Mark Francois MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will not look a gift horse in the mouth. I thank the Minister for his kind offer, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am not saying that in 14 years we got everything right, but we never ended up in a situation in which we could not put a destroyer to sea, to a NATO exercise, with three months’ warning. It was never that bad. I was told at a dinner last night that the Secretary of State or other Ministers have not allowed this Minister to see the defence investment plan. Surely that cannot be right: he must have seen it. For the avoidance of doubt, could he just pop up and tell us that of course he has seen it, and he has seen the detail of it?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will finish this point, then of course I will give way. Some housing associations have been looking after public sector housing, which is effectively what forces housing is, for decades. In my experience as a constituency MP, such housing associations vary in quality. There are some poor ones and some very good ones. The main one operating in my constituency is Sanctuary. A few years ago it was pretty poor but it is now under new leadership, with a very good chief executive called Craig Moule. Five years ago he told me that he was going to turn around the supertanker; she is still turning, but she is now pretty much going in the opposite direction, so I have seen what good looks like. The idea was to bring in the expertise of people who had been managing public sector housing for decades, get a chief executive from that background and then create a board chaired by a Minister, so that Ministers would have real accountability, with representatives from forces families associations sitting as non-executive directors on the board, thus ensuring direct involvement from the customers themselves. There is more I could say on that, but I do not want to try the patience of the Committee. That was the rationale: bringing in external housing sector professionals and getting them to run a ringfenced entity. That is what we were advocating for in “Stick or Twist?” and it was the genesis of the policy we announced several months ago, I am pleased to say. Having given the context, and having hopefully told the Committee where my heart lies on this matter, I will gladly give way to the hon. Member for South Ribble.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  So you haven’t seen it.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  One day, obviously, but not quite yet.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, and in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, they would say that, wouldn’t they? We were proposing a slightly more market-oriented solution. Registered social landlords are somewhere between the public and private sector. They are not entirely private entities or entities of the state, but are, practically, somewhere in the middle. As I have already said from experience, they vary in quality, but to be fair, I have seen what good looks like. I appreciate the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman. He has a proud background of service in the Royal Engineers. He qualified as a clerk of works, which is no mean feat, so I appreciate that he knows his onions. None the less, the point he puts across came from the other side of the fence—no pun intended. Of course they would argue that. The purpose of tabling new clause 7 was so we could debate the relative merits of the two systems. If we think of this as a spectrum, the old DIO was at the most statist end, the Defence Housing Service as proposed is one notch further along to something more market-oriented, and we are proposing something another notch further along the spectrum. The Minister is listening intently; hopefully he understands the analogy. As I said at the beginning, I do not believe there is any violent disagreement, or indeed any disagreement at all, about what the Committee is trying to achieve. We all want service family accommodation of the best possible quality for our personnel and their families; the debate is about how we best get to that objective. We were asking the Government to conduct a feasibility study, perhaps slightly more independently than the response that the hon. Member for South Ribble just cited, and to come back a year later, before the Defence Housing Service is fully up and running, to see whether there might be a better way of doing it or whether it could be tweaked. We might return to this on Report, but that is the background, the genesis and the stimuli of our proposal. When we did the visits—it was a former Minister, a politician in a suit, coming down to a military establishment—we sat 20 people down in a room and gave them the scenario of the corporal’s conversation at the kitchen table as a bit of an icebreaker. To begin with, everyone looked at everyone else, and they were all a bit nervous about saying something. One person then said something, and the dam broke: everybody wanted to pitch in, and everybody had a contribution to make. That taught me how powerful all of this is. We had a number of specific examples when people of varying ranks told us, “We are going to leave the service of the Crown, because of our concerns about housing.” I know from experience that this really matters to service personnel and their families. I apologise for trying the patience of the Committee this morning, Mr Efford—in all seriousness, you have everything in Greenwich, including your own barracks, so you will be very familiar with these matters yourself. I hope Members understand the spirit of what we are trying to do with new clause 7. On clause 3, I think we have had a good debate this morning, and we have tested some of the issues fairly well. I hope we have done our duty, and no doubt we will wish to return to some of these issues on Report, not least the prospective bonus for the National Armaments Director. I will conclude there, and I am genuinely interested to hear the Minister’s reply and the opinions of any other members of the Committee.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The essence of new clause 7 is that the Government should prepare a feasibility study of the relative merits of introducing a forces housing association, as recommended in the “Stick or Twist?” report, versus continuing with the Defence Housing Service. I apologise to you, Mr Efford, and to members of the Committee: as the new clause relates specifically to that document, I should as a courtesy have sent a copy—or at least a link—to all members of the Committee before this sitting. No disrespect was intended, but perhaps I can atone for that by leaving a copy with the Clerk. If anybody wants to refer to it afterwards, they can go to him. I will explain the background to the report and why I believe its recommendations are powerful. After I left government in 2016, when Theresa May became the new Prime Minister and I somehow did not end up in her Administration, I was commissioned by her as a former Minister—the Minister here today may one day, after he has retired, be commissioned to do something similar—to write a report about military recruitment. It was called “Filling the Ranks” and it took about a year to write; I submitted it in 2017. It covered a range of stuff, including trying to see past very minor medical ailments that were preventing people who desperately wanted to join the forces from doing so. All of the recommendations, bar one, were adopted by the Department and I think they have been worked on over the years, some of them more speedily than others. For the record, the recommendation the Department did not adopt was that I pleaded with it to sack Capita— I nearly called it something else—as the contractor in charge of recruitment. I said in 2017, “Give them a year to fix it and if they don’t, they should go.” Capita did not fix it, and it stayed on. I understand that it was unsuccessful in bidding for the new trial service contract, so maybe it got its come-uppance after all. Some people thought that “Filling the Ranks” was not completely useless, so I was subsequently commissioned to do a report on retention. The reason for that was partly that as soon as we started talking about recruitment, we ended up having a discussion about retention within 15 minutes anyway. As I am sure the Minister, with his experience, will know, there is no point widening the aperture of the recruitment tap, as it were, unless you can put a retention plug in the sink. If they are leaving faster than they are joining, we have a real problem. I had a very good team for the retention report. I place on record my thanks to Brigadier Simon Goldstein, a distinguished reservist who retired from the Army after many years as a brigadier, including in one or two regiments the Minister will be familiar with, and my then researcher, an extremely bright chap called Rory Boden who has now gone to the dark side and works in public affairs. The three of us, I hope, put together a credible document. We called it “Stick or Twist?” because that encapsulates the dilemma that service personnel often face at a particular junction in their career. Do they stick with their military service, or twist and go and do something else? We submitted that report in February 2020. It was commissioned by Theresa May, but by then Boris Johnson was the Prime Minister. We submitted it a month before the country went into lockdown, so it was written in a pre-covid context. The methodology was to make about a dozen visits to military establishments around the country, including Portsmouth for the Royal Navy, Catterick garrison for the Army and Brize Norton for the Royal Air Force. While we were there, we conducted a series of panels—I suppose one might call them focus groups—with warrant officers, senior non-commissioned officers, junior ranks and partners thereof. We tried to get four different perspectives on the challenges facing retention in the armed forces. It was very interesting to see how different ranks sometimes saw issues differently. One quote struck us so much that we stuck it on the cover. This was under a Conservative Government—I have been called many things down the years, but never a toady. The quote relates to accommodation and came from an interview at Brize Norton with a Royal Air Force corporal: “We had an Air Vice Marshal visit us a few months ago to give us all a pep talk about how what we were doing was extremely important to Defence and how the nation greatly valued our contribution to National Security. While I was standing at the back, I couldn’t help thinking, well Sir, if that’s true, why are my kids showering in cold water—yet again?” We put that on the front page of the report—on its face, as it were—because we thought it encapsulated the problem. I encourage hon. Members at least to have a glance at the report if they have a spare minute, but I realise they all live very busy lives. One thing that came out of the report was that when people leave the armed forces—when they decide to twist—it is often for a combination of reasons. We gave the example of an Army corporal having a kitchen table conversation with his wife when their kids have gone to bed. He has been offered promotion, and he says, “Should I stick or twist?” They go through factor by factor: his likelihood for promotion, her likelihood of promotion in a civilian career, the education of their children—in this scenario, they have an education, health and care plan, so if they move, they might lose that—care for an elderly relative and availability of medical support. In the end, they come to an amalgamated decision about whether to carry on. We learned from the focus groups that this sort of stuff goes on all the time. We were trying to reflect what the Minister would call ground truth. Sometimes there was just one thing—the straw that breaks the camel’s back. In some cases, it was that the partner in the services had been away on an unaccompanied tour and there had been failures with housing provision, and that did it. To give a completely contrary example, a captain in an armoured unit down on Salisbury plain said that he left because he had been looking forward for months to being the best man at his old university friend’s wedding, but he was picked up on a trawl and told that he had to be a watchkeeper in the British Army Training Unit Suffield. He pleaded with his CO. He wrote a letter to the brigadier, but the brigadier was unsympathetic. The captain missed his best mate’s wedding. He said, “I was sat there with a laptop at 2 o’clock in the morning in the middle of BATUS”—this was some years ago, remember—“reading a cheap novel, when I could have been at my friend’s wedding.” So he came back from Canada and told the Army to stuff it. To my mind, such brainless decisions can bring very promising military careers to an end. When my team and I looked at the housing issue, I looked at the history of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, which at that time, it has to be said, was not coming in for a lot of praise. In fairness to the DIO—I want to put this on record—it was created in 2010 in something of a shotgun marriage between up to 24 different entities. The old Defence Estates and lots of attachments and detachments, to use military language, were thrown together to create the DIO. In 2012, when I came in and asked to visit the DIO’s headquarters, I was asked, “Which one do you want to visit, Minister?” I said, “What do you mean? There can be only one.” “No, sir. There are six.” We eventually decided that the principal headquarters was in Sutton Coldfield, but that gives some idea of how long it took that organisation to settle down. It was not given an abundance of resources with which to complete its task. In fairness to the DIO, which has come in for a lot of stick down the years, not least from me, it was set up in challenging circumstances and has had a difficult job to do for many years. If anyone from the DIO is listening, I hope they can appreciate the spirit of what I am trying to say. We found very clear themes from the focus groups. The partners definitely wanted the patch managers back—I have gone on about it because that is what they kept telling us everywhere we went. Some of the junior ranks in single living accommodation wanted to have slightly better conditions, but some of them at least accepted that, while their conditions may not have been great, they paid virtually no rent for them. Bluntly, at the age of 19, they were slightly more concerned about having a bit of spare cash for Friday and Saturday night than they were about their rent, but that does not mean they do not deserve to live in good accommodation. So we got a variety of feedback. Based on the DIO at the time, we came up with an alternative solution that we called a forces housing association. The rationale for it was to create a specific bespoke entity with the sole purpose—as established in its articles of association—to provide high-quality housing for armed forces personnel and their families while providing value for money, both for those families and for the taxpayer. The Minister will know that such an entity could be a retention aid because people often pay well below the market rate for a property that would cost them a lot more to rent in the civilian world. In some cases, service personnel value that, and in some cases it is one of the reasons they stick rather than twist, so it can work two ways. The idea is to create a bespoke housing association, chaired by a Minister and bringing in external expertise from the social rented sector.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I note that the Minister never answered my previous inquiry about the bonus arrangements for the NAD. He is speaking to the clause standing part of the Bill, so perhaps he can tell me now—though he may need to seek inspiration. What are the bonus arrangements for the NAD relating to the DHS? What metrics will be applied?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It may assist the Committee to know that when I looked at this in “Stick or Twist?”, we realised that we were talking about two slightly different propositions, and that some of the challenges in single living accommodation are a bit different from those in SFA. For the record, in “Stick or Twist?” we said we would start with SFA—we were talking about a housing association—and learn lessons from that and then go on to SLA. We realised there is a bit of an air gap between the two, so our work was concentrated on one and then maybe moved on to the other. That is, in some ways, similar to the spirit of what the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is saying, if the Minister will accept that.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comment—every dog has its day. Yes, I think it should, and that is partly the purpose for tabling the amendment. For the avoidance of doubt, I accept in principle that, given the very large amounts of money we spend on equipment procurement—potentially more than £0.25 trillion over the next decade—paying someone quite a lot of money to get it to work is inherently not an unreasonable thing to do. Nevertheless, the appointment did raise eyebrows across the civil service. To be fair, as I understand it, the chief executive of BAE Systems earns about £10 million a year—although if we look at what he has done to its share price, a shareholder might argue that it is a pretty good investment. Charles Woodburn is widely regarded in the industry as knowing what he is about, and is a highly professional leader of that company. None the less, I have sympathy with the question posed by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. If this is part of the bonus arrangements, what are the metrics? If he were to get a bonus for the performance of Defence Housing Service, how do we know how much he will get? And how would we judge whether it is value for money, not just for the taxpayer but for the rent payers—the customers—of the Defence Housing Service? I hope the Committee will understand there is a genuine point at issue here. We would be very interested to know what element, if any, of the NAD’s salary, and specifically the bonus payment, is related to the performance of the Defence Housing Service. By the same token—I hope the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is with me here—if the Defence Housing Service were to underperform, what would happen to the NAD’s base salary? Would it be docked? It is a really serious question. To summarise, could the Minister explain why the Department decided to manage it in this way? There must be a rationale, and the Committee would like to know what it is. Could he also explain how these bonus arrangements will work and how transparent all of it will be?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We all know how this works. That was what, in “All the President’s Men”, they would have called a non-denial denial. I am afraid we have had no satisfaction, so we will press amendment 17 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 3, page 7, line 26, at end insert— “(e) improving the satisfaction of service families with the accommodation provided.” This amendment would make improving customer satisfaction a specific objective of the Defence Housing Service.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 3, page 7, line 26, at end insert— “(e) provide earmarked accommodation to facilitate “contact visits” for children of service personnel, who do not live with them (in accordance with any relevant court order).” This amendment would make the Defence Housing Service responsible for providing accommodation to facilitate “contact visits” for children of service personnel who have separated, in accordance with any relevant court order regarding access. My hon. Friends and I tabled this very specific amendment for two reasons. I remember that during my time as a Minister, which was more than a decade ago, when I visited Army garrisons, Navy facilities or RAF airbases and discussed service family accommodation, the issue often cropped up of providing accommodation for contact visits. In practice, that usually means providing SFA quarters that are ringfenced specifically to allow serving personnel to hire them temporarily, for example so that children who do not ordinarily live with them can stay with them on camp during a contact visit. This is obviously still an issue. I recall it cropping up in conversation when the Committee visited Portsmouth. When we visited the patch, we were shown some houses that, from memory, still had diggers outside because they were about to be refurbished for exactly that purpose. That tells me that this is still a bit of a challenge even now. Incidentally, that example bears out the value of the Committee visiting to see and learn these things for ourselves. As the Minister reminded me, it was Napoleon who said that time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. Our visit was a very good example of that maxim in practice.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am so sorry; I have done it again. Mr Efford, I was not planning to press the amendment to a Division, but now I will—before I “retire”. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Retired?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Offord, I was—

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 3, page 7, line 16, at end insert— “(4) The Defence Housing Service will operate within a budget which must be set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State.” This amendment would ensure that Defence Housing Service’s budget is set out in any Defence Investment Plan published by the Secretary of State. Good morning, Mr Efford. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again as we move on to clause 3, which concerns the proposed new Defence Housing Service and associated matters. I will speak to amendment 17 in my name. There are no Liberal Democrats in the room yet, but I am sure they will be joining us at some point. We have been assisted in examining this topic by our very helpful evidence sessions with Mr David Brewer, the putative head of the new Defence Housing Service, and Ms Natalie Elphicke Ross, a former parliamentary colleague of ours on both sides of the House, who has materially assisted the Government with their review and the creation of their new plan. We acknowledge her efforts. We also had a very informative Defence Infrastructure Organisation briefing during our visit to Portsmouth, where we visited a number of dwellings in a military patch outside the wire. That included houses representing both before and after, as it were: those that had been refurbished to an obviously good standard, and those that were still awaiting that work. I place on record our thanks to members of the DIO and to the Clerks for what was, as I hope the whole Committee will agree, an extremely informative visit. Before we get into the meat of the debate, I will take it as read that all members of the Committee share the same objective: an improved quality of service family accommodation for our valued armed forces personnel and their families. Again, for the record, we thank them for their service. We would also like to see good-quality accommodation for senior service personnel. The debate is therefore not so much about the objective, which I think we all share, as about the best way of achieving it. That is where we may have some genuine differences of opinion this morning, but hopefully for the right reasons. Amendment 17 focuses on the budget for the proposed new Defence Housing Service. Its essence is that the Defence Housing Service’s budget should be clearly set out in any defence investment plan published by the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Good morning! The Liberals are now with us. There is an obvious historical context for the amendment. I think it is fair to say that down the years, under Governments of both colours—three colours, if we include the coalition Government of 2010 to 2015—there has been a constant tension in the funding of the defence housing estate. On the one hand, there has been a desire to provide capital to upgrade it; on the other hand, there have been general pressures on the defence budget. It has not been unknown for capital expenditure to be deferred from one year to another to free up resourcing for other operational priorities that were deemed more pressing or urgent by Ministers at the time. The aims and objectives of the new Defence Housing Service are rightly ambitious, which raises questions about how to secure the money and what safeguards there are, if any, against any future Government raiding that substantial pot of cash for other priorities should the circumstances arise. Both Mr Brewer and Ms Elphicke Ross were very clear in their evidence on the subject on 4 March: they said that after considerable discussion with the Treasury, a sum of some £9 billion had been put aside to create the Defence Housing Service and enable it to achieve its objectives laid out in the Bill. Nevertheless, during the same evidence session, it was established after some detailed—indeed, forensic—questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East that the money had not been formally signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury. That is because the sum is currently included in the defence investment plan, which itself has not been signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury. As we all know, the defence investment plan has not been published, although Parliament was initially promised it by last autumn. I do not intend to labour—no pun intended—the point this morning, as we debated it at some length in the main Chamber on Tuesday evening. Suffice it to say that when the Government published the strategic defence review in July last year, they deferred many of the crunchy equipment and capability decisions to a subsequent defence investment plan. We were promised that it would be published in the autumn. We were then faithfully promised that it would be published by Christmas. We were then absolutely promised that it would be published fairly shortly thereafter. Here we are on 26 March, the day on which the House rises for the Easter recess, and still it has not been published. That leads to an additional problem, including for the Defence Housing Service. Part of the DIP, presumably including service accommodation in Scotland and Wales, could be affected by the outcome of the forthcoming Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd elections, at least indirectly. If the DIP is not published extremely shortly, it is likely to be caught by the purdah rules on those national elections. The putative date for the King’s Speech seems to be settling on or around 13 May. That means that the DIP is unlikely to be published until the second half of May, nearly two months from now, by which time the Defence Housing Service is meant to be under way. In essence, we are debating a plan based on a long-term budget that has not yet been agreed by the Treasury because, bluntly, the Ministry of Defence is at war with it. That is why the DIP has not been published. It is conceivable—although, for the record, I hope that this will not be the case—that whenever final negotiations are eventually concluded, the Treasury may insist on further reductions in the DIP, which in turn could lead to further reductions to the £9 billion currently allocated for the programme. That is why we tabled amendment 17, which states that the budget for the Defence Housing Service must be very clearly set out in the defence investment plan, whenever it is published, not least so that in subsequent iterations of the plan we can see whether the funding allocation is being reduced or increased. Will the Minister guarantee to the Committee that, as of 26 March 2026, the £9 billion in the forward programme has been formally signed off by His Majesty’s Treasury? In other words, can he guarantee that it is ringfenced in the DIP? If he cannot, can he at least tell us when the DIP will finally be published? A fortnight ago, I said privately to a Labour peer that waiting for the DIP was like waiting for Godot. He replied, “Yes, Mark, but at least Godot finally turned up.” Will the Minister answer those questions so that the Committee can take a view on the surety of the funding on which this admittedly very ambitious plan undoubtedly rests?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Gurkha Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  As former Officer Cadet Francois 24663730, and latterly Lieutenant Francois, 5th Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment (Volunteers), I am proud to be asked to sum up for His Majesty’s official Opposition in this important debate about Gurkhas and their welfare. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), not just on securing this important debate, but on introducing it so very ably. As some Members of the House may know, I am something of a military history buff, so I have at least some appreciation of the noble and valiant service that the Gurkhas have provided to the British Crown for over 200 years. We have heard a number of important Back-Bench speeches this afternoon, including from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), and for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding). The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made the point that, in an important debate on this subject, 27 Back-Bench rebels made the difference on the day. He cited that as an example of how Back Benchers can affect the future. I remember how 28 Tory MPs changed the future on meaningful vote three in 2019—although, for our trouble, we were nicknamed “the Spartans” by the media, and not “the Gurkhas”. The Gurkhas celebrated their 200th anniversary in British service in 2015, when a very striking memorial was unveiled on Horse Guards Avenue, just across the road from the Ministry of Defence. As a number of hon. Members have mentioned today, the inscription on that memorial bears repetition in this context: “Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.” The Gurkhas entered British service in 1815, when a battalion of Gurkha troops was formed under the auspices of the East India Company. They continued in British service, and during the Indian rebellion of 1857, Gurkhas fought on the British side, and they became part of the British Indian Army on its formation. They remained in the British Indian Army, and fought valiantly in both the first and second world wars. In his brilliant book “Defeat into Victory”, which was written after the end of the second world war, and is arguably one of the greatest works ever written on the subject of generalship, one of the Gurkhas’ most famous officers, Field Marshal Viscount the Lord Slim, fondly recalled his association with the Gurkhas in the following terms: “I was able to visit my old Battalion, the 1st/6th Gurkha Rifles, in which I had served for many happy years. It was good to see them again, and to be told by the divisional commander that they had done well in the Bridgehead fighting. I spoke to Gurkha officers who I had first known 20-odd years before, when I was adjutant, and they were chubby recruits straight from the from the Nepal hills. Now they were subadars, commanding companies and platoons on a hard-fought field. Real soldiers and real leaders.” What a marvellous tribute to the Gurkhas from Bill Slim, an absolutely exceptional leader. The Gurkhas continued to fight valiantly in British service, including in the Malayan emergency and during the Falklands war, when a battalion of Gurkhas were part of the British taskforce that liberated the Falkland Islands from Argentinian occupation in 1982. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury rightly paid tribute to Ghanendra Limbu, who was part of that successful campaign. We thank all those who have served proudly in the Gurkhas for their service. The Gurkhas still form a fundamental part of the British Army today, serving in what is now known as the Brigade of Gurkhas, a collective term that refers to all serving Gurkha units. It includes three infantry battalions, one of which is based in Brunei. The second is in the United Kingdom, and there is now a third, smaller, specialist infantry battalion at Aldershot, as part of what is known as the Specialised Infantry Group. In addition, the Gurkhas have a number of other units, including signals, engineer and logistics regiments, and, interestingly, from 2025 onwards, there has been the new King’s Gurkha Artillery, which was based at Larkhill. Despite some disputes over welfare issues, which I will come to in a moment, recruitment from the Gurkhas’ ancestral homeland of Nepal is still very healthy. To this day, we recruit several hundred Gurkhas every year, and those places are massively oversubscribed. Many young men from Nepal still strive to emulate their forebears and join one Gurkha regiment or another to serve the Crown, and long may that continue. However, in the post-war period, the basis of the Gurkhas’ service was the 1947 tripartite agreement between Nepal, the United Kingdom and India, which established terms and conditions of service for Gurkhas in the British armed forces. Under the arrangement, Gurkhas served in the British Army on distinct terms and conditions. They also had access to a Gurkha pension scheme, first introduced in 1948, which, in essence, followed the Indian army model. It provided Gurkha soldiers with an immediate pension after 15 years’ service, but, as has been pointed out, at equivalent Indian army rates. In 2007, the Labour Government introduced the Gurkha offer to transfer—or GOTT, as it was sometimes referred to—offering Gurkhas who served after July 1997 the option to transfer their eligible service into the United Kingdom’s armed forces pension scheme, or AFPS. I remember much debate about the AFPS when I was a Minister, and about the different benefits provided by the different generations of the scheme, whether it was AFPS 1975, 2005 or 2015—I see the Minister nodding in acknowledgement. Significantly in this context, following the handing back of Hong Kong in 1997, the Gurkhas transferred their main base from that former colony back to the United Kingdom, where they are mainly deployed today. After 2009 and a sustained campaign led by, among others, Joanna Lumley—the daughter of a former Gurkha officer—the then Government amended the immigration rules, in essence to allow those who had served in the Brigade of Gurkhas for four years or more to settle themselves and their immediate families in the United Kingdom. That effectively remains the position today. As a result, there are now clusters of Gurkhas and their families living in the UK, mainly in current or former garrison areas, but some are dispersed further afield. For some time, there has been a campaign to amend the pensions of Gurkha veterans who served many years ago and still draw a pension, so that they are at the equivalent AFPS rate, rather than based on the comparable Indian army rate. The traditional argument is that because most Gurkhas returned to Nepal on the conclusion of their service, where costs were lower, it was appropriate to pay them under the old arrangements. However, after the end of their basing in Hong Kong and the switch of the brigade to the United Kingdom—and, indeed, given that many Gurkhas now avail themselves of the option of settling in the UK with their immediate family following their period of service—the question arises of whether the pension arrangements should be altered, including for older Gurkha veterans. I commend the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for advancing their arguments in the way he has done this afternoon. He has been a strong advocate of their case. I am afraid that I cannot, standing at the Dispatch Box, make an immediate spending commitment on behalf of my party to satisfy the hon. Member—

• 26 Mar 2026 · Gurkha Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  —although I hear calls from senior Members behind me to do so. Nevertheless, I can perhaps provide at least some additional context to this debate. Let me set out what I mean by that. For many years, all western armies—be they American, Canadian, Australian, German or otherwise—have struggled to recruit and retain sufficient regular and reserve personnel. I would argue that there have been particular problems in Britain, because of an extremely poor recruitment contract with Capita, or —forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—Crapita, as it was nicknamed by Private Eye . I proved spectacularly unsuccessful at persuading Conservative Ministers to take away the contract, despite my best efforts. At a time when all western armies have struggled to recruit and retain, the Gurkhas have provided a constant source of willing soldiers for the British Army—and as I intimated earlier, each year, the recruitments slots are still very healthily oversubscribed. That is no doubt one reason why the new Labour Government decided to form an entirely new artillery regiment, the King’s Gurkha Artillery, last year. In addition, there are still large numbers of Gurkhas who have left regular service but are living in the United Kingdom under the immigration changes I referred to, who might perhaps be persuaded to form reserve battalions of what is now the Army Reserve. I believe that such units would have as strong an ethos as their regular counterparts, and there should hopefully be a ready pool of already trained ex-regular troops to sign up, if this idea were pursued. I mention all this because of the Conservative party’s recent announcement that, due to the worsening international situation, an incoming Conservative Government would add back to the Army; we would create a Regular Army of a minimum of 80,000 troops, and the Army Reserve would be expanded from some 26,000 soldiers at present to at least 40,000, making for an Army on mobilisation of 120,000—and there would be potential further augmentation from the strategic reserve by another nearly 100,000. That is excepting a situation in which there was full conscription. We hope to debate this matter in more detail in the Armed Forces Bill Committee after the Easter recess. If we were to expand the British Army, both regular and reserve, there might well be merit in seeking to use that willing pool of additional Gurkha recruits to achieve at least part, if not all, of the desired expansion. If we were to ask the Gurkhas to form a proportionally slightly larger element of the British Army in the future, that might make for a stronger case for improving their terms of service, including the terms of service of those who served many years ago. I hope the House can follow my argument. I table that suggestion for discussion, and I hope that it is a positive contribution to the debate. To finish, I pay tribute to the extremely loyal and valiant service to the Crown that the Gurkhas have provided for over two centuries, during which 26 Victoria Crosses and many hundreds—indeed, thousands—of other gallantry medals have been awarded to those serving in Gurkha regiments. The Gurkhas have been great friends to Britain over many decades—indeed, centuries—and we thank them most heartily for that record. As they have a fearsome reputation on the battlefield, we should be wary of upsetting them, and avoid doing so if at all possible. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and to hearing whether he can provide any comfort to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, or to the House more broadly, on this admittedly rather complicated subject, which affects some of the bravest and most dedicated soldiers the British Army has ever seen.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that point?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  When I spoke from this Dispatch Box barely a month ago, I had literally just returned, hot foot, from Ukraine. Those who were here that evening might recall that I conveyed to the House a personal warning from the Speaker of the Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament: “No one knows the Russians better than us. If we fall, you and your friends are next.” —[ Official Report , 25 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 423.] Not only is that war in Ukraine sadly ongoing—and has been for 12 years, not four years—we now face a very challenging situation because of the two concurrent conflicts in the middle east and Ukraine. Yet again, as we debate defence in this House, the plastic patriots of Reform are absolutely nowhere to be seen. Tonight’s debate is all the more pressing given the Government’s fundamental failure to display the requisite sense of urgency that is now clearly required. As an example, the Government’s much-vaunted strategic defence review, published last July, states on page 43: “This Review charts a new era for Defence, restoring the UK’s ability to deter, fight, and win—with allies—against states with advanced military forces by 2035.” That is nine years from now. Our Chief of the General Staff is on record as saying that he believes we might have to fight Russia by 2027 and the First Sea Lord estimates only a couple of years after that, yet it is the official policy of His Majesty’s Government that we will be prepared to fight a peer enemy almost a decade from now. That has terrible echoes of the so-called 10-year rule of the 1920s, and we all know what happened after that. The all-party, Labour-led House of Commons Defence Committee, with its excellent Chair the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), recently accused the Government of proceeding “at a glacial pace” in improving Britain’s war preparedness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) reminded us, on 10 March, after a classified briefing, the Committee issued a joint statement and urged hitting 3% on defence spending in this Parliament. That is already Conservative party policy. The matter cropped up yet again at the Liaison Committee yesterday, when the Prime Minister was clearly floundering about the ability of his Government to respond to emerging threats and about why the defence investment plan—the DIP—has still not been published. Nowhere is the complete lack of strategic thinking from this Government more abundantly clear than in their barmy proposal to spend £35 billion of British taxpayers’ money to lease back the vital strategic outpost of Diego Garcia, which belongs to us in the first place. There is no credible legal threat to the sovereignty of Diego Garcia, and certainly none that would justify the expenditure of that much of taxpayers’ money. Instead, that money should be spent directly on our own defence. Why do I say that the threat is not credible? First, when we signed up to the International Court of Justice, we specifically included an opt-out for any cases involving current or former Commonwealth countries. Any judgment by the ICJ—even a mandatory one, and we should remember that this one is only advisory—would still not be legally binding on the UK, because of that crystal clear opt-out. Secondly, the Government attempted to argue that via the International Telecommunications Union, which is a UN agency like the ICJ, we could somehow lose control of our military spectrum. Again, that is absolute nonsense, because article 48 of the ITU treaty, to which we are a co-signatory, states clearly: “Member states retain their entire freedom with regard to military radio installations.” Again, that legal threat simply does not exist. Even the Government’s then telecommunications Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) confirmed that in a written answer to me a year ago on 12 February 2025. Thirdly, the Government’s last trench, as cited on Second Reading of their Diego Garcia Bill, was the desperate argument that we could somehow lose a case under the UN convention on the law of the sea at the international tribunal for the law of the sea. However, article 298(b) of the UNCLOS treaty, to which we are a co-signatory, states clearly that we have an opt-out in the event of any disputes concerning “disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service”. Quod erat demonstrandum. We can throw in the Pelindaba treaty on nuclear non-proliferation, which Mauritius has signed and will prevent basing of nuclear weapons on the islands anyway, and, crucially, the 1966 Anglo-American treaty, which means that the United States has a formal written veto over Labour’s deal with Mauritius. The Americans are now almost certain to exercise that veto after we denied them the initial use of the runway, which our Ministers allegedly sought to protect in the first place. Ministers must surely know that the whole benighted deal is as dead as a dodo, and still they cannot bring themselves to admit it. They are totally and utterly in denial over Chagos. The same obsession with human rights from a Prime Minister who once described himself as a human rights lawyer first and a politician second—he was not kidding there, was he?—has also led to the utterly despicable position of the Government, in their Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, seeking to pursue our veterans through the courts via a process of lawfare and two-tier justice. That is while alleged terrorists, who those veterans were sent to the Province to fight, effectively walk free with letters of comfort in their pockets. Not only is that morally wrong on a whole range of levels, but it has a debilitating effect on recruitment and retention, especially within our own special forces community. That is an area where, even to this day—as I am sure the Minister for the Armed Forces would agree—our nation remains world-class. Then we come to the delay to the defence investment plan, which is simply unconscionable with not one war under way, but two. When the Government published the strategic defence review last year, they delayed most of the decisions on equipment capabilities to a subsequent defence investment plan, which we were promised would be published in the autumn. We were then faithfully promised it would be published by Christmas, and here we are in late March, all promises broken, and there is still no DIP. Ministers have been claiming for months that they have been working flat-out on this plan. What would have happened if they had not been trying? The reality is that we still do not have this document, because the Ministry of Defence is totally and utterly at war with His Majesty’s Treasury. That vital intergovernmental relationship has effectively broken down, and the Prime Minister is simply too weak to bang heads together and force the plan to be published.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  If I may, I will make just one more point and then give way. Moreover, Labour claims repeatedly that it is introducing the largest increase in defence spending since the cold war, but that is simply not true. In the current financial year, it has actually done precisely the opposite. It has introduced a £2.6 billion efficiency savings programme that viciously cuts operational spending across the British armed forces at the Treasury’s behest. That means fewer ships at sea and longer times to regenerate them, as with HMS Dragon; fewer training hours for our pilots; and fewer exercises on Salisbury plain. So here we are, with two wars under way, and nine months later this completely dysfunctional Cabinet is still unable to publish a forward equipment programme for the British armed forces. Do Labour Members not realise that they can also see this in Moscow, in Beijing and, indeed, in Tehran? If Labour Members believe, as I always have, that the role of the armed forces is to save life by preventing war and by persuading any potential aggressor that they could not succeed were they to attack us or our allies, how in God’s name are we supposed to deter the likes of Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping if we are unable to publish the forward equipment plan for our own armed forces that is now nearly a year overdue? On what planet do Labour MPs think that this is an act of credible and effective deterrence? To be fair to the Government, they have published something today. Just a few hours ago, they published the defence diplomacy strategy. They have been working flat out on it for months. They have been absolutely knocking themselves out to get that one away. I apologise to the House that I have not had the opportunity to read it yet, but I hope that it contains one very firm recommendation: “If you are going to maintain effective diplomatic relations with your strongest ally, the United States, whatever you do, don’t send to Washington an ambassador who had to resign from the Cabinet not once but twice for effectively being a crook and who has now had to be fired third time around.”

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot; I do apologise. The international skies are rapidly darkening, and the response of the Labour Government is, first, to cut operational spending in our armed forces by £2.5 billion and, secondly, to be completely unable to say when they would reach spending of 3% of GDP on defence, which all three authors of the SDR have said repeatedly is fundamental to delivering it. Until they do that, they cannot deliver it. Thirdly, because of the utterly dysfunctional relations within Government, with a Prime Minister whose authority is shot to pieces, they are totally unable to produce the defence investment plan, even though the House rises and we go into purdah for the Scottish and Welsh elections 48 hours from today. This has become a farce, but it is a very dangerous one. We are now, quite literally, a laughing stock in Washington, and there is no way we can possibly deter our adversaries if we carry on like this. It is just not a credible defence posture to maintain, so I conclude by saying to Ministers: you have had long enough to produce it; if you can’t do the job, get out of the way.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am loath to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he is making an extremely powerful speech. I pay tribute to his service. When I was the Veterans Minister a decade ago, I looked at the issue. One thing that we looked at closely was the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, which is that some veterans leave in very good mental shape—they have an exit medical and they are fine—but a few years later there can be a trigger event, such as the sudden death of a parent, and suddenly all the suppressed anxieties and difficulties seen in combat can come out very quickly. That person can deteriorate extremely fast. Is the hon. Gentleman’s proposed appointment partly intended to address that problem?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  To reinforce what the Minister is saying, Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory, who for many years was the controller of SSAFA, always used to make the point that while clearly some people suffer as a result of their military career, as the Minister admits, the vast bulk emerge in good shape, remain in good shape and benefit immensely from their time in service. I put on record what Lieutenant General Gregory, the head of SSAFA until recently, said, if only to back up absolutely everything the Minister is saying.