Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

The Government owe all those who served in defence of peace during the Troubles an immense debt of gratitude. We understand the immense psychological toll that legacy proceedings can have, and the concerns of the veterans community. We are working closely with representatives of veterans and the Armed Forces community to understand their concerns and ensure that the Bill meets their needs. But to link recruitment and retention with the Northern Ireland legacy Bill is incorrect”.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, in seeking to address legacy issues arising from the Northern Ireland Troubles, I suspect that what we are all agreed on is that there is no absolutely right way in which to proceed. A judgment about what is the least harmful approach has to be made. May I ask the Minister two questions? Why have the Government created equivalence between our Armed Forces serving their country and terrorists who committed murder and torture? How can such an abandonment of our Armed Forces be the least harmful way to proceed?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I say right from the outset that the Government do not see any moral equivalence between our Armed Forces and terrorists. Let me be absolutely, fundamentally clear on that in answer to the noble Baroness’s question. It is important to put that on the record and for everybody across the Chamber and beyond to hear that.

We are seeking to replace the 2023 Act, which had no support and was actually unworkable. Any Government would have had to deal with that particular situation. We have come forward with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, for which we are seeking to build as big a consensus and as big a support as we can. As part of ensuring that we respect the work of all our Armed Forces, including the tip of the spear, we are for the first time putting in legislation protections for those veterans. We continue discussions with them and the bodies which represent them about the best way to take that forward.

Defence Spending

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We certainly will. I will not have our country categorised as a middle-ranking power or a diminishing power. I just do not believe that, and I do not think that the noble Baroness does either. She is quite right to challenge us on investment; we need the investment that I have outlined in the answers that I have given. I know she supports that investment, and I look forward to working with her, and collectively across this House, to ensure that we have the capacity and the capabilities we need to play the full and proper role in NATO that she and I support.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have stated, encouragingly and repeatedly, that defence is a number one priority, but there is a current budget black hole in the MoD of £2.6 billion, defence industry partners are being starved of essential orders, the Autumn Budget was deafeningly silent on how we reach the spend of 3% in the next Parliament, and the defence investment plan is taking longer than an elephant’s pregnancy. That is a bizarre reflection of priority. Can the Minister, with his legendary bonhomie, shine any light on this gloom?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will first have to tell me how long an elephant’s pregnancy is— I have absolutely no idea whether that is good news or bad news, and I do not know whether anybody else does.

The noble Baroness makes a serious point, challenging the Government on the defence investment plan. I say to this House and to the noble Baroness, who I know takes a keen interest and is very supportive of defence overall, that the defence investment plan will be published when we are in a position to have made the necessary choices to deliver the war-fighting readiness that we want and the capability to fight if we need to, now, in the middle term and in the long term. There are in-year choices that we are dealing with, and the chiefs are fully involved in the discussion and debate on how we take that forward.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

The implications on maritime and nuclear security in the context of these dangerous and alarming concerns, coupled with a rapidly changing geopolitical space, cannot be overstated. For this reason, my amendment stipulates that the Secretary of State must bring a report to Parliament that contains the opinions of the naval staff of all three AUKUS partners.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Callanan on the amendments in this group. I raised specific concerns about defence and security in Committee, and I have considerable sympathy with the remarks of my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Leicester on their amendments. I accept that the Minister has acted in good faith in repeating the advice that he has been given.

After the Committee debate on these defence and security issues, I read Hansard and the Pelindaba treaty with care. It seems that, as my noble friend Lord Lilley indicated, once UK sovereignty over the base is relinquished in consequence of this treaty, that sovereignty transmits to Mauritius and the base is then subject to whatever international agreements Mauritius has entered into. There are restrictive consequences for the base from the Pelindaba treaty, but my concern is slightly broader than that of my noble friend Lord Lilley. If, in the eyes of the other signatories to the Pelindaba treaty, Mauritius is deemed to be in breach, all the other signatories have a locus to raise an objection and deploy international law. That cannot be addressed unless this treaty is renegotiated to retain sovereignty of the base in the hands of the UK, and I wish to place on the record that that is my opinion and understanding of the position.

The Minister rightly does not wish to be drawn into discussing sensitive operational issues relative to the base, and I agree with that. However, before stage 3, I ask him to ask his officials to draft him a letter to be placed in the Library, explaining how the renunciation of sovereignty of the base by the UK and the acquisition of that sovereignty by Mauritius, then governed by the Pelindaba treaty, is compatible with free and unrestricted usage of the base by the US, the UK and our allies.

The Minister has been placed in an impossible position by his Prime Minister: this treaty was negotiated on a basis far removed from the harsh reality of the world we live in. Defence and security seem to have become incidental sacrifices to the worship at the high altar of heady diplomacy and international jurisprudence. It should never have proceeded as it did and, for that, I do not blame either of the Ministers sitting opposite, but I want the Minister to explain how the Government will fix it.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I wish to make some comments on Amendment 22 in my name, and I will seek not to transgress my time in relation to this one.

In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, pointed out the difficulty arising from the fact that while the Mauritius treaty makes provision for the leasing of Diego Garcia by the United Kingdom, this does not change the fact that in the event that the Mauritius treaty is ratified, Diego Garcia would come under the sovereignty of Mauritius.

This is problematic for two reasons at least. First, the Republic of Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, which means that no nuclear weapons can be held in the territory over which it is sovereign. Secondly, Article 7 of the Mauritius treaty expressly states:

“Each Party confirms that none of its existing international obligations or arrangements now in force or effect between it and any third party is in conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, and that nothing in this Agreement shall affect the status of existing international obligations or arrangements except as expressly provided for in this Agreement”.


Can the Minister confirm—I know the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has already made reference to this—that the Government have discussed this matter in its entirety with the Government of the United States and that they have confirmation from the US that they have secured their solemn pledge that no nuclear submarines or other nuclear weapons will be able to be taken to Diego Garcia if sovereignty is transferred?

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that point. But I very gently say that while of course he must not discuss operational matters, this cannot be pushed as an excuse for dodging questions about compliance with international law. Any attempt to deploy that stratagem, to the point of avoiding the demonstration of compliance with international law when non-compliance is feared, would form a deeply troubling precedent.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

On vehicle safety more broadly, which the honourable Gentleman asked about, on the issue of the MAN support vehicle fleet—Army trucks—which I mentioned in my recent appearance in front of the Defence Committee, I can confirm that an issue was identified with the vehicles, and that a mitigation and repair schedule was created, which is being rolled out. That is an example of a system working properly in relation to MAN SV”.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I extend my personal sorrow to the family of Lance Corporal George Hooley. His tragic death is a humbling reminder of the risk that we ask all those who serve with such honour to confront on a daily basis.

In relation to the Urgent Question, we have here a story of starkly, indeed darkly, contrasting facts. In the summer, troops were taken ill after using Ajax vehicles. In late November, 31 soldiers fell ill after using the vehicles, forcing a two-week suspension of Ajax’s use while a safety investigation was carried out. Personnel have been limited to spending only one and a half hours inside the vehicles due to health concerns. Their speed has been restricted because of instability, and they cannot fire while moving. Meanwhile, in early November Mr Luke Pollard, the Minister, visited General Dynamics in Wales to mark the initial operating capability of Ajax. The November edition of Desider, an internal MoD publication, lavished praise on Ajax as a “world-class armoured fighting vehicle” and a “transformational capability”.

Given what we now know, I ask the Minister how on earth the MoD could accept initial operating capability. Who signed that off? If this nightmare cannot be fixed, as looks increasingly likely, can the contract be terminated?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks about our British serviceman who was so tragically lost. The whole House will join in her remarks.

With respect to the position regarding Ajax, the previous Minister will be well aware of the various reports and representations that have been made to various Ministers over a number of years. All Ministers, past and present, will want answers to the very questions that the noble Baroness has quite rightly put to us. Like all of us, she will be waiting for the results of the various investigations that have been set up. I assure her that—as she will have heard from my colleague in the other place—when we get the results of those investigations, we will consider all available options on how we move forward.

Armed Services: Sexual Violence

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, in response to my amendment to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, which would have enabled an independent direct route to the commissioner for whistleblowing complainers, the Government announced that they would undertake a whistleblowing in defence review. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of that review?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank again the noble Baroness for the whistleblower review amendment that she brought to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill in liaison with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. That is being taken forward. The whistleblowing review is under way. We expect an interim report to be available in the very near future, with a full report available sometime in the spring next year. I assure the noble Baroness that it has not been forgotten; it has not been put on the shelf; it is something that we are actively pursuing.

Strategic Defence Review 2025

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I totally agree with the comments that my noble friend has made. I read the strategic defence review again over the weekend in preparing for the Question, so I know that it is chapter 6. The important part was the challenge that it makes—not only to the public but to us as politicians and to Parliament—to reflect on how we engage. Too often, when we talk about national conversations, we talk about having a village hall meeting here or a village hall meeting there. That is not sufficient. This requires a whole-government approach, involving all government departments, the devolved Governments, local authorities, civil society, financial society and industry. All those together need to wake up to the very real threat. As my noble friend says, we are facing a threat now, not in a year’s time or five years’ time. That threat is upon us, and we need to wake up to it.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I echo what the Minister has been saying: the threat that we are facing is immediate. Other countries, recognising that urgency, have taken steps to engage their public through a range of measures, from conscription at one end to seeking volunteers aged 18 and over for military training—as in France and Germany—at the other end. I think what this Chamber wants to know is what imminent steps will the Government take to educate the British public now about the gravity of the situation and to put the UK on to a comparable readiness footing to these other countries.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

In saying that we need to do more and to act more urgently, there are already steps that have started to be taken across government. We are already looking at how we extend and develop the reserve and cadet forces, which are important. We are already looking at how we celebrate the involvement of young people at remembrance events, as I just said. We are also having seminars and conferences with industry and with finance—I am going to an event on Thursday night with veterans and the City of London. All sorts of different events are taking place that seek to address the very real and important issues that the noble Baroness has raised. The real challenge for the Government is how we do that more quickly and more urgently, but it is certainly one that they have addressed and have taken on board. It is a whole-government response; it is not just the government response now—although the Government have to lead it, of course—but how we all come together to address that very real challenge that we face.

Royal Navy Submarine Force

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not know the answer to the second part of the question, so I shall have to write to the noble Earl about it. To answer the first part of his question, I know that the Ministry of Defence is looking carefully at the concept of floating dry docks. It is a much quicker way of ensuring that we have the capability that would otherwise be provided by the more traditional dry dock. It is certainly an important question that we need to look at it urgently.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Senior representatives from BAE Systems and Babcock recently warned the Defence Select Committee in the other place of the risk to the AUKUS programme of delays in decision-making and alignment. What steps have the Government taken in the light of that evidence to avert these risks?

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Amendment 20S seeks to get the Secretary of State to produce a report on the so-called economic partnership between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, which is set up under Article 11 of the treaty. Parliament should have an opportunity to take note of that and debate it in both Houses.

The reason that is important, apart from the fact that the control of money is the supreme function of Parliament, is that the economic partnership article, Article 11, in the agreement, is very strange. It says:

“In consideration of this Agreement, the United Kingdom agrees … a. to pay Mauritius an annual sum; … b. to capitalise a Trust Fund for the benefit of Chagossians as established by Mauritius; and … c. to grant multi-year funding as part of a development framework for projects to be undertaken by Mauritius across twenty-five (25) years. … The arrangements for such payments, including amounts and modalities shall be agreed separately”.


It then says that this is a “full and final settlement” of the financial aspects of ceding sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius.

Now, to call this a partnership is a very strange thing. We give them money annually. We give them more money for the benefit of the Chagossians. We give them yet more money for the benefit of the Mauritians. Where is the partnership in all this? If this partnership were ever to be introduced, I hope that Ministers would feel obliged or, out of their natural desire to be helpful, would seek to explain to us why this is a partnership rather than a kind of surrender where we give up the money, we give up the territory and we let them decide—even the trust fund that we set up for the benefit of the Chagossians is “as established by Mauritius”. So the Mauritians are going to determine how this trust fund is used and spent; the Chagossians will have no say in it and will probably get precious little benefit from it.

I hope the Minister will let us in on the secret. What is the quid pro quo in all this? Normally, any partnership means that there are two sides to it. I used to be a partner in a firm, and we were partners; we all benefited from each other. We did not have one side being partners and the other side getting all the benefits. I am genuinely mystified about this. Was it just that this was signed up for when the Government were suffering a fit of generosity? Perhaps the coffers were overflowing with funds. They could not think what to do but give some away to Mauritius for this, some away to a trust fund for that, then more away to Mauritius for 25 years. Where is it all coming from? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. I beg to move.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I did not expect to participate in this, but I was having a conversation earlier with my noble friend Lord Minto, who is very knowledgeable about corporate finance. He posed the question: is there anything in this whole arrangement that would stop Mauritius capitalising on the revenue stream that they have coming to them and selling that off to someone else?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Kempsell is not here to move his amendment, which I thought was a particularly good one.

We debated some of the financial aspects of the treaty on the first day in Committee. The Minister at that time asked to delay her remarks on those amendments to the appropriate group. I assume this is the group that she was referring to, so we all look forward to the fuller answer on the finances that she promised then.

The core contention of the Government is that the deal costs an average of £101 million a year and the present net value of payments under the treaty is therefore £3.4 billion. This has been challenged by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Altrincham, but the Minister, rather than engaging in the substance of those challenges, has relied on the Government’s published figures and refused to explain why she believes those figures accurately reflect the cost of the deal.

The Minister has relied on the approval of the Government Actuary’s Department and simply argued that consistency was essential. These are typical deflections that, no doubt, many Ministers have used in previous cases, but they do not address the concerns of my noble friends. We know that the payments are front-loaded at £165 million for the first three years, and then £120 million for the next 10 years. After that point, it is index-linked. As my noble friend Lady Noakes set out at Second Reading, that will see the cash payments hitting more than £650 million a year by the end of the 99 years, depending, of course, on what indexation you use. With all those additional considerations, it is our contention that the true cost of the deal is not £3.4 billion, as claimed by Ministers, but something more like £35 billion.

So the question lands: why would the Government seek to play this down? If they are so delighted with the deal—if it is such a good deal for the British public that they keep claiming that they deliver for, as all government policies should surely be—then surely they would want to be open about the true cost of things. They brag about spending on every other area; they take every amount of money per year, cumulatively add it all up and then put it in a press release and brag to the British people about what a great amount they are spending in every area except for this one. Does the Minister think it is better that the country should know the full costings before the treaty comes into effect, or would she prefer that the UK tie itself into these vast annual payments first, before admitting what the true cost of the deal actually is?

We are clear that the British people deserve to know what their Government are signing up for. Ministers should engage with the detailed costings laid out by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Altrincham, and the points made by my noble friend Lord Lilley, rather than hiding behind their pre-prepared lines. If they have nothing to hide, what is wrong with producing a report that we can all see and study and get checked by independent financial experts? Once Ministers have admitted the true cost of the deal, then they can start justifying the so-called benefits of the treaty against what the true cost actually is. I do not think that people would be impressed by arguments justifying that figure, but Ministers should do the decent thing and justify the real numbers openly and in public.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Noble Lords will recall that we debated the financial elements of the treaty in some detail last week, and I genuinely do not think that further debate is going to persuade anybody of anything this evening and probably is not a good use of time at this stage. However, I respect that the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Kempsell, who was not here to speak to his amendment, have tabled further amendments, so I am happy to put their minds at rest about the matter to the best of my ability this evening.

Noble Lords already know that the Government published full details of the financial payment on the day that the treaty was signed. These details are in the finance exchange of letters, which is included in the treaty in the version laid in the House and published on the government website. The details are also set out in the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum, which was also laid before the House and published on the government website. It is plain to see how much the treaty is costing. The breakdown on page 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum is particularly straightforward for anyone who might desire further information about what will be paid in each year of the treaty. Indeed, the clarity with which the information was presented by the Government was welcomed by the Office for Statistics Regulation, which confirmed that it was consistent with the principles of intelligent transparency.

Therefore, there is no requirement for any additional report on the financial costs, either before the Bill comes into force, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, proposes, or before each payment, as is suggested in the other amendment.

The quid pro quo I was asked about is that we get a unique military asset shared with our closest ally on a legally secure basis. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asks why I rely on government figures and the answer is because I am representing the Government. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, the particular question I pose—and I am not being polemical; I think there is an issue—is: what actually stops Mauritius, contractually, from commercially transferring this revenue stream in a capitalised form to another purchaser?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness is asking me what a sovereign country would do with some money that it gets as part of payment from this treaty. I am not sure what the problem would be with Mauritius investing that money in something that then provided it with a return, which it could then use to support public services or anything else in Mauritius. I am not sure if I have properly understood exactly what the noble Baroness is concerned about. I would be happy to engage further—

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am happy to speak outside the Chamber.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Okay, that might be a good idea. I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment on that basis.

--- Later in debate ---

This is an extremely important matter, which goes to the very heart of what the Government are about. Are they about the rigorous adherence to international law—even when it does not apply—and at the same time ignoring it when it does, or are they actually about upholding Britain’s interests, in which case handing over a base to a country, rendering it part of a nuclear-free zone, cannot be in the interests of ourselves, our allies or the defence of the West. I beg to move.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 88 in this group is very much in a similar vein to my earlier amendments, although I see I do not have the presence of my newly acquired fan—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—to encourage me. I seek reassurance that the

“unrestricted access, basing and overflight”

provisions in Annex 1(1)(a) of the agreement includes the right of the UK to allow nuclear-propelled vessels and nuclear-armed vessels and aircraft to enter the sea and airspace of Diego Garcia.

Although not in the amendment, the annexe of the treaty referred to also specifically covers the United States of America, and, for the avoidance of doubt, I include it in the confirmation I seek from the Secretary of State in this amendment. Again, I am asking that this be confirmed by the Secretary of State before the Bill can come into force. In this respect, I am perhaps baring my teeth more than my noble friend Lord Lilley, which is a rather unusual situation.

As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out, Mauritius is a party to the Pelindaba treaty, which establishes the African continent as a nuclear-weapon-free zone. This prohibits the research, development, manufacture, stockpiling, acquisition, testing, possession, control or stationing of nuclear weapons in any signatory state. Article 7 of the Mauritius treaty states that both Mauritius and the United Kingdom confirm that no

“existing international obligations or arrangements … conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, and that nothing in this Agreement shall affect the status of existing international obligations or arrangements except as expressly provided for in this Agreement”.

Annex 1 of the treaty states that the United Kingdom retains

“unrestricted ability to … control the … deployment of armed operations and lethal capabilities”.

Nuclear weapons are lethal capabilities. So Britain and the United States must, as per the terms of the treaty, have an unrestricted ability, surely, to house nuclear weapons or to dock nuclear submarines at the base on Diego Garcia should we choose to do so. Yet that would appear to require an express provision in this treaty, and I cannot find it.

Article 7(3) appears to seek to allay those concerns, but I would welcome an absolute clarification from the Minister. Will Mauritius’s membership of the Pelindaba treaty prevent us basing Vanguard-class submarines or, in the future, nuclear-armed aircraft, or the United States stationing any nuclear weapons at the base on Diego Garcia? That is a question that I require answered. This cannot be left in doubt—hence my requirement that the Secretary of State publish a statement to confirm the matters I have raised before this Bill comes into force, so that everyone is clear about what the UK and the US can or, perhaps more alarmingly, cannot do. As my noble friend Lord Lilley commented, although they are not directly covered by the Pelindaba treaty, my amendment also makes reference to nuclear-propelled vessels and, for the avoidance of doubt, I seek reassurance that Mauritius would not take exception to that. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their amendments. I appreciate that they have questions about how the treaty protects the full operation of the base, and I want to reassure them that the treaty enables the continued operation of the base to its full capability. The treaty and the Bill we are debating today will have zero impact on the day-to-day business on Diego Garcia. Importantly, it will not reduce our ability to deploy the full range of advanced military capabilities to Diego Garcia. I am putting some of this on the record, and the noble Baroness, as a former Defence Minister, will know the careful calibration of the language that I am using: I am putting it on the record so that we are all clear.

As I say, noble Lords will understand that I pick my words with care in this particular context. I cannot and will not discuss operational matters on the Floor of this place, but I am confident that the Chamber would not necessarily want me to. The long-standing UK position of neither confirming nor denying the location or presence of nuclear weapons must stand. But let us talk about the hypothetical. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, concern the application of the Pelindaba treaty. Mauritius is a signatory, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness said, to the treaty. The UK is not a signatory to the treaty but is a signatory to Protocols 1 and 2. I can confirm to the Chamber that the Governments of the UK and Mauritius are both satisfied that the Diego Garcia treaty is compatible with these existing obligations.

I also remind colleagues, because this is important—again, I think the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, if I remember rightly from his remarks, and, indeed, the noble Baroness raised this—that we are not alone in the matter. The Government of the United States have also tested all aspects of the Diego Garcia treaty in depth and at the highest levels of the security establishment. They, too, are satisfied that it protects the full operation of the base. Indeed, when I was talking about the earlier amendments in answer to that, I quoted the remarks of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his comments about being satisfied with the treaty in every aspect.

Amendments 63 and 88 therefore are not necessary. We do not need a review of the impacts of nuclear treaties on the future operation of the base, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has proposed, because the future operation of the base has been protected. I say to the noble Baroness that we do not need to reopen paragraph 1.a of Annex 1 to the treaty, as has been suggested, because this already provides for unrestricted —that is the key word—access for UK and US vessels to enter the sea of Diego Garcia. Paragraph 1.b.i provides for unrestricted ability to control the conduct and deployment of lethal capabilities.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do of course understand the sensitivity of not discussing operational activity in a public domain. However, if I revert to the Minister’s understandable reliance on what I described at Second Reading as that “huge protection” in Article 1, that is explicitly in contradiction with Article 7(1). Article 7(1) says expressly with reference to international obligations or arrangements that, if they are not to be obtempered or agreed to, that must be provided for in this agreement. That is the dilemma that is perplexing my noble friend Lord Lilley and myself. We seem to have on the face of this treaty a self-evident contradiction.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making. What I am saying to her is that the Government of Mauritius, the Government of the UK and the Government of the US see no contradiction in what the treaty says, and explicitly lays out, in respect of the ability of Diego Garcia to operate in the way that it has always done, with the lethal capabilities as outlined elsewhere in the Bill.

I hope that is helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness as reassurance that the situation will stay the same as it is now. As I have said, all those three parties to that treaty are confident that that remains the case.

I will say, however, that, although resisting the amendments, I am grateful that they were tabled. They are really important amendments to have made in order for the Government to have put on the record important elements of the treaty and the Bill. We have been able to clarify for the Chamber, and for those who read our proceedings, that the position that we would all want to see will continue with respect to Diego Garcia and that the full capabilities will be maintained.

Let me be absolutely clear: the full operational use of the base is protected to ensure that the base is able to continue in every way that it always has done. I hope that is helpful. On the basis of the reassurances that I have made and the comments that I have put on the record, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Russian Ship “Yantar”

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the “Yantar” spy ship has form when it comes to pushing boundaries, but directing laser beams at a UK Poseidon surveillance plane is an unwelcome development. It is provocative and irresponsible. In the air domain during the Cold War, there was a regular pattern of incursion into United Kingdom airspace by Russian planes, and the stratagem of reaction and close-flying escort by UK planes was developed, which was effective. How do we replicate that in the marine domain? For example, can a frigate close-shadow the “Yantar” so that the Russian crew feels under constant observation and any attempt to interfere with subsea infrastructure is immediately visible—and, importantly, whatever protective action is then necessary can be taken?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for such an important question. The Royal Navy constantly monitors activity in and around UK waters. This includes the “Yantar”, which is continuously and closely monitored by Royal Navy frigate HMS “Somerset” and the RAF’s P-8s. As the Secretary of State for Defence described last week, Russia has been developing military capability to use against critical underwater infrastructure for decades. For that reason, we have directed a change in the Royal Navy’s posture so we can more closely track and robustly respond to the threats from that vessel and many others. Such actions have previously included surfacing a Royal Navy submarine, strictly as a deterrent measure, close to the “Yantar”, to make it clear that we have been covertly monitoring its every move. We will not shy away from the robust action needed to protect the UK.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group speak to perhaps one of the most concerning parts of the treaty—although the previous bit was also concerning: namely, the risk that this agreement will undermine our security. Given the large number of amendments in this group, I will speak only to those in my name. I know that my noble friend Lady Goldie will speak to her amendments as well, and I will certainly not seek to pre-empt her arguments in my remarks, as my noble friend is much more of an expert on defence matters than I will ever be.

My Amendment 18 is a commencement block that would prevent the main clauses of the Bill coming into effect until the Government have laid a report on securing a guarantee that all non-UK and non-US civilian personnel stationed on the archipelago will benefit from the provisions of Annex 1. Annex 1 protects the UK’s unrestricted access to Diego Garcia’s sea and airspace. The treaty makes reference to some civilian activity, but we are seeking an assurance from the Government that that part of the treaty in its entirety applies to civilians stationed on Diego Garcia. I hope the Minister will be able to give us that assurance.

Amendment 67 speaks to one of the most fundamental questions, which has already been the subject of much debate. The treaty is clear that the UK must inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia, using the magnificent word, “expeditiously”. The dictionary definition of expeditiously is “quickly and efficiently” and “with speed”. Many have rightly asked what expeditiously means in practice. My Amendment 67 clarifies that the UK Government must not inform Mauritius of any relevant armed attacks until the attack has ended. Providing prior notification to Mauritius, or indeed any third state not directly involved in the attack, could risk the safety of British and American servicemen who are engaged in the relevant operation. Could the Minister confirm that nothing in the treaty requires the UK Government to give forewarning of any attack emanating from the military base? If that is the case then I am sure they can accept the amendment.

Additionally, my amendment seeks a requirement not to notify Mauritius if notification would endanger the security of the base. Can the Minister confirm that nothing in the treaty would prevent the Government withholding notification if notifying Mauritius would endanger the base? My noble friend Lady Goldie will be going into additional details on these important issues.

Amendment 69 in my name seeks to make a point about the location of specific equipment and installations on the base. It is essential that the security of the base is maintained. It would not be acceptable if the UK Government were to endanger the security of equipment at the military base by notifying Mauritius. In replying to the debate, can the Minister please address those concerns? It is essential that the UK Government have the right to refuse notification when doing so would endanger the base itself or our personnel.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Callanan on the amendments to which he spoke. I shall be dealing with the word “expeditiously” and I will try to ensure that that characterises my contribution, and perhaps influences this debate.

I wish to speak to my Amendments 83, 85, 86 and 87. At Second Reading, I raised the issue of the mismatch between the Bill and the treaty that it implements. My main concern in this whole affair is our defence and security and the implications of this Bill on that. I identified a range of areas where greater clarity is required. Before I continue, I should say that I have received a letter from the Ministers, for which I thank them. That sought to clarify some of the questions that I asked at Second Reading. The letter brings a degree of clarification, but in other respects it leaves me with questions. I shall address these as I explain my amendments.

Amendment 83 is simply a technical drafting amendment to accommodate my remaining amendments in this group. It specifies that the commencement of the treaty cannot occur until the conditions outlined in my amendments have been satisfied.

Amendment 85 relates to the specific notification requirements under Annex 1 1(b)(viii) of the treaty. My amendment would require that Clauses 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a statement establishing that the notification in Annex 1 1(b)(viii) of the treaty does not require the consent of Mauritius in response. The provision in Annex 1 to which this refers says that:

“In accordance with this Agreement and with reference to Article 2(5) and Annex 2, in respect of Diego Garcia, Mauritius agrees the United Kingdom shall have … unrestricted access, basing and overflight … for non-United Kingdom and non-United States of America aircraft and vessels, upon notification to Mauritius”.


The amendment seeks to enable the Secretary of State to make explicit, before Clauses 2 to 4 of the Bill can come into force, that the consent of Mauritius is not required for us to host third-party forces on Diego Garcia.

As I mentioned, I have the letter from the Ministers in which they helpfully clarify that permission from Mauritius is not required. However, I require the Minister to confirm that such notification is after the event. If notification is required before the event, that implies consent is required, or that the intimation of an objection by Mauritius is possible. That is why I seek the clarification.

We cannot have a situation where Mauritius can in any way object to which forces are present at the base. The operation of the base, including the matter of the basing of our allies, must be solely at the discretion of the United Kingdom. I would appreciate the Minister giving a guarantee that Mauritius will have no control whatever over the basing and overflight of other countries’ forces. Unusually, the Minister and I are perhaps nearly at consensus in idem here. If that is the case, why would the Secretary of State be reluctant to publish a statement?

Amendment 86 is another defence and security amendment. It seeks that Clauses 2 to 4 would not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a statement establishing that the obligation under Annex 1(2) of the treaty

“does not extend to aircraft and vessels which have landed or docked at the Base for the purposes of maintenance or refuelling prior to the armed attack on a third state”.

Annex 1(2) of the treaty is the provision that requires the United Kingdom

“to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State”.

As we have discussed, much has been made of what is meant by “expeditiously”. The Ministers’ letter to me stated that they are satisfied that this does not require the UK to seek the permission of Mauritius, nor for notification to be given prior to the event. That is helpful. The International Agreements Committee of this House has also concluded that it interprets “expeditiously” to mean

“as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances”.

I believe that the Minister gives her interpretation in good faith, but what of Mauritius’s interpretation? Does the Minister know whether the Mauritian Government share this view? If she does not currently know, and I quite accept that she may not, I would be happy for her to write to me to confirm the point.

--- Later in debate ---

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Weir, that these provisions have been discussed and approved at the highest levels of the US security apparatus. Both the IAC and the IRDC have scrutinised them. This treaty specifically confers—

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Forgive me for being slightly behind the curve; I was trying to follow the sections in the annex. The Minister referred to Annex 1(11), in particular the definition of “unrestricted”. That paragraph states that

“‘unrestricted’ means not requiring permission or notification, subject to the standing authorisations and notifications separately agreed between the Parties to meet the requirements of international or domestic Mauritian law or current practice”.

For the sake of clarification, what are these “standing authorisations and notifications”?