported. It sends a clear message that their voice matters, that their welfare matters and that their service to our country is not taken for granted. We on these Benches have consistently supported measures that champion the rights and wellbeing of all those who serve. The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill aligns with those values, and I urge colleagues to wholeheartedly support it tonight.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill. I came into politics to improve people’s lives, and I believe that the introduction of an Armed Forces Commissioner will do just that by providing a voice to members of our armed forces community who have been ignored for far too long. As the Prime Minister said during the King’s Speech debate last year, this is not just a “name or a role”; it is a way in which we can show our respect for those who have committed their lives to the ultimate service. Indeed, my own father served as a gunner in the Royal Artillery, taking him to Northern Ireland, Germany, Cyprus and Canada, so I have some idea of the sacrifice made by our servicemen and women and their families. This is yet another instance of this Government delivering on their promises. We made a manifesto commitment to strengthen support for our armed forces personnel and the families who support them by establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner, and here we are now, getting on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), would ensure that the commissioner published annual reports to outline what was being done to support minority groups in the armed forces. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment would ensure that the commissioner was an important tool in helping to achieve the target of women accounting for 30% of armed forces personnel recruited by 2030?

[Phil Brickell]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, but I will not be supporting that amendment. I hope that we will be able to pass the Bill unamended, and I will defer to the Minister to address that question directly.

I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) about the independence of the commissioner, and particularly his comments on amendment 6. We live in a dangerous world, so when it comes to the men and women who are tasked with keeping us safe, we must ensure that we return the favour by making sure that they are treated with respect. We should not delude ourselves by seeing the Armed Forces Commissioner as a silver bullet. I welcome this Government’s commitment to a new strengthened armed forces covenant, which would enshrine in law the respect due to members and former members of our military.

As many Members know, the military estate’s houses, barracks and other facilities are in an appalling condition and, frankly, unfit to house many of our servicemen and women and their families. I welcome measures from the Government to conduct a medium to long-term review, but I would simply urge Ministers not to kick the can down the road on an issue that has persisted for far, far too long. Financial wellbeing, gaps in medical discharge processes, mental health support failures—there is a lot to do, but the initial signs are good.

As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany and someone with a number of family members in Germany, I would like to note that this position has been modelled on its long-established and successful German counterpart, as the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) rightly mentioned. It is refreshing to see a Government seeking to improve life in the UK by drawing inspiration from the successful policies of our closest allies in Europe. I sincerely hope that we can pass the Bill today to provide the support our military personnel and their families so urgently deserve.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill stands as a critical piece of legislation that will establish an independent champion for our servicemen and women, as well as their families. The Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment and represents a significant step forward in renewing our nation’s contract with those who serve us, so it is positive to see its continued and rapid progression into law. Today, our Opposition colleagues have tabled a number of amendments, and I want to speak to several of them in turn. On new clause 1, the Government are implementing measures to address our current challenges with recruitment and retention. Expanding the commissioner’s scope to include all applicants could overwhelm the office and detract from its core mission of supporting current service personnel and their families.

The previous Conservative Government hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces. Morale in the military is at a record low, and we are facing a recruitment and retention crisis. Many of those who want to join our armed forces wait far too long, and the Government are committed to fixing this through measures such as the new 10-30 provision, under which applicants will be given a provisional offer to join the armed forces within 10 days of applying, and a provisional start date within 30 days.

UK Air and Missile Defences

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I declare an interest as the Member of Parliament for Bolton West, which is the home of MBDA’s Logistics North production site. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this important debate; I particularly welcome his comments on both the lessons to be learned from Ukraine and the need to ensure that our armed forces can protect us from a diverse range of threats.

All of us will have constituents who are concerned about last week’s developments between Russia and Ukraine, including Putin’s use of an advanced hypersonic missile. This is a personal issue for me. My own father was stationed in Germany throughout the 1970s as the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union loomed. The shadow cast by that period of constant existential fear is, unfortunately, a long one. The terrifying reality is that now war is not just something we read about in newspapers; it is on our doorstep. However we are not fighting on the beaches, landing grounds, fields and streets any more. The long distance missile capabilities of hostile states mean, regrettably, that war can now reach us in our own homes.

All that is to say that sovereign capability for missile defences here in the UK has seldom been so important. As others have already noted, we are vulnerable to advanced missiles such as the one fired by Russia last week and the one fired by Iran on Israel earlier in the year. As our armed forces and defence infrastructure were left to crumble during the last 14 years, a serious capability gap has emerged, particularly around defence against air threats and our ability to engage targets at extended range. Only in September, the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee warned that the Government must

“pay greater attention to homeland defence”,

particularly to

“integrated air and missile defence…in close collaboration with our European NATO allies”.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech. It is increasingly clear that enhanced co-operation with NATO and other allies will be essential in achieving air and missile defence aims in the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we have seen in the recent Estonia pact, these continued alliances will not only enhance our ability to meet procurement challenges but ensure that we are able to defend against these long-range missile threats?

[Phil Brickell]

I agree with my hon. Friend; I will come on to that issue in the context of the recent Germany-UK defence agreement, which was signed in Trinity House only last month.

Over the weekend, there was also an intervention from former Defence Minister and former Chair of the Defence Committee Tobias Ellwood, who said that we are “woefully unprotected” and described London as “almost a sitting duck”. This issue can garner support from all sides of the House; I know that other Members will recognise the scale of the challenges ahead, which necessitate ever closer international relationships and collective defence within NATO and the European Union. With that in mind, I should say that I had the immense pleasure of talking to German counterparts as part of a delegation to Berlin in September. As the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany, I enthusiastically welcomed last month’s UK-Germany Trinity House agreement on defence.

The Government’s shared objective with Germany to sustain effective deterrence against would-be aggressors by building credible, resilient defence forces and defence industries is vital if we are to work towards the vision of a peaceful and stable Europe and north Atlantic. Sovereign capability, as an enduring necessity, is something that I expect the Government’s forthcoming strategic defence review will attest to. To ensure adequate manufacturing capacity, industry must remain at the very heart of our missile defence system.

MBDA employs 1,200 people in my constituency and almost 6,000 across the UK. I am sure that colleagues will agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) that MBDA represents the very best in ingenuity, working as a trusted partner throughout Europe and providing the air defence capability that we and our allies need to stand up to Russia’s unwarranted aggression. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s comments at the Farnborough International Airshow earlier this year, when he committed to

“renewing important partnerships with industry and continuing to push technological boundaries”.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way; he has done so already.

Scotland is a tremendous asset in defence. Companies right across the country provide enormous pieces of equipment, such as the aircraft carriers built in Scotland. Scotland also has many small and medium-sized enterprises—we have Raytheon, which provides parts for Tomahawk, and Thales on the banks of the Clyde. However, does the Minister know that there is something of a hostile environment from the Scottish Government towards companies that need to ramp up and access finance to deliver the large orders coming from the Ministry of Defence? Senior Scottish Government figures have boasted about the fact that, under their watch, money would not be given to large companies for warfighting capabilities; it would be for civilian use only. That is alarming. We will need to ally with defence companies as well as NATO.

[Phil Brickell]

The hon. Member makes an important point about the importance of the defence sector across all four nations of the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State also spoke at the Farnborough International Airshow about the importance of driving prosperity and creating skilled jobs across the country. But defence cannot be done on the cheap—we will have to put our hands in our pockets. It is an investment, not a cost, and I must urge the Government to reach the 2.5% of GDP defence spending target at the earliest opportunity so that the rogue states causing ongoing geopolitical instability know that their continued unlawful aggression will not and cannot win.

To conclude, the threats we face are very real, as are the resourcing, production capacity and resilience needs. I look forward to further measures from the new Government to show their resolve to stand up to Putin, invest in our defence capability and increase domestic manufacturing capacity.

Ukraine

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The right hon. Lady is right. We totally condemn North Korea’s involvement and support for Russia, from arms transfer to any further developments. As I said in my statement, that is in breach of multiple UN resolutions and we continue to watch the situation.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the UK armed forces who are providing vital support to our Ukrainian allies, and to the Ukrainian armed forces who are fighting valiantly against Putin’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine?

[John Healey]

I will indeed. I have had the privilege of visiting Interflex training courses four times now, I think. I visited the second ever course at Salisbury plain. It is deeply moving to see the level of commitment of British forces to the task of training the Ukrainians, and to spend time with those Ukrainian recruits. They are lorry drivers, bank clerks, PR executives of all ages, who have volunteered to fight for their country and their freedom. They are trained by British forces, now with those from other countries alongside them, who are equipping them to be able to fight for their country. Knowing that they will soon return to the frontline in their own nation is deeply sobering.