Calvin Bailey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps I can give the hon. Lady a moment to gauge where she is in her notes while I take her back momentarily to amendment 7. She spoke about the importance of steel to our defence industry, which is therefore central to European security and to deterring the threat of Russian rearmament, but amendment 7 would produce significant procedural barriers and slow down our ability to use the Bill. Does she agree that such amendments risk causing serious impediments to supply-chain security, particularly for our defence industry?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has been speaking about the steel strategy in the round. I wish to echo his remarks about the lower part of our defence sector, but there are also our small and medium-sized enterprises that make things that are not necessarily identifiable as tangible defence things. We need to ensure that we understand the types of steel that they require and the consequences of the tariffs on them. It is also important that we understand the steelmaking strategy as a whole, so from ore all the way through to direct reduced iron. We need to ensure that in gaining our sovereignty, we can create more reliable partners and separate some of the places that produce ore from the production that has traditionally been done in China. Does he agree that is something we must ensure is encompassed in this? That is why I am concerned about some of the amendments that have been tabled.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. While I understand the intent behind the guidance, many of my constituents are concerned about its practical effect. It is one thing to write guidance for a world in which everyone behaves reasonably and respectfully, but it is another to ensure that vulnerable people are protected in the world as it actually is. Can the Minister provide additional reassurance to the House that the Government and the EHRC will keep the guidance under review, and will act swiftly, should its implementation lead to unintended consequences for trans and gender-nonconforming people?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, the Health Secretary confirmed that all eligible black men would be invited to the Transform trial. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prostate cancer, I welcome this vital step towards screening for this terrible disease, for which black men have a doubled risk for both diagnosis and death. This is something that Reform has responded to with nothing but divisive weasel words and rage-baiting. Does the Prime Minister agree that our NHS was founded by Labour to be there for everyone equally, and that when there is a proven higher risk, targeting support is equality?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member is making a powerful point, and it is something I hope that I can expand on as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community. We have worked extensively with the Department for Education on this matter, and I hope to be able to address the right hon. Member’s concerns in my speech later. Does he recognise that special educational needs and disability policy should fall under the Department for Education, and that the point of the armed forces covenant is that we can have some leverage over the Department for Education rather than placing this detail in the Bill?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the many amendments tabled to this Bill, the first of which is the Government’s amendment to include the Greater London Authority among bodies that must apply the covenant duty. As a London MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community, which has supported the campaign to ensure that military compensation is not treated as income for the purposes of welfare means-testing by local councils, I strongly welcome this step to ensure that the covenant applies to all local and regional authorities. I also recognise the changes that both Redbridge and Waltham Forest councils made to their treatment of military compensation last year as a result of that work. The GLA has responsibility for critical aspects of everyday life in London, including transport through Transport for London and oversight of the Met, and it plays an important role in skills development and housing. We must ensure that all levels of government, including combined and mayoral authorities, have obligations under the covenant duty, so I welcome the GLA’s inclusion. However, I am concerned that some policy areas that—as our casework shows—intersect with local government, such as immigration, citizenship, pensions and armed forces compensation, are excluded from the local government scope. This risks current and future inconsistencies in the application of the covenant duty. Likewise, I remain concerned that the current draft of the statutory guidance makes it clear that non-ministerial Departments such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Ofsted and HM Prison and Probation Service are not covered by the covenant. Those institutions have critical roles in taxes and income support, education and the justice system, so I would welcome it if the Government could explain why those Departments are not included and say whether they will make changes to include them. I turn to some of the Opposition’s proposed amendments. I understand and welcome the intent behind the amendment dealing with special educational needs and disabilities, but this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for such changes. SEND policy falls within the remit of the Department for Education, which is now rightly covered by the covenant extension, including in this legislation. The APPG on the armed forces community has contributed to the Department for Education’s SEND consultation, with particularly notable contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), who has been leading on this area for members of the Army and her local community. Drawing on a number of meetings that the APPG held with the Minister for School Standards, we hosted a roundtable involving civil servants from the Department, researchers from Oxford Brookes University and Edinburgh Napier University, the three armed forces family federations, the Royal British Legion and the SSAFA. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot raised the well-evidenced and distinct challenges faced by our service children arising from frequent relocations across borders—challenges that the SEND White Paper did not adequately recognise. However, the solution is not the automatic transfer of plans. Our devolved education system means that an education, health and care plan in England is not equivalent to a co-ordinated support plan in Scotland. In England, around 5% to 6% of children with additional needs qualify for an EHCP, but only about 0.2% qualify in Scotland. Making one legislative change in this Bill will not automatically make our disconnected SEND systems conform to the needs of our service children. Instead, we need the standardisation and timely transfer of records. Children’s SEND documentation must move with them. Records from devolved Administrations and overseas postings must properly be considered and accepted by receiving authorities, and this must be accompanied by a greater understanding of the different education systems from which service children may arrive, including overseas systems. The amendment does not address that. We have raised that issue with the Minister for School Standards. Training about armed forces life should be embedded in mandatory SEND teacher training. There must be stronger cross-nation co-ordination between the four Education Departments to establish shared principles for the transfer of support, particularly as all four systems are undergoing reform. That work must be led first and foremost by the Department for Education. The repeated and genuine engagement we have had with Education Ministers gives me hope that these changes will come forward. New clause 5 would waive fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses and dependants of serving or discharged members of the armed forces. I strongly welcome the intent of the amendment. As its author, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), knows, this policy was included in the Labour manifesto in 2024, and it must be delivered by the Home Office. While I understand that the Home Office is working on the issue with the Ministry of Defence, we are nearly two years on from the general election, and there is still no clarity on when this change will be introduced. In the meantime, the families of service personnel are struggling to afford to stay in this country, and that is plainly wrong. As many members of the armed forces community APPG know—they support this amendment—we have repeatedly sought clarity from the Home Office on how the new immigration rule changes will affect service personnel and their dependants. I have repeatedly requested meetings with Home Office officials over months, but—this is in contrast to the position with the Department for Education—I have made little or no progress. I am therefore pleased that I have been granted a meeting on this matter next week. Responses to my letters state that the views of the armed forces community will be considered, but that does not mean that they are being heard.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This weekend, just over two years after leaving the military, I received my recall notification. I managed to update the details within it. At the same time, I was presented with nearly 60 pages-worth of forms to complete just to take on a reserve service commitment. Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that there is still some way to go and that the amendments should perhaps speak of movement between reserve forces and regular forces, rather than the other way round?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hope to provide the detail on why new clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, is not appropriate in this Bill. The Home Office must take on this work and responsibility, which is why the armed forces covenant has been put in place. We must make sure that all Departments take their responsibilities seriously, but this Bill is not the mechanism for doing so.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I just want to amplify what this means for our service people, as I know there is a slight conflation of issues here. As our service people approach the end of their time in service, if they are not a UK passport holder—the majority of those people may be Americans and not Commonwealth personnel—they will not have access to work and to credit during the final six months of their service. This impediment has been in place for decades; as I said, I fought to change it through Cobseo when I was in service, and we are trying to deal with it again now. That is why this matter is broader than the hon. Gentleman’s new clause.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Rather than the shadow Minister extending his speech, I urge Members concerned with this area to perhaps listen to what I will explain, which is the work that we have been doing with the DFE. We have had members from the armed forces community from across the country liaising directly with the Department for Education and the Minister for Veterans and People. I will try to put that across in my speech.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that on Labour’s arrival in government, the National Audit Office stated that the previous Government and the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) had left an equipment plan with a £7 billion to £28 billion gap? Is that correct?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. He is making a powerful speech, the majority of which I agree with. Does he recognise, however, that the armed forces covenant places a legal responsibility on all Departments to remove those barriers and impediments to service life? As a service member, I engaged with the Royal British Legion and Cobseo from about 2017 to try to address those barriers and impediments and failed to do so numerous times under the previous Government because of the nature and approach of the Home Office in addressing these problems. Perhaps the problem we have today is not whether the Department wants to address the issue, but a wider cultural problem. Would the hon. Gentleman join with the all-party parliamentary group to ensure that we apply and enforce the armed forces covenant in the way it is designed in order to achieve the outcomes on which we both agree?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. One thing that came up very strongly in the APPG’s discussions with the Department—we had military families from all three services, and representatives of all the service organisations—was that this problem is faced by all people; it is just that service families and service children manifest the issue most specifically. The problem has to be fixed for all people in the United Kingdom, which is why the changes were taken on board as part of the SEND work. We received a great amount of care and support from the Department, and I hope that the work will prove beneficial. Where I see a bit of a failing is that, in taking that on, the Department could perhaps have noted that work, so that service families could have seen that it had been part of the considerations. That was a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot made to the Minister, and I hope that it will be addressed in the next iteration of the SEND work.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member makes a powerful point, and I agree with him entirely. That is why it is so important we make sure that the armed forces covenant works. The covenant will have to do a lot of work and heavy lifting, just as it will in relation to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, but we will have the legal power and we will have recourse to those Departments. We hope to hear from Ministers today that they will press home the legal advantage they now have in that regard. Finally, this debate reminds us that the Armed Forces Act 2006 was itself forged in the context of its time. It brought together a number of separate pieces of legislation and created a framework suited to an era in which the size and scope of the armed forces were reducing and many of the strategic assumptions underpinning our national security appeared to be settled. The measures in this Bill are all welcome and necessary, but they remind us that much of the heavy lifting now sits elsewhere. Questions about mobilisations, reserve integration, military aid to the civil authorities, the legal protections offered to service personnel acting on behalf of the state, and wider national resilience sit largely beyond the scope of the Bill, yet those issues are becoming increasingly important as the strategic environment changes around us. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that the legal frameworks governing our armed forces continue to evolve alongside those changes. This Bill makes important improvements, but it should also encourage us to think carefully about the work that remains to be done and ensure that future legislation is ambitious enough to meet the realities of the world as it is, rather than the world as it once was.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Preparedness for National Emergencies · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I want to focus on two areas of national resilience. The first is hospital capacity. The covid inquiry highlighted the lack of surge capacity within the NHS, and NATO recognises the lack of medical capacity as a critical vulnerability. The UK has an opportunity to address both challenges together through better integration of civilian and military capabilities. The second area is supply chains for essential medicines. China now controls about 85% to 90% of global production of the antibiotic precursor 6-aminopenicillanic acid or 6APA, on which many common antibiotics depend. There is only one remaining producer of it across Europe and within the NATO area. That is a strategic dependency that should concern us all. Indeed, it especially matters because of the NATO article 3 commitment to national resilience, which is becoming increasingly important. We are targeting the 1.5% spending on the resilience component, so resilience is far more than defence.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Murder of Henry Nowak · Hansard source

  More

  This was a vile act and a crime of the upmost severity, and I am pleased that it has been treated as such by our courts. The case is about the murder of a young man, and our thoughts should remain with Henry Nowak’s family. We do not know why the officers acted as they did, but there is nothing in the Macpherson inquiry that can be blamed for the apparent lack of humanity displayed in the body-worn camera footage. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that we should reflect on the words of Henry’s father, Mark Nowak, who asked that his son’s death should “not…be used to create further division, hatred or tension.”? Does she agree that this is entirely what the interventions of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and others seek to do?

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The nationalisation of the steel industry explicitly links our domestic and international policies. It demonstrates the need for us to go out and champion our steel sector by filling its order books, as we have been able to do because of the wonderful trade deal created with Nigeria, which is expanding its ports and railways, that has been achieved by this Government. That is the type of work that I am doing in southern Africa, and it is the type of work that we should all be going out to do on behalf of our country and our growth agenda.

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will truncate my question. Israel is demonstrating a disinterest in peace and a disregard for international norms. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to put more pressure on our regional partners, with whom we have recently created a trade arrangement, so that we can achieve the outcomes that our unilateral measures are failing to deliver?

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East: Economic Response · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the measures that the Chancellor has set out, particularly those that will help small businesses such as Noted Eel & Pie House in Leyton, Homies On Donkeys in the ’Stone, Bare Brew and City Place in Wanstead, and Fresh as a Daisy in South Woodford. I look forward to seeing their children’s menus, so that families can benefit from the measures she has set out. What more is she doing to support hard-pressed families in Leyton and Wanstead, particularly those who rent in the current cost of living crisis?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 27 Apr 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way. We are having this debate because in hindsight the military forces deployed in Northern Ireland were not provided with adequate protection. If the hon. Gentleman genuinely cared about veterans and the protection of members of the forces in future, he would have submitted amendments to the Armed Forces Bill to prevent a recurrence. Can he make us aware of any such amendments?