Mr Calvin Bailey
MP for Leyton and Wanstead · Labour · United Kingdom
“As a consequence of this volatility, oil prices continue to rise, with Brent crude climbing above $85 a barrel. Even as events unfold, this Government’s objectives are unchanged. We want to see a diplomatic solution to this crisis.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I will go on to say, the things we should be concerned about are not limited to the manifestation of kinetic attacks within the region, but include the things that impact us here at home, such as cyber-attacks.”
“However, it is not just British citizens and military personnel in the middle east who are endangered by Iran. Its far-reaching terror threat extends to the communities, streets and people of the United Kingdom, too.”
“I think it is appropriate that we treat this debate with the appropriate seriousness and that the response comes from people who have this matter as part of their portfolio. I am grateful to be able to speak to the House about the contribution of our brave armed forces personnel, which is why I did not allow the hon.”
“The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that Iran’s total enriched uranium stockpile now stands at 48 times the limit set under the joint comprehensive plan of action.”
“At the moment, the destroyer is part of a UK plan, but, should it be used later, it will form part of a broader design alongside the French—at the moment it is not playing that part. Perhaps I can explore that with the right hon. Gentleman later, or answer in greater detail as I progress.”
The complete record
Every one of 481 lines we hold for Mr Calvin Bailey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 10.
“According to London Councils, London boroughs are forecast to overspend by £800 million this year; particular pressures include homelessness at £330 million, adult social care at £200 million and children’s social care at £160 million. The cost to the public purse will be so much greater in the long run if we do not deal with this crisis now. By far the most acute financial pressure facing London boroughs is homelessness. The scale of the crisis is staggering: London Councils assesses that one in every 50 Londoners is currently homeless and living in temporary accommodation, including nearly 90,000 children. First and foremost, this is a human tragedy.”
“Our communities are strong, but we also face significant challenges, ranging from crime and antisocial behaviour to a shortage of decent, affordable homes and the need for better opportunities for young people. All those issues can only be addressed effectively if our excellent councils can invest in our future. Many councils are now teetering on the edge of issuing section 114 notices—meaning effective bankruptcy—and those risks are increasing, because the drivers of increased costs have simply not been accounted for. Seven London boroughs, nearly a quarter of the total, require exceptional financial support for 2025-26 amounting to over £400 million, and London accounts for almost a third of the total national EFS funding of £1.3 billion. We need to seriously engage with these challenges and chart a sustainable path forward.”
“The hon. Member is right, but we cannot adjust the market situation without adding more houses to the stock. Once we have increased the number of houses, we can start tackling the private rented sector. We are doing so, and I hope that the Minister will expand on some of the measures that this Government are taking to bring our landlords into line and improve the quality of the private rented sector. As a result of the problems I have described, London’s boroughs are facing an unprecedented financial crisis, one that threatens the vital public services that millions of Londoners rely on, including my constituents in Leyton and Wanstead.”
“However, there are further measures that could provide much-needed support to London boroughs. One issue exacerbating the crisis is the cap on the amount of local housing allowance payable for temporary accommodation, which has been frozen at 2011 rates for nearly 14 years, even though such accommodation has become massively more expensive in recent years. The cost to London councils of acquiring temporary accommodation increased by 68% in the single year up to 2023, while the number of homeless Londoners increased by about 8% over the same period. This has created a significant funding gap for local authorities. Updating the cap would provide immediate financial relief for London boroughs, which could then spend more resources on preventing homelessness.”
“I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but it is difficult to accept that kind of challenge when his Government missed every one of their housing targets over the course of 14 years, and he has ignored the fact that the trajectory I have described was set under his Government. If that trajectory continues, homelessness alone will push London boroughs into bankruptcy, although the Government have been working hard to address the enormous challenges that we have inherited—which I have just highlighted to the hon. Member—after the abject failure of Conservative housing and homelessness policies. We welcome the recent uplift to the homelessness prevention grant and this week’s confirmation of £2 billion of grant funding for social and affordable homes across the country.”
“In particular, we need to make sure population figures are robust, which requires serious attention to whether the figures for London reported in the last census are accurate, given that many people left the capital during the pandemic and have since returned.”
“Costs from special educational needs and disabilities have also been surging, with a forecast overspend of £4.6 million, but the increase in the high needs block funding has not recognised that. Across London the upshot of the large gap between assessed need and actual funding, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies has identified as 17%, is the largest shortfall of any region in England. Many outer London boroughs are among the lowest funded per capita in the country, despite significant pressures. We welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing local government funding, because this is a huge opportunity to create a system that accurately reflects the current levels of need.”
“There is no escaping the reality that shocking numbers of people in constituencies like mine are now being evicted as the housing market changes, and identifying creative policies to tackle it is truly urgent. Waltham Forest is facing massive pressures from increased homelessness, with a 55% increase in temporary accommodation in just one year up to last October. The requirement to spend under 51% of the homelessness prevention grant on temporary accommodation, although obviously a step in the right direction, will mean that still more of the bill for rising homelessness costs will have to come from the general budgets, including from reserves and other spending.”
“The main local government funding formula has not been updated since 2013, meaning that allocations are based on outdated data that fails to account for population growth, demographic changes or London’s high housing costs. Such difficulties can be illustrated by the councils that serve my constituents in Leyton and Wanstead. Redbridge has had population growth of 11.4% since 2011 and has huge pressures from homelessness, with a spend of £52 million a year on temporary accommodation. This is driven by the fact that Redbridge has an enormous private rented sector, comprising 75% of renters locally. The eviction rate in Redbridge is at 4.6% per 10,000 renters, almost triple the London average, with 86% of those evictions coming from the PRS.”
“Additionally, a longer-term social rent settlement would stabilise council housing revenue accounts and allow boroughs to increase the building of the new genuinely affordable homes that Londoners need, which we know is the only way to tackle the housing crisis. When deprivation measures—rightly—have such a significant impact on funding formulas, it is vital to ensure that they effectively account for the impact of rents. Housing costs are one of the biggest drivers of deprivation in London, which is the third most deprived region in England once housing costs are considered. Beyond housing, the fundamental issue at the heart of London’s council funding crisis is a growing disparity between funding allocations and actual levels of need.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She refers to one of the three main stresses on our councils: addressing that would bring the greatest relief to all of them. Another step that the Government could take to tackle the homelessness crisis would be to ensure that the LHA rates reflect actual housing costs. London rents have risen so fast in recent years that just 5% of private rented properties are affordable on LHA, pushing more and more families into homelessness. I hope the Minister will set out the steps the Government are taking to review LHA rates, because that could make a huge difference to many families as well as to council finances.”
“London MPs across the House, along with our hard-working councillors and council officers, are keen to work in partnership with the Government to address the huge challenge we face, and I look forward to playing my part in that.”
“Whether we are talking about raising living standards, delivering 1.5 million new homes, getting our NHS and social care system back on their feet, or creating good jobs and strong communities, it all comes back to local councils such as Waltham Forest and Redbridge delivering for local communities. Our Labour councils can do so much more if those challenges are tackled. Despite the challenges, our hard-working local government staff and council leaders are already innovating and delivering change. In Waltham Forest, the council aims to deliver 27,000 new homes and 52,000 square feet of working space. Redbridge has taken forward a new empty property strategy to tackle that element of the housing crisis, alongside plans to deliver 19,000 new homes and 7,000 new jobs over the next decade.”
“We cannot continue to see success punished, as happened under the previous Government, through policies that direct funding towards life support instead of tackling the underlying drivers of increased costs, which affect well-managed and poorly managed councils alike. I urge the Government to work with the local government sector to explore alternative support mechanisms, such as long-term debt restructuring, to give councils a genuine route to financial stability. We look forward to the funding reforms due in the next 12 months, but we must recognise that the pressure driving costs for our councils is linked to other policies across Government, from housing and planning to special educational needs and disabilities reform. Strong and empowered local government in London is vital to support delivery of our national missions.”
“The fact that seven London boroughs now require exceptional financial support should be a wake-up call for us all—but EFS is not a solution; it is an emergency measure that does nothing to address the structural funding problem. The two London boroughs that required EFS in 2024-25 need even greater support in 2025-26. Relying on EFS would only kick the can down the road and allow financial instability to deepen. That presents a further concern for my constituents because our local councils have managed their budgets prudently and well. They have dealt with the inadequacies of the funding settlement and have often had to increase council tax as a result.”
“Ultimately, we need significant change that recognises the impact of huge London-wide demographic shifts, but we also need specific, special consideration for outer London. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken so far to reform the local government financing system, including by giving councils multi-year settlements, which allow them to plan more effectively. That said, local government funding reform will not, on its own, guarantee the financial sustainability of local government, and we all know the challenging financial position that the Government inherited. If greater resources cannot come from national Government, one alternative would be to empower local authorities to raise revenue through greater fiscal devolution.”
“We must recognise that this is not just about the grant formula itself. Inner London weighting has impacts across many policy areas and therefore affects the quality of life of my constituents. Performance levels across education, health, crime and antisocial behaviour are becoming harder to sustain due to recruitment and retention issues, because teachers and police officers can earn up to £6,000 more just by travelling 15 minutes on the Tube. The disparity impacts both revenues and costs, because many inner London boroughs have a greater ability to raise funds from business rates and charges. That also needs to be further taken into account in the Government’s funding reforms.”
“Populations have grown as new people have come in, which has pushed up rents and house prices, contributing to real social exclusion and deprivation for many. I will quote just two of the many statistics that illustrate that. The borough of Redbridge has more than 80,000 children and young people; Islington has less than half that figure, but the figures for spending on children’s services are almost the inverse—Islington is able to spend £81 million and Redbridge just £44 million. That cannot be justified by deprivation rates, because Redbridge sits above the London average rate, and Islington below it. The situation is no different for public health, where outdated formulae mean that Waltham Forest receives 2.5 times less public health funding per person than Kensington and Chelsea, despite having higher levels of deprivation.”
“No, and I will allow the Minister to explain why later. The Tories’ legacies are a local government funding formula that does not recognise London-wide changes, pressure and needs, and a woefully outdated division between outer and inner London. Even 15 or 20 years ago, the traditional distinction between the core city and its outer areas made some sense: density and deprivation were more concentrated in the centre, as a legacy of slums and deindustrialisation. But the impacts of affordable housing and demographic changes have since consigned that situation to the past. The population, especially people on lower incomes, have moved outwards, but the funding formula has not kept up. The places we live in have changed massively.”
“I secured this debate not to draw out ideological challenges and bring up some of the unpleasant aspects of the subject that we have discussed, but to tackle the structural problems that have been languishing untouched for so long. I come back to the point that I should be wary of what I wish for when I secure a debate, but I am not: I am wary of Conservative leadership. I welcome partnership and the Government’s approach, which allows us to have these debates knowing that we will bring better settlements—”
“I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. It will be interesting to see where I go with my first winding-up speech—I will take feedback later. I thank the councils and councillors of London, who deliver the outputs that we need. I thank Councillor Williams and Councillor Rai and all the council leaders of London for showing leadership in a very challenging time. I thank the Mayor, and I also thank the Minister for the £11.3 billion—5.8%—core increase. I will steal the words from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales): London is special. It is different. Local government is the gateway; it is everyone’s front door.”
“I thank the Minister for her response. Last week, the Defence Committee met the Chief of the General Staff, who highlighted the challenges of supporting our troops in Estonia. I highlighted the Rail Baltica project, which received significant funding from the EU’s Connecting Europe Facility and NATO, and which links my constituency, via High Speed 1, right through to the Baltics using British steel. Will the Minister meet me to discuss supporting the expansion of HS1 capacity, as it is the type of opportunity that would support growth within our defence industrial capacity, improve our deterrence and increase our commitment to our European allies, while bringing high quality jobs to east London?”
“I welcome the measures enabling police to target locations storing stolen goods, which often double as hubs for drug dealing. The Bill will enable more effective, co-ordinated police responses, but we must go further. The return of 13,500 police officers is vital, as are our named neighbourhood police officers, but we must also reduce the high abstraction rates that remove those officers from our streets. That is what the people of Leyton and Wanstead deserve, and I hope the Government will go further in this regard. I am proud to support the Bill today.”
“When a constituent stepped in to help, they were threatened with a glass bottle. The nearby Boots has faced repeated thefts, with some shoplifters returning four or five times a day. Constituents describe the fear of retail staff and sadness that children might grow up seeing this situation as normal. It is not normal. We must ensure that our children do not grow up thinking that the high street is a criminals’ playground. We must ensure that no shop worker faces daily threats. We must acknowledge the role that USDAW has played in addressing these issues. I ask the Minister to provide a view on how the law may be extended to protect transport workers, as proposed by the Transport Salaried Staffs Association in its recent report, which highlights the extent of the violence its members face.”
“The new legislation on cuckooing in chapter 2 of part 4 will tackle homes used for drug taking, which are particularly seen in areas such as Leytonstone. Respect orders will enhance local initiatives such as mandatory drug programmes, Project Adder and addressing public drinking in areas such as Jubilee Road. Part 3 delivers on our pledge to introduce a special offence for assaults on shop workers, and it strengthens penalties for shoplifting. Persistent, violent shoplifting has taken hold. A staff member at Church Lane Sainsbury’s in Leytonstone said, “Each and every day it’s going mad. Shoplifters roam the streets from six in the morning every day. We are losing more than £500. Our safety is on the line.” In South Woodford, the Co-op has repeatedly been attacked.”
“It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill, which responds to the concerns of many in Leyton and Wanstead. In October, my Adjournment debate highlighted the terrible impacts of antisocial behaviour in Leytonstone, including in the Avenue Road estate, Selby Road and the surrounding area. Despite good engagement from the police and council leaders, residents still face hotspots of drug injecting, vandalism and abuse in public spaces. This creates fear and makes families feel that their streets no longer belong to them. The response of the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention was encouraging, committing to the respect orders now in this Bill, and I thank her for her visit to Leyton and Wanstead last November. This Bill addresses key issues.”
“The space sector offers opportunities to all our constituents. The defence industrial strategy is an opportunity to create and support activities based in STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—particularly in relation to space. Does my hon. Friend agree that my industrial strategy submission would be a worthy read for all Members today, as it highlights just that?”
“The Prime Minister has our gratitude for steering a very difficult path over recent days and I welcome his statement. Defence is a vehicle for social mobility, career security and opportunity for our young people, as it has been for me. Defence has deep historical links with Londoners—the Gunners, the Hammers and Leyton Orient—but many Londoners are not actively engaged by defence at present. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must engage every part of our country not only with the serious challenge we face, but with the opportunities too?”
“What was the point of the Conservatives starting a negotiation if there was no intent to reach an agreed solution? If there was a red line, which they are now saying there was, where is it published?”
“These live diplomatic questions should be dealt with sensitively and in a way that seeks cross-party consensus, most of all at this critical time when we need to present a united face to a bitterly divided world. Ultimately, if a treaty with Mauritius is delivered, it will ensure the continued ability of UK and US defence and security assets to operate in the region for many decades to come. That objective is vital for our national security, in contrast to the Opposition’s motion, which does nothing but undermine it.”
“I fully understand that there are a range of views about legalities, but the direction of travel is clear and we cannot uphold the principle of a rules-based international order on the one hand while completely disregarding the multiple findings of international courts on the other. Finally, as I have said many times in this place, my experience of discussions with US defence colleagues shows a clear and settled preference for legally binding and secure agreements, particularly around the basing arrangements. Those preferences are important for long-term relationships with the US and so is the clear support for the deal from India, whose partnership we must prize highly in this increasingly fragmented world.”
“If the Opposition succeed, they will do enormous damage to our national security and that of our European allies. Another aspect of the issue, which the Opposition are determined to disregard, is the fundamental importance of the rule of international law for our national interests and security. First and foremost, that is critical to our diplomacy in support of Ukraine. Russia’s invasion is a clear breach of the UN charter and it is on that basis that many countries around the world continue to vote with us, including earlier this week and in cases where countries are non-aligned.”
“The truth is that none of us yet knows the exact details of the financial or security components of the proposed deal with Mauritius, which means that the purpose of the debate is clear. It is not intended to enable an honest and informed debate about how we can best secure our UK defence and security interests in the Indian ocean over the next century. Instead, it is designed to maximise the chance of a damaging dispute about this with our US allies, just when all our energy and diplomatic capital needs to be brought to bear to persuade the US of the need for continued commitments to European security and security guarantees for Ukraine. That is why certain voices have turned up today, when they have been absent in all our national security discussions or discussions on Ukraine.”
“The Conservative party pretends to recognise the serious threats that we face, but bringing forward yet another debate on the topic, just as our Prime Minister heads out to Washington to broker a just peace for Ukraine, is an act of blatant sabotage against our national interest. Yesterday, we saw a superficial and unconvincing performance of consensus from Opposition Front Benchers, who cannot bring themselves to recognise that this Government are delivering on national defence and security commitments in a way that they could not for the past 14 years, in particular regarding increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP to protect our country. Let us face it: the Leader of the Opposition is so desperate for shares on X that she is incapable of engaging with sobering geopolitical realities, just when national consensus is needed.”
“I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership and the announcement today, committing us to 2.6% of GDP on defence spending, and 3% beyond that. That is in stark contrast to the 14 years of erosion of defence spending, the hollowing out of our services, and the service life that resulted. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the reforms put forward by the Defence Secretary are essential to delivering deterrence and to preventing further acts of Russian brutal imperialist aggression in Europe?”
“Just over three years ago, I flew the penultimate UK mission into Kyiv to deliver materiel essential to the defence of Ukraine ahead of the illegal full-scale Russian invasion. Since then, Ukraine has been defending European security, the UN charter and liberal democracy against Putin’s assault on those shared interests, and, in the words of the declaration of independence, the “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Does the Foreign Secretary agree that to free Ukraine from Putin’s tyranny and imperialist ambition, and to ensure the words of the declaration of independence are realised for all, UK leadership in the co-ordination of European and transatlantic allies is essential?”
“The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) says he wants to help UK relations with the US, but he has a very funny way of going about it. Opposition Members state over and over again that they understand the desires and the psyche of the US military and its people, yet they ignore the fact that, the ICJ rulings aside, the previous and present US Administrations understand the language of business and agreements, and not the gentlemen’s agreements that have in the past marred discussions and negotiations about the stability and persistent military presence on the islands. It is for that reason that I ask the Minister if he agrees that the confirmation of the legal status of the base will cement our role in the Indo-Pacific and put us in a strong position to counter Chinese influence in the region.”
“Although this might not be appropriate today, similar housing support is necessary to encourage more Londoners to contribute to the peace and security that they hope to enjoy. This grant must be the start of such a journey.”
“Alongside the Government’s action on respect orders and on wider work to strengthen prevention, there is more that we can do to ensure that these additional resources deliver a sense of greater safety and peace for our communities. Finally, I want to amplify a point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). The police must be of the people, for the people. However, in London, there are many structural challenges that prevent this from being so, including pay, which this Government have chosen to tackle with their significant uplift in the Budget. Housing is another issue. When I was a child, I recall Mr Abbott, our local bobby, living in police housing.”
“Sadly, too often, when our neighbourhood police engage with serious antisocial behaviour issues locally, all it does is move the criminality to a different location, or suppress it only temporarily. To resolve these problems, we need better joined-up work as well as the resources to make policing more effective. Today’s announcement of funding for our councils as well as for our police is doubly helpful. I would like to see our council licensing departments working more closely with the police to shut down premises that are being used for organised crime, even where the evidence is not yet strong enough for the police to make arrests and secure prosecutions.”
“There is also good, responsive policing being done across our communities. Yesterday, for example, I bumped into the territorial support group officers in Langthorne Park—I think they were rather shocked to see me. It is a known hotspot, and that is why I and they were there. They told me that they were acting on information from local people and proactively targeting criminal activity that had been identified. It is that kind of visible policing, backed by strong community engagement, that helps to restore trust in our police and their ability to protect us. There are, I hope, some early signs of this co-ordinated work paying off, with a significant reduction in ASB reports in one of our most affected wards during the final months of last year. That was due to a reduction in the number of abstractions.”
“As we know, Boris Johnson as Mayor of London downgraded the neighbourhood policing presence, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), and closed Wanstead police station and the front counter in Woodford in 2013. That failed to recognise the value of bricks and mortar in connecting policing with our communities. Thankfully, that is being redressed due to the hard work of the outstanding Labour council in Redbridge under the leadership of Councillor Kam Rai. A neighbourhood policing presence is seriously needed in the area. The Co-op on George Lane in South Woodford has had at least 30 shoplifting incidents in the last 12 months alone. Increased police numbers and the improved police presence will be essential to addressing that tyranny.”
“I have been working closely with the community support officer locally and the council’s ASB team, both of whom are actively engaged but struggling to make a difference with the resources they have. I want to thank Councillor Limbajee and Sergeant Mubasher for their efforts. When it comes to tackling crime and antisocial behaviour, Labour’s commitment to putting 13,000 additional bobbies on the beat in our neighbourhoods is essential for laying the foundations for change. It will give the reforms and better leadership we require the space they need to work. Last week, on the Redbridge side of my constituency, we saw the opening of a community police hub in Woodford, from which officers will cover South Woodford and Wanstead.”
“I particularly welcome the largest increase in the national and international capital city grant in a decade, which responds to concerns I have been raising about the impact of police officer abstractions on our communities. At some points last year, a number of our wards had no community response officers at all because of the number of abstractions taking place. In total, we lost more than 26,000 hours of officer time from Waltham Forest alone, and in Redbridge, we have areas that have no identifiable community support officers at all. Last Friday, I again met a group of constituents from Leytonstone who are being blighted by persistent antisocial behaviour and criminality, including allegations of drug dealing, fencing of stolen goods and other organised criminal activity being run out of premises in the local area.”
“I want to thank the police officers and PCSOs of the Metropolitan police, who bravely serve the communities of Leyton and Wanstead. I also want to thank the Minister for her leadership in this area. Her attentiveness to these issues was manifest in her visit to Leyton and Wanstead, where she saw at first hand the problems the additional funding will address. The visit was valued by our police force, council and constituents alike. More broadly, we welcome the Government’s significant investment in our police services, which is much needed after a decade in which real-terms funding for the Metropolitan police was cut by £1.2 billion. In combination with the actions being taken by the Mayor of London, who has doubled the mayoral funding for policing, the investment needs to enable better policing for our communities of Leyton and Wanstead.”
“Tomorrow marks the 20th anniversary of the loss of RAF aircraft XV179 and the 10 UK service personnel who were killed onboard. Those service personnel were known to their friends as Steady, Smudge, Gary Nic, Pards, Gibbo, Ritchie, Bob, Dave, Jonesy and Paddy. They were killed on a routine flight between Baghdad and Balad as the result of a poorly protected aircraft. This was the largest single loss of life in the Iraq war. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking and recognising our service personnel for their service and their sacrifice, and their families for their stoicism, as we gather to commemorate such a tragic moment?”
“The last Conservative Government did not spend 2.5 % of GDP on defence at any point during their 14 years of power. Unfortunately, the increase that will come will have to address a lot of the damage that that Government did to our Army, our Navy and our Air Force. Does the Minister agree that it takes a Labour Government to deliver those spending commitments?”
“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.”
“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 hon. and gallant Member is correct that we visited RAF Lossiemouth last week, where we saw people at the top of their game, doing what servicepeople do, which is coping, doing their job and putting a brave face on things. However, the continuous attitude survey shows the stress behind those things. The service they are, to some degree, enduring could be made better. Although servicepeople put a good face on their morale when we see them, that does not mean our services are in the buoyant state they could be.”