Armed Forces Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Craig of Radley]

56: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for spouses or children of serving or discharged members of the armed forces(1) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/330) are amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 (applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom), in 9.18 of table 9 (fees for applications for limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom and connected applications)—(a) after (b), insert— “(c) in a case where the application is made by a person who is a spouse or child of a member or previously serving member of the armed forces who has served for four or more years”(b) in the closing words, leave out “and (b)” and insert “, (b), and (c)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for the spouses or children of any current or previously serving members of the armed forces who have served for four or more years.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 56, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for adding his name in support of it. I also thank the Royal British Legion for its guidance in drafting this amendment.

Amendment 56 proposes amending the nationality fees regulations of 2018 to waive fees for certain Armed Forces veterans who have been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Noble Lords may be interested to learn that the terms of my amendment featured in all three major party manifestos for the 2024 election. Let me quote them briefly. Labour said:

“We will … scrap visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four or more years, and their dependents”.


The Conservatives said:

“We will extend the visa fees waiver introduced to cover Commonwealth personnel, to include their direct dependants”.


The Liberal Democrats said that they would:

“Secure a fair deal for the armed forces community … by … Waiving application fees for indefinite leave for members of the armed forces on discharge, and their families”.


Nothing has happened since except that, in response to follow-up Written Questions last year, a Home Office Minister said this on 13 March:

“We continue to keep this policy under review in the context of our wider considerations of various aspects of the immigration system”.


The Ministry of Defence responded a week later, saying that it was

“actively working with the Home Office to take this forward”.

In short, prevarications apart, nothing has happened. To have a reply saying:

“We continue to keep this policy under review in … our wider considerations of various aspects of the immigration system”


is surely classic Sir Humphrey-speak. The Home Office should be ashamed of itself.

The immigration system must be under constant study, not a one-off difficulty. What wider considerations are implied? The Government have recently been priding themselves on their reduction in illegal arrivals of over 40% and an increase in repatriations. There seems to be no crisis or wider aspect so great that the Government cannot immediately introduce this universally manifesto-promised arrangement.

Families of service personnel who have qualified for indefinite leave to remain are faced with visa fees that were £155 in 2003 but have risen to no less than £3,226 per person as of 8 April—a staggering increase. So a spouse, their partner and two children applying for ILR now have to find almost £13,000, on top of their fares and relocation costs, to move to the UK. This is no way to treat veterans and their families.

Such prevarication and inertia does not seem to be even related to the present Government. For more than 10 years, I and others pressed the Home Office to grant ILR to members of the Armed Forces who had been recruited and served in Hong Kong. All were members of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps. Repeated Home Office answers were varied ways of saying, “It is under active consideration”, or, “A decision will be made as soon as possible”. I once christened this Home Office foot-dragging as repetitive inactivity syndrome. The Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans had to wait over a decade for their approval.

Of course the Home Office faces pressures over immigration arrangements, but it flies in the face of the Government’s commitment to the Armed Forces covenant and to treating veterans fairly to have not yet honoured their manifesto pledge. It has cross-party support. Will the Minister take this back and quickly resolve it with the Home Office? I beg to move.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 56 from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, which would waive fees for indefinite leave to remain applications for spouses and immediate family members of serving personnel and veterans. I have tabled Amendment 66, which seeks to achieve the same outcome through a slightly different route: by requiring the Government to bring forward secondary legislation within a specified timeframe. My amendment is designed to address some of the concerns raised by Ministers in the other place around specific approaches and wording.

Frankly, I do not mind what legislative approach is taken provided the issue is resolved. I do not need to add to the noble and gallant Lord’s exposition of the issue, but I say to the Minister that, typically, the Immigration Rules are changed twice yearly, with the next set expected in October. Can he provide greater clarity on the Government’s timetable for action? Can he reassure military families that this commitment—by all three major parties—will finally be delivered in the forthcoming changes this autumn?

I turn to Amendment 57 in my name and that of the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lord Harlech, to whom I am grateful for their support. At the heart of this is how we support military families, but it is also about military capability. The strategic defence review identified a workforce crisis. When our Armed Forces depend so heavily on experience and invest so much in their personnel, retention matters as much as recruitment. That is why I welcome the many provisions in the Bill designed to strengthen service life. Amendment 57 proposes a relatively small change, but one that could make a meaningful difference to military families and retention.

The recently published Tri-Service Families Continuous Attitude Survey underlines the reality for families. Some 78% of service families have children, and one in five have children who are under two years old, yet a quarter of service families live apart during the working week, rising to almost 40% in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. Nearly three in 10 families experienced separation of three months or more during the past year.

At present, serving fathers receive two weeks of paternity leave at full pay. However, for military families, returning to work after two weeks is not a return to a normal commute; it means returning to a posting many hours away, or to months of separation. That is why this issue matters so deeply to those who serve. One serving soldier told the Dad Shift:

“Being posted 4 hours away from my child when she was born was tough, only having 2 weeks to bond before I was back to being 200 miles away with limited time to travel back and see her was tough and has definitely caused irreparable damage to our relationship, ultimately leading to the collapse of my relationship with her mother too”.


These challenges are reflected further in the Tri-Service Families Continuous Attitude Survey: 52% of spouses disagree that they feel valued by the service, 34% say they would feel happier if their partner left the military, while 44% have at some time in the past year encouraged their partner to leave.

The factors driving dissatisfaction are revealing. The impact on careers, the amount of separation from spouses and the effect on children are the top three reasons. Improving paternity leave is not a silver bullet, but the evidence consistently shows that it supports maternal employment, strengthens family relationships and improves outcomes for children. At a time when retention is a strategic issue, we should take seriously reforms that strengthen the family life of those who serve. The experiences of serving personnel illustrate why. One RAF officer recalled:

“Both children saw us remain in hospital with our newborn for 3-4 days due to challenges with feeding and jaundice ... With only two weeks available, time spent dealing with complications or hospital stays can consume a significant proportion of the leave itself”.


The Minister may point to shared parental leave or the possibility of additional compassionate leave as options to resolve this. However, service families often describe those options as difficult to access and inconsistently applied. One army officer reported:

“I pushed and took Shared Parental Leave but I had to threaten a Service Complaint to do so with my work at the time”.


He added that if the process was difficult for a senior officer, it would likely be much harder for more junior personnel. Likewise, a RAF corporal told the Dad Shift:

“I’ve had my paternity leave handled three different ways for my three children; it does come down to that reoccurring line manager lottery issue unfortunately”.


That inconsistency in itself is part of the problem. Families should not have to rely on confidence, rank or managerial discretion to receive adequate support at such a significant moment in their lives. Soldiers, sailors and aviators should not have to worry about explaining to their commanding officer that their wife and baby are struggling with breastfeeding and need more support, or that their wife’s stitches are infected, or that they are worried that she might be suffering from postnatal depression but cannot even be sure because they are not home enough to tell.

Of course, the impact of leave on operational readiness must be taken into account. Unlike maternity leave, paternity leave is not exempt from the provision in JSP 760 that

“the granting and timing of all forms of absence … is to be at the discretion of the Service and is subject to operational requirements and the general exigencies of the service”.

Nothing in my amendment changes this.

The sacrifices made by those serving in our Armed Forces are shared by their families. When a child is born, those pressures are felt even more acutely. Two weeks of paternity leave is increasingly out of step with the realities of modern family life, the practices of leading employers, and the approach taken by many of our closest allies, with Australia offering eight weeks of paid paternity leave and the United States offering 12 weeks to its military personnel. When Congress extended that entitlement, bipartisan supporters from both Houses described it as a matter of military readiness and national security.

I hope, therefore, in responding to this group, that the Minister will recognise not only the family case for reform but the strategic one. Supporting military families at the moment they need it most is the right thing to do, but it would also be an investment in retention, morale and the long-term strength of our Armed Forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, given the hour, let me deal with this head on. I shall start with Amendment 56, tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. The Government, the Opposition and all of us, it seems to me, are committed to scrapping visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served for four years or more and their dependants, building on the existing fee waiver in place. Home Office and Ministry of Defence Ministers are working closely together to deliver this commitment in a way that is fair, comprehensive and achievable. I understand that the noble and gallant Lord will have heard that language before. He asked me to have an urgent conversation with the Home Office to see what progress has been made, and I will certainly do that. That is the important commitment to make. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, asked for that as well, so let me follow that up, and I will certainly talk to the Home Office. Those there, too, will have heard the well-constructed speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asking when this will happen—and it is about time it did. I hope that, with that reassurance, he can see the importance of putting amendments at Committee stage.

I turn to the powerful speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, on her Amendment 57 and the various points that she so eloquently made about childcare, family life, parental leave and all those various topics. She will know that there is a government review going on around parental leave, pay and many other issues. The review is considering costs, benefits and potential reforms across the system as a whole and principally covers civilian parental leave and pay entitlements. The MoD will consider the outcome of that review and its applicability to the Armed Forces. It would be premature to prescribe a specific six-week model for the Armed Forces, for example, before the wider review concludes. But the review is expected to conclude in early 2027, which may be of interest to the noble Baroness, so that might start to give us some reassurance about where we are going to with regard to the various points she has raised.

These are extremely important points that need to be heard. But as well as being heard, they need to be acted upon. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that her continued tabling of these amendments and continued challenges to the system to ask what more is going to be done to ensure that people get the entitlements that are needed are important. She will know that when it comes to paternity leave for all eligible personnel within the Armed Forces, there are the concerns about its impact on operational effectiveness. But surely, as we move forward, there ought to be a way of matching the desire for better family arrangements with maintaining the operational effectiveness and particular needs of the Armed Forces. We have to find a way of better balancing all those demands that she quite rightly made through her amendment, and I will certainly do that within the department as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised an important point through her Amendment 67, that is continually made, about the need for subsidised travel for veterans. A number of years ago, there were very few concessions, but gradually, concession after concession was made, quite rightly, with respect to children, family tickets and all those sorts of things. We need to see what more we can do with respect to our Armed Forces and whether there are additional concessions that can be made which will be of benefit to them, to reflect the service they have given. For example, in London there is a veterans Oyster photocard, which entitles people to free travel on a range of transport services, including buses. That demonstrates to us that progress can be made, whether on transport, various family entitlements or the point made by the noble and gallant Lord on the fee waiver for leave to remain. Even to my own Government, I sometimes say, “Can we get a move on?”

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, very briefly, the Minister answering my question in such a positive way is very encouraging. It certainly made my day—or perhaps I should say it has made my night. I also thank the noble Baronesses and the two noble Lords who spoke in favour of my amendment, which I thoroughly accept as very supportive.

Amendment 56 withdrawn.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

I will be candid about what I suspect is the real motive, although I invite the Minister to correct me if I am wrong. This is not at its heart about cadets and reservists; I suggest that it is more about the administrative convenience of the Civil Service, which institutionally does not like anything that seems irrationally messy, historic or not quite uniform. This may make life easier for officials in Whitehall, but it will make life much harder for the volunteers who, for well over a century, have made the reserve and cadet forces of this country work so well. It will also inevitably cost a lot more than currently expended.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support the purpose of opposing Clause 38 standing part. The PAC’s 43rd report of 2024-25 heavily criticised the MoD for inadequacies in its financial oversight of the RFCAs. The report said:

“The Department’s arrangements for monitoring and reporting on the RFCAs’ financial performance are inadequate”


and they

“fall below the standard we expect”.

I have studied this report. It is quite a shocker. The PAC even said that there was uncertainty over who was responsible when problems arise. I could go on, but I will spare officials their blushes. I hope they are preparing the progress reports that the PAC demanded, covering these shortfalls and failings.

The PAC specifically acknowledged that the Reserve Forces and cadets are increasingly important to UK defence, as is stressed in the SDR. But to take these shortcomings as specific reasons for changes, not just to financial control but to the management, structure and leadership of the RFCAs, is simply an overreaction. The drafters of this aspect of the Bill seem to ignore history or have little feeling for the long tradition of the Armed Forces’ loyalty and direct connection with the Crown—a tradition that goes back centuries, as mentioned, to Henry VIII and beyond. Such history is binding for the Armed Forces. It should never, even inadvertently, be disparaged or discarded.

Let us recall what Dr Sullivan’s review recommended. He sought to retain the regional volunteer networks, employer engagement and community links that make RFCAs so valuable, while strengthening the strategic direction, financial resilience and oversight. His broader message was to ensure that RFCAs remain a modern, effective and trusted partner for defence, while expanding their contribution to reserves, cadets, employers, veterans and the volunteer estate. What, then, are their particular strengths? I will me pick briefly on two.

First, the RFCAs’ unique voluntary nature, apart from their nil personnel cost, is the essence of the regional and collective support that they bring to the reserves and cadets. Their local, intimate knowledge of employers and of the attractions and enthusiasms of their locality are such a foundational success of the cadet concept that inspires young of different ages, sexes and backgrounds to join up and get involved. Their national coverage is a key defence requirement. All this should be valued and sustained, not badly revamped or even discarded.

There does not appear to be strong evidence of widespread problems in recruiting RFCA volunteers—particularly cadet force adult volunteers, where some regions have reported growth. The direct relationship between lords-lieutenant, personally chosen and appointed by the sovereign, and the cadets in their counties symbolises the expectation of the reserves’ and cadets’ loyalty to their monarch, who is their commander-in-chief. Why discard this without even consulting the lords-lieutenant or His Majesty the King? I subscribe to that old-fashioned notion: “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”

Are the identified MoD failures in financial supervision to be laid entirely at the feet of the RFCA structures? The National Audit Office, in commenting on the financial weaknesses, suggested that arrangements other than a full-blown NDPB would be acceptable. The MoD’s own internal record, following consideration of Dr Sullivan’s report, seemed to indicate that the NDPB approach had been overtaken by the SDR and the key efforts to enhance the reserves’ and cadets’ contribution to overall defence needs. I strongly recommend that the Minister takes this back to his department, checks that the present financial oversight has been improved following the PAC criticisms and gives credit where credit is due to the volunteer strengths of the present structures, as well as to the importance of the symbolic relationship with the lord-lieutenant and the reserves’ and cadets’ loyalty to the Crown.

The Bill is mistaken to degrade or throw away such key elements of a long-established volunteer structure. To throw it away in hasty pursuit of progress, modernisation, accountability and transparency—or any other overworked nostrum of management speak—is pure madness. Of course, the MoD should heed the PAC’s criticism of its lack of proper financial management and ensure that the MoD’s accounting officer has regained the financial oversight expected by the PAC, but the MoD’s financial failings are no reason to discard the tried-and-tested experience that makes the reserves and cadets, with their supporting volunteer associations, of increasing value to both defence and society at large.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble and gallant Lord. I rise to support my noble friends and speak in opposition to Clause 38 standing part of the Bill.

I am always keen to champion improvements in governance. In the case of the Reserve Forces and cadets’ associations, there is a perfectly reasonable case, as highlighted by the National Audit Office, for bringing greater consistency, accountability and financial assurance to these organisations. My concern is that, in achieving that objective, Clause 38 risks losing something that is particularly valuable in Scotland: the strong regional relationship between defence and the communities it serves.

Scotland currently has two RFCAs: highland and lowland. As my noble friend Lord Minto said in his opening speech, they are not simply administrative offices of the Ministry of Defence; they are embedded in the communities in which they operate. They work with reservists, cadets, employers, schools, local authorities and civic organisations. The Lowland RFCA alone maintains more than 130 reserve and cadet centres across Scotland, and supports engagement with employers and communities across a very large, diverse geographical area. This local knowledge and connection was highlighted by Dr Sullivan’s report. He identified—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, referred to this—the

“wide breadth of expertise and community links”

as key strengths of the RFCAs.

The Government’s proposal would replace these existing 13 regional associations with a single, UK-wide statutory body. Regional councils will be created, but they will be subordinate to the national body. Many of the important questions about their membership, functions and geographical responsibilities will be left to regulations of the new board. So my concern is not simply structural; it is about accountability and voice.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

The consequence of all this is that government has lost the confidence of much of the veteran community through a deficient and poorly executed contract. Clearly, the covenant is not being fulfilled. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us that he is seized with the significance of the problems these veterans face and give assurances that the Armed Forces covenant does apply to the operation of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, whoever is responsible, and that the people suffering will not have to bear the burden? Will he consider writing off overpayments where the pensioner has acted in good faith and the error lies with the administration? Will he ask Defence Business Services to ensure that future contracts make proper provision for recovering losses from contractors where those contractors are responsible for the pension miscalculations?

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to support strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, just said. He brought to our attention a most significant failure in how Armed Forces pensions have been paid, calculated and mispaid.

It would be extraordinary to be told—but it appears that we will be told this—that the contractors have no obligation whatever to correct the mistakes that they have made, and that they will not be charged under some legal system to make repayments for the mistakes that they have made. It is also extremely important for those who are obliged to pay back, or are being asked to pay back, that the system they will work under is explained to them rapidly and quickly. Every day that goes by, they do not know what is to happen, and, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, some considerable sums are involved.

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

My Lords, I will just start with quite a profound comment, if your Lordships do not mind. Today we mark 20 years since RAF Nimrod aircraft XV230 was lost during a routine operational flight in Afghanistan. That was the biggest single loss of life of British service personnel since the Falklands War, and I know that the thoughts of all noble Lords will be with the families, friends and colleagues of those we lost two decades ago in service to our country.

On a slightly lighter note, can we just get out of the way one sobering fact? The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is right to point this out, so let us get it out in the open and out of the way. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has been on the road to Damascus, seen the light and changed her mind on a number of issues. I have to say that I have been on the same road but in the opposite direction, and therefore I have come to different conclusions. That is the last time I am going to mention that, because there are a number of such examples as we go through the Bill.

However, the serious point that I wanted to make is to say, first, that in a number of the contributions that have been made, noble Lords have made suggestions, “What about this?” or “What about that?” Obviously, I will reflect on all the various comments that have been made. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about the possibility of a meeting to take further some of the comments she made. I am perfectly happy to do that.

I will also deal, slightly out of order, with what my noble friend Lord Davies said, in a very important contribution, supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and, as I see, by others around the Chamber. It is a very difficult and important issue, because it not only involves who has responsibility for whether it falls within the covenant but involves a lot of different people, organisations and financial calculations one way or the other. I know one of my ministerial colleagues is dealing with it, so I suggest that I organise a meeting to bring together the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, my noble friend Lord Davies and other noble Lords who want to attend, to discuss where we are precisely with this issue so we can take that forward. My noble friend’s contribution was so important and had such a huge number of points, so that is the best way forward for us with respect to that. Whether it is part of the covenant or not, my noble friend made a huge number of other points. So that will have been noted and we will take that forward.

I am very pleased to begin our consideration of the Armed Forces Bill, and I look forward to the contributions, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, with the noble Earl, Lord Minto, but obviously also from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and many others. I am also grateful for the amendments. I know there is general support for the Bill. but I also know that nothing is perfect and that there are always clarifications that need to be made, and there is also the possibility of taking things forward and trying to improve it. That has always been the way that I try to take things forward and I will continue to do so.

I will first deal with the amendments from the noble Baroness. We have sailed together on many warships and I have met the RFA crews, as she will know. I thank her for her contribution and I acknowledge the concerns that she has raised about Royal Fleet Auxiliary personnel. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary, or RFA for short, is a unique asset to defence—we all agree with that—and we continue to invest in it. We work closely across government to ensure that the seafarers who work for the RFA have the employment conditions that reflect the essential nature of their work. As the noble Baroness outlined, these amendments would extend the covenant principles to include the RFA. Public bodies in scope of the statutory covenant duty would need to have due regard to the effects of membership of the RFA in the same way as for members of the Armed Forces.

The Government do not support that extension. The Armed Forces covenant legal duty is specifically designed to address the disadvantage arising from the unique obligations and circumstances of service in the Armed Forces. RFA personnel make an important contribution of support to defence activity, including on operations, as the noble Baroness pointed out, but they are civilian seafarers employed on civilian terms and conditions. For all civilians, participation in or support to military operations does not in itself create the same obligations or unique challenges as membership of the Armed Forces.

Extending the duty on that basis would move it beyond its intended purpose and blur the clear boundary around those whom Parliament designed it to protect. However, in Clause 31, the Bill appropriately recognises—the noble Baroness pointed this out—the distinct position of RFA personnel, which brings them within the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner, providing an independent route for concerns about welfare, working conditions and systemic issues to be investigated. Since this is Committee, I would refer noble Lords to the Bill itself, because Clause 31 also refers to Schedule 4, which lays out in more detail some of the additional general functions that would be required, and it is more extensive in terms of welfare provisions, investigating thematic issues that may arise, promoting the welfare of RFA members, and, very importantly, improving the public’s understanding of the welfare issues that RFA members face. Schedule 4 adds to Clause 31 in a way which I think contributes to maybe answering some of the points that the noble Baroness has put forward in her amendments.

The provision, however, fundamentally does not alter their civilian status or justify extending a covenant duty designed specifically to address disadvantage arising from service in the Armed Forces. This does not, however, mean that the RFA personnel are overlooked. In the spirit of the covenant, organisations who have signed the Armed Forces covenant pledge are encouraged to consider the needs of other groups within the wider Armed Forces community, where individual circumstances meet it. That obviously will include members of the RFA, but that is distinct from extending the legal duty itself, which remains focused on disadvantage arising from service in the Armed Forces. However, the Government remain committed to ensuring that RFA personnel receive appropriate support but do not believe that extending the covenant legal duty is necessary nor consistent with its statutory purpose.

I move to the other amendments in the group, which were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in her comments, and signed by the noble Earl, Lord Minto. These amendments would extend the Armed Forces covenant duty beyond national duties to a much wider range of public bodies, as the noble Baroness pointed out in her comments, including non-departmental public bodies and publicly owned companies. I understand the intention behind these amendments, and we share the objective of ensuring the covenant is properly embedded across public service delivery, but we do not believe that such a broad approach is necessary or indeed proportionate.

The purpose of the duty is to ensure that covenant considerations are reflected in the policies and strategic decisions that shape service delivery. For that reason, the duty is placed on Ministers and the relevant national authorities that determine policy and set the framework within which services are delivered. Non-departmental bodies are therefore not included, as generally their role is to implement government policy rather than to determine it. By placing the duty on those bodies responsible for setting strategic direction, the Bill ensures that covenant considerations are embedded throughout the wider system.

In direct answer to the noble Baroness’s point about HMRC, it would not be covered by the covenant. She also pointed out a couple of organisations that she felt it would be appropriate for the covenant to cover, but it would also bring organisations into scope whose functions have little or no connection with the Armed Forces, such as the Met Office or the Environment Agency. There are bodies you can point at and ask, “Why is that not included?”. But there are also other bodies where you would ask, “Really?”. It is a way of considering all that. It would increase administrative requirements without necessarily delivering a benefit to service personnel, veterans, their families and the bereaved. The Government believe that the targeted approach set out in the Bill strikes the right balance between improving covenant delivery and ensuring obligations are focused where they can have the greatest effect.

I point out, as a reassurance—I am sure people have noticed—that the Bill does provide flexibility for the future. Should evidence emerge that additional bodies ought to be brought within scope, the Secretary of State will have power to do so through secondary legislation, and that is included within the Bill before your Lordships today. That is the Government’s view, and I hope it provides some of the necessary assurances to the Committee. I ask the noble Lords not to press their amendments—with the offer, again, that we can of course continue to discuss these matters.

Future Capability of the Armed Forces

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, much has been said in recent months about the possibility of a Russian conflict with NATO. Such a war will be deterred if we and our allies react to strengthen our weak arms posture now. NATO’s potential military, economic and technical strength far exceeds that of any potential adversary. The challenge is to ensure that this strength is credible, visible and ready to deter any prospect of open conflict. Such determination must be led from the top of Governments. For the UK, a clear graph of intended progress to 3% then 3.5% is required, not ring-fenced with any “if fiscal conditions allow” type caveats of uncertainty.

As it takes two to tango, the assessment by the potential aggressor of their own warlike capabilities and chances of strategic success matter. If Russia were that opponent, what is there to learn from its fight with Ukraine? Far from being what was expected, namely, a quick conquest of Ukraine and a change to a Russian-subservient Government in Kyiv, the Ukrainians, after great difficulty and challenge, are now able, with much NATO help, to hold Russian advances and operate far into Russia itself, to Moscow and St Petersburg as well as into Crimea and elsewhere. Maybe Putin sacked some senior commanders for bringing him only bad news. Maybe their successors rely on holding their posts by reporting only good news from the front. Maybe Putin even feels that all adverse results reported reflect western propaganda and so cannot possibly be true, but what he feels and believes is what will drive him on.

While much of Putin’s available forces are fighting in Ukraine, there is much more uncommitted, with advanced capabilities in missile and maritime offence. Sub-conflict measures are already occurring and increasing in dangerous ways. But faced by a strong NATO alliance, would Russia believe it could wage and win a war of conquest, not just with arms but to achieve political mastery? One judgment might be that without the latter, the incentive to go further than sub-conflict measures may exist only if the NATO alliance appears to be weakening or even breaking apart.

While there are differences between last century’s Soviet belief in the worldwide spread of communism and today’s Russia, we learned from our spy Oleg Gordievsky of the Kremlin’s abiding view that NATO is an aggressor from its perspective. Since 1949, NATO has moved from the original 12-country transatlantic alliance to one of 32 that has grown and reached eastwards to the very borders of Russia, from its far north all the way down to Turkey—far too close to Mother Russia for its own sense of security. Now, NATO’s strong support of Ukraine and the US assault on Iran, with the expectation of NATO help, must only further alarm the Kremlin’s paranoia about NATO, so real and abiding tensions exist. It may not be possible to ease such confrontation in the military domain, but more might be done with arts, culture and sporting events to ease the existing tensions, and Putin is not immortal.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. We share the honour of having fitted a military covenant report into the Armed Forces Act 2006 in 2011.

This Bill deserves credit for finally setting out a more adequate statutory treatment of the military covenant, but it has been a long, slow process. Nearly 20 years ago, in 2008, a Command Paper first introduced an undertaking to treat the military covenant in statute. Three years later, as I have mentioned, the Armed Forces Bill of 2011 was the start. It introduced a single minimalist clause entitled “Military Covenant Report”.

While welcoming its inclusion, I objected to its being inserted towards the tail end of the miscellaneous sections of the 2006 Act as lacking appropriate prominence. I also said that its insertion as new Section 359A of the Act, immediately following Section 359, implying in a contents list that the two sections were related, would be an unfortunate juxtaposition. Why? It was because Section 359 granted pardons to veterans executed in World War I for desertion and other disciplinary offences. The Government accepted these criticisms and, after further discussion, proposed a whole new part—Part 16A—on the covenant report. The Minister, Lord Astor of Hever, kindly invited me to put my name to their formal government amendment and to be the first speaker to introduce it.

Only in later Bills was the concept of due regard by some local authorities introduced, initially in a much-restricted way. Attempts by myself and others in 2021 to require due regard by national authorities were resisted, but an agreement to consider this further was given by Ministers to get the Bill passed in time. This brings us to the present Bill, which will now require due regard by national authorities when appropriate. In other words, the covenant is finally being brought fully into national as well as local law.

I am pleased also to note that in new Section 343AZA(2)(c) a significant consideration is now present—namely, that special provision for servicepeople may be justified by the effects on such people of being a member or former member of the Armed Forces. So far, that is good news. However, the Royal British Legion and other charities have a number of issues and queries about details yet to be resolved, such as care home responsibility for “due regard”. I sense too that there will be inevitable disagreements between local and national authorities about which should be responsible for taking action, and a temptation to play ping-pong over it. Were this to occur, it might be for the Armed Forces Commissioner or a veterans’ commissioner to resolve. The Minister might like to comment on this possibility.

The issue of removing immigration fees for close dependants of non-UK personnel granted leave to remain because of their former service in the Armed Forces will be an amendment to return to in Committee. The 2024 manifesto commitments by the three parties undertook to waive the current and increasing immigration fees that families of non-UK Armed Forces personnel are required to pay before being allowed indefinite leave to remain in the UK with their spouse. Two years have passed, but there is still nothing but empty assurances that this waiver is to be honoured. It is time for action to correct this unfairness.

I am saddened that there is no further attempt to deal with the incompatibilities between this Act and human rights, frequently exposed in examples of lawfare, or further consideration of some form of better combat immunity for service personnel on operations. I sense, however, that this is not a field this Government wish to enter, and it may be rather fruitless to raise it now.

I will also repeat a complaint—some might call it a whinge—I have made at Second Readings of previous Armed Forces Bills: about the way the constitutionally important Armed Forces Act 2006 has to be renewed. Like its 2011, 2016 and 2021 predecessors, the present Bill is, in effect, a 150-page Marshalled List of amendments to the 2006 Act, which itself has almost 350 pages. I commend the efforts of officials to produce in the Bill before the House a masterclass in amendments to the 2006 Act and many other Acts, but unless a major change of approach is found, our successors will be dealing with Bills whose size is measured not by page numbers but in kilograms.

One issue covering more than 32 pages—some 10%—of the 2006 Act is defence housing and other property. Noble Lords will be aware of the Government’s commitment to improve living accommodation for service personnel. This is clearly meant as a key step towards achieving that ambition. The defence housing service is being given wide powers in new Section 343F, with Treasury consent being required only if the housing service is to borrow money. Other functions, such as entering into contracts or agreements, or forming or investing in a company or partnership, do not appear to need Treasury agreement. Such freedom does seem to me to be unusual.

Is the MoD to be responsible for the size of this service and paying for it? Have the Government made any estimate of the cost of and manpower required for this new organisation? Bearing in mind the difficulties facing the MoD because of the shortfall in defence investment planning funding, and the expectation that living accommodation expenditure will fall to the back of the queue, what rate of improvement is to be expected from the new defence housing service? Has the Minister any figures for the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for winding up the debate and noble Members from across the House for their contributions. I am really pleased—as I think the Opposition Chief Whip heard me say—that everyone is in favour of the Bill. I would hate to be answering on a Bill that everyone opposed; I would be in serious trouble answering all their questions, challenges and gaps, so I start by saying that I am so pleased that everyone is in favour of the Bill. Somebody outside the Chamber used the term non-controversial, but I will not use that phrase as it was made outside the Chamber.

That said, noble Members from across the House have made some serious points about how a Bill that they support could be further improved. I accept that and the challenge for the Government to take it forward. As I said in my introductory remarks, we all want the Bill to succeed because we support its aims.

Let me deal with some points. We have had the debate about funding, and I appreciate that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will continue to make their various points about that. I will make the same points back, and that debate will continue.

However, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Minto, raised defence housing. I do not often get irritated—and I am not irritated—but I find it slightly strange that a Government who have committed £9 billion of public money over 10 years to improve housing are being taken to task on it. That is all I will say: the Government’s policy is to improve defence housing with £9 billion over 10 years.

Somebody asked whether it applies to single-person housing. With the defence housing service, we are talking about family accommodation. A separate review is going on for single-person accommodation which will report in due course and then the Government will have to respond. That is a very clear answer on that.

The noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, raised the DIO and its relationship with the defence housing service. I will read out this bit of my brief to make sure I get it completely right: “The responsibilities of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation will continue to be provided as part of the National Armaments Director Group within the MoD alongside the new defence housing service, which will assume responsibility for the provision of family housing and the development of surplus defence land in line with the objective set out in new Section 343E(1) inserted by Clause 3 of the Bill. The new defence housing service will continue to work closely with departmental teams, and this will be covered in the framework document between the department and the defence housing service in the usual way”. That seeks to clarify some of the points that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, made in his introductory remarks, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and other Members made about the relationship between the DIO and the housing service.

On the ECHR and its application continuing, I think the noble Earl, Lord Minto, made the point that an amendment would seek to change the Government’s wording from “may” to “must”, but all Governments usually argue, and this Government will argue, that they often require flexibility in how they implement various laws. That is something that we would seek to continue.

I thank noble Lords for their interesting ideas about funding for the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also raised the issue of defence bonds. The Government are looking at different ways in which we can finance defence in the future and no doubt that discussion and debate will continue.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about the national conversation. That may change. This is a “stop the press” announcement: responsibilities among the ministerial team may change and I may already have lost the national conversation—not because I have not started it yet, I hasten to add. The serious point is that that national conversation is a priority within the department; the ministerial responsibility for it may well change, but it will be taken forward. I think that is something that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will be particularly pleased about, as will we all.

The noble Lord mentioned cadets, which I will come to later, when I also respond to some of the moving remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey.

Clearly, the national conversation is extremely important, not least around how we support homeland defence. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and other noble Lords also made the point about how we ensure that we get and retain public support for the amount we spend on defence. That is crucial to the way forward.

I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for his welcome of the extension of the covenant to national bodies and his general support for that. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, raised visas. I cannot answer all the questions, but I will answer some of them. Again, the Government are committed to scrapping visa fees for non-UK veterans who have served our country for four or more years, and their dependants. The MoD has started work with the Home Office to deliver this manifesto commitment, and that commitment on visa fees remains. I know that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, raised that, as well as the issue with the ECHR, and he heard me address that.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

I hope that the intention to proceed with it will be coupled with a date when it will be done.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is always my intention—rather than to be just aspirational—to try to demand change of the system. The noble and gallant Lord will know from his experience and military service that even a senior rank or senior ministerial rank does not always mean things moving quite as quickly as one would hope. Certainly, this is not an aspiration but a desire to actually bring it about. We will work with other government departments to try to ensure that something happens on that as quickly as possible.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich raised various issues and welcomed the covenant. He heard what I had to say about single-person accommodation and the importance of a whole-society approach. A number of noble Lords mentioned service police and we will come back to some of those issues in Committee.

The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, heard me talk about some of the changes to visas. She mentioned the importance of paternity leave and raised that with me at another meeting outside the Chamber. Of course, we will look at that and see how we can take it forward. I think she mentioned an individual case as well; if she wants to write to me about that, because I do not know the case, I will look into it for her.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich made a really interesting point with respect to not just the Church of England but faith organisations as a whole. The moral dilemma there is between supporting the Armed Forces and appearing to support war versus being a peace-loving faith, which all faiths are. That is a moral dilemma, but sometimes you prevent war by preparing for it. That is the difficulty with respect to that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, made the point about housing; she will have heard what I had to say about that. She made some other points about the need for transition support, learning and training, which were really important.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made a number of very important points, which were linked to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I thought his was a brilliant legal contribution—I actually understood it, which is not always the case—in the way that he laid out some of the issues with respect to the cases that he referred to, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also pointed out. I do not want to say too much, because there are ongoing legal issues with respect to that, but there are certainly discussions taking place about how we take it forward.

Here is the legal advice I have had—and this is for the noble Baroness as well as the noble Lord. The Visiting Forces Act 1952 sets out the legal basis for how jurisdiction for criminal offences is decided between the UK civil authorities and a visiting forces service court martial. This is implemented in practice by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the UK courts as part of the criminal justice system. Following the deeply distressing recent case, officials are working across government to establish the full facts of how this process was enacted in this case.

If needs be, regarding some of the other things said by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I will make sure that we come back in Committee with answers to the questions she raised, when I have had a full legal response to the things she asked. I thought they were really important, and I will bring them forward and share them—obviously, if I bring them up in Committee, people will see that.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for the points he raised about the Strategic Reserve, and the point about data and the digitalisation of the system strikes me as one of those important things where it seems we ought to be able, sometimes, to just get on with them.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Magan, and we will continue the debate around resources. My only point of contention with him is that I really do not think we have “smashed” our special relationship with the United States. There are ups and downs, and sometimes it is difficult, but the UK-US relationship is of immense importance to our country and continues to be so.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for the points he made. He will know that we are working hard to ensure that we do all we can to work properly with respect to historic wrecks. I will take the point about divers and come back to him in Committee about how the Bill impacts on that.

I thank my noble friend Lady Carberry for her remarks and the importance she gave to the reserves, not underplaying the role of the Active Reserve, and of employers being on side. I completely agree with that, and we will continue to take that forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also made the point about paternity leave, and she will have heard what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. The noble Baroness and I will continue to have the debate about 16 and 17 year-olds, the young adults—they are not child soldiers. I see it as a really important part of the contribution that the Armed Forces can make to the development of some of our young people, but that is a debate that we will continue to have. I do not know what the maritime war graves committee is looking at, but I will come back to her on that in Committee.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser. We may not have delivered exactly what she wants with respect to the covenant but, if she looks at Clause 31, she will see that we have moved on the commissioner having responsibility for RFA personnel. She will know, given the continued remarks that she has made over a number of years around the importance of the RFA, that, although not giving her what she wants with respect to the covenant, the Government have moved on the extension of the role of the commissioner to that, which shows that contributions from all sides of the Chamber can actually make a difference to government policy.

I have said what I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. The noble Lord, Lord Morse, made the point about housing which, again, is really important.

My noble friend Lady Dacres made a good contribution. The consistency of delivery around the covenant across the country is really important, and she is quite right to make that point. I would say that one of the successes of the introduction of the covenant has been that it has changed attitudes and culture, which often does not require legislation. I think that the Armed Forces covenant has forced local authorities—and will soon do so for national government, although it has probably changed national government behaviour by its very introduction—to change the way in which people operate and the way people interact with our Armed Forces and veterans. I think it has made a difference there, and I say to my noble friend that that is how we see it taking place across the country.

With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hay, discussions continue on the Troubles Bill and Northern Ireland and the proper place for our veterans and respecting them.

The noble Lord, Lord Bailey, made a hugely moving speech about his own experience and the way in which cadets work. We all support cadets. There are significant sums of money going into cadets, and we wish to expand on that. The noble Lord made an important point about how we attract more volunteers to support that. He will know there are tens of thousands of cadets across the country. This is a point I often make: you see them at events such as Remembrance Sunday but also many others, including Armed Forces Day, which we had recently. The role of cadets in those events, nationwide, was a great tribute to their organisations and a symbol of the sort of society we want in the way in which cadets can bring people together. I thank the noble Lord again for the contribution he made, from his own personal experience, on the way that cadets can help people who may need help and also help those who are simply young people growing up. I think that that is important.

May I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on his work as a graduate of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme?

Defence Investment Plan

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There is a lot in the strategic defence review and the Defence Investment Plan about building up a greater sovereign capability in some of the areas that the noble Lord has addressed. But I think it is important in every debate to say that the alliance between the United States and our country and the alliance between the United States and Europe, notwithstanding the fact that the President has called for Europe to do more for itself, is absolutely essential to the defence and security of our country. The noble Lord may disagree, but I am telling him what the Government’s view is. The Government’s view—and, I am sure, the view of the vast majority of your Lordships’ House—regards the alliance between ourselves and the United States as absolutely essential for the security of this nation, so we have to be very careful about that. Of course there are challenges and difficulties, but the document refers to how we build up some of the capabilities to which the noble Lord refers. Of course Europe needs to do more, but it also needs to stand with the United States, not only in Europe but across the globe.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I share widely the view that this belated DIP comes nowhere near funding the strategic defence review, but the DIP does make clear the Government’s commitment, together with Japan and Italy, to the next-generation Global Combat Air Programme. This is welcome news, given the inevitable withdrawal of the RAF Typhoon air fleet from front-line service due to airframe fatigue and age in the early 2040s. Following the recent break-up between Germany and France on their similar programme, what political approach are the Government making to Germany to get them interested in GCAP?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord is right to point out the importance of GCAP and how it offers a sixth-generation option for us after 2040, when Typhoon is expected to go out of service. There is money in the defence investment plan for the upgrade of Typhoon to ensure that it has the capability that it needs until 2040. Regarding other partners in GCAP, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, we are open to discussions with anybody who comes to us with proposals or desires to join that programme, but that will be a matter for international negotiation between ourselves, Italy and Japan, although we are not opposed to looking at having further partners as part of that scheme.

Russian Shadow Fleet

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. On what we may or may not do, we work very closely with all our allies, of course, including Denmark, but the noble Baroness makes a broader point about the importance of JEF and its work. In JEF, both in the maritime sphere and on land, we work with others to co-operate. She will know that we have troops in Estonia. I have also mentioned in the House that, only a couple of months ago, I was in Finland as part of a NATO operation. We were talking about the border between Finland and Russia. When you get within 30 or 40 miles of the Russian border and talk to people who live there, as I am sure many noble Lords have done, you understand the very real threat that they face; you understand the prospect, and their fear, that what is happening with respect to Russia in other parts of Europe might happen to them.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I join others in commending the crew that carried out this operation. It appears, technically, to have been piracy on the high seas, but the Minister has made very clear to the House that it was legal. I wonder, therefore, whether the Minister could explain in a short way the difference between what appears to be piracy on the high seas and a legal operation.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The legal basis is that the ship was falsely flagged. As such, it loses some of the protections that it would have were it to be properly and legally flagged according to the rules that operate in the maritime environment. Also, the Attorney-General made clear that it was legal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. From both points of view—the United Nations law of the sea, under which the Attorney-General was satisfied, and the fact that the ship was falsely flagged—it loses some of the protections that it would otherwise have. That means it is not piracy. The ship does not avail itself of the protections it would have were it properly flagged.

King’s Speech

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, for some variety of topic I will start by warmly welcoming the wider acceptance across government departments of the covenant duty of care in the forthcoming Armed Forces Bill. This was much pressed for by me and others in debates on the 2021 Bill.

Will the Government now tackle the dark scourge of lawfare? I have repeatedly raised concerns about growing legal pressures placed upon our Armed Forces which risk undermining operational effectiveness and fairness for those who serve. I first raised this when the Human Rights Bill was being debated in 1998. I argued that there were incompatibilities between that Bill and the then three single service disciplinary Acts. The sitting Lord Chancellor assured the House that it would always be possible in a combat situation to resile or derogate from the Human Rights legislation, as necessary. Practical experience since has shown that withdrawing from the Human Rights Act for combat reasons has never been considered possible, let alone attempted. However, numerous operational cases based on human rights legislation have made their way through the courts—even to the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.

A decade ago, in a debate on alleged war crimes and the interplay between international law and domestic legislation, I and others pressed the Government to reintroduce formal Crown immunity for overseas operations. The complex and expanding legal landscape risked burdening commanders and front-line troops with uncertainties at moments when clarity is essential. Later, during a debate on vexatious legal claims against British service personnel, I and others pressed for combat immunity or other legal protection to be arranged for those engaged in active operations. In the Queen’s Speech debate the following year, I urged Ministers to consider both combat immunity and a statute of limitations for historic allegations, arguing that our service men and women deserve clarity and protection when involved in testing combat operations.

Our Armed Forces must of course operate within the law, but they must also be protected from legal encroachment that threatens their ability to act decisively in combat. The highly respected US army general, General Petraeus, said that the UK must decide how its legal architecture supports rather than inadvertently constrains the effectiveness of those it asks to serve.

Recently, we have seen examples of apparent piracy on the high seas, when special operations forces boarded a vessel. Fortunately, no individual member of the crew was hurt or died as a result of the boarding. If they had been, and a claim was made, would the special operations member or the Minister who authorised the seizure be in the dock? Should it ever be a Minister? The position is unclear, and would be even more so were a Prime Minister to order the destruction of a terrorist civil airline, akin to the 9/11 attacks. These problems, sometimes summarised as lawfare, must be grasped.

With no sign of a new Bill of Rights, the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill would be an opportune legislative moment. Much detailed work has already been done, and I urge the Government to use the Armed Forces Bill to act on this subject.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear next from the Cross Benches. Can we have short, sharp, succinct questions, please, not speeches?

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has made it clear that the treaty, as it was, has not been “binned”. If and when there is agreement with the Americans to proceed, will the Government consider also the Maldive interest that has been expressed? If so, have the Government had any formal approach from the Maldivian Government over the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

This is a treaty between the UK and Mauritius with respect to the future of the BIOT, without the involvement of the Maldivian Government. If that is wrong, I will write to the noble and gallant Lord and put it on the record, but that is my understanding.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Craig of Radley]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert
“, subject to subsection (2A).
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the Secretary of State has sought to negotiate an amendment to Article 11 of the Treaty to ensure that the United Kingdom would cease to make payments to the government of Mauritius in the event that the use of the Base for military purposes became impossible.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that, before the ratification of the Treaty, His Majesty's Government makes arrangements for the terms of payment should environmental or other issues make the military use of the Base permanently impossible.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, happy new year to everyone. I will speak to Amendments 1 and 38. In an earlier debate on the Bill, I raised the concern that the UK is required, under Article 11 of the treaty, to continue to pay Mauritius even were the military base on Diego Garcia to become unusable. There seems to be no break or conditional clause agreeing any reasons why the UK may cease these payments before the 99-year date is reached.

Article 15 sets out how Mauritius may react should the UK cease payment, but this is a reason why Mauritius may terminate the treaty, not the UK. If the UK were to persist in not honouring its obligation to pay, the treaty would perforce be terminated by Mauritius. For the avoidance of doubt, would that mean that Article 1 of the treaty is still applicable and sovereignty would remain with Mauritius? Can the Minister confirm the Government’s view on this? I have forewarned her of this question.

In Committee on 18 November, the Minister said in response to my question about the base no longer being usable:

“I will reflect on this and try to come back to him with a more thorough response, because I can see that he … wants to know that the Government have given this the proper consideration that he would expect. I undertake to do that”.—[Official Report, 18/11/25; col. 772.]

If she has written with this further information, I have not yet received it. Fundamentally, does she feel that the environmental risks and the risks of other possible events, such as a major destructive attack on the base or even a decision by the United States that it has no further use for it, are sufficiently remote and unlikely for the UK to be able to accept—or have a possibly messy and even dishonourable termination, where considerable sums of taxpayers’ money may be involved?

As this is Report, I do not intend to do more than point this out without detail, but experience tells us that much can and does change over time. In well under the past 100 years, foes have become friends and friends, potential and real, have become foes. Weapon technology may well change and has frequently done so, as has how operations are mounted and security maintained. America could decide that it has no need for the base for operational reasons or even cease to act as a world police force and revert to isolationism. Is there any legally binding agreement between the UK and the United States that it will continue its use of the base or have need of its use for the 99-year duration of the treaty?

I do not wish to suggest any lack of importance of the base to national and international security at the present time. There is also the putative threat of the sea rising this century due to global warming, flooding the base. My Amendment 1 suggests one feasible way to correct this apparent lack of foresight. I shall listen with close interest to the Minister’s response, but unless the Government can reassure the House that the issue of non-usability of the base has been fully considered and a reasonable solution adopted, I may seek the views of the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 1, to which I attach my name, and to reinforce the arguments made by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley. This amendment is not moved by any wider purpose than common sense, and we trust that the Government will respond accordingly.

Currently, the Bill makes no provision for the circumstances under which the requirement to pay an annual fee for the use of the Diego Garcia base is revisited in the event of the base becoming unusable for military purposes. My noble and gallant friend has already mentioned the potential risks to the utility of the base arising from an extreme environmental event, the future potential for a policy change by the United States and the potential for the technical obsolescence of the base to come about. I argue that concerns regarding potential legal initiatives to constrain the use of the base, particularly partial constraints deriving from nuclear exclusion agreements or the question of Mauritius as the sovereign power having to honour obligations for the authorisation of offensive operations from the base, should be added to that list of concerns.

I fear that the greatest future concern should perhaps be the full or partial destruction of the base through military action by a hostile state. This might seem a surprising concern given the extremely remote nature of this base, but I have been to it. I argue quite strongly that the strategic importance of the base, its entirely militaristic purpose and its extreme remoteness from civilian life all combine to make it a highly vulnerable and attractive target.

The principal tenets for the use of force in warfare are distinction, military necessity, humanity and proportionality. Pause for a moment to imagine the early stages of a global conflict, when a desire for escalation dominance prompts a hostile nation to destroy a western strategic asset as a proportionate response, with no risk of collateral damage to a civilian population, attracting relatively minor moral opprobrium but resulting in huge military benefit. I cannot think of an obviously better or more considered target than Diego Garcia.

Many in the Chamber may think my concerns are drawn from the world of fantasy or nightmare, but do the last 72 hours not give serious cause for concern regarding our ability to predict with certainty the next two years of geopolitics, let alone the next 100? This treaty needs to cater far better for what the future might hold.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for not writing to him, but I hope that I can answer his concerns this afternoon.

Amendments 1 and 38, tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, relate to the termination of the treaty based on environmental degradation of Diego Garcia island. As I am sure that he will appreciate, given the importance of the base to both UK and US national security, we and the US are working hard to ensure that the base is protected from environmental damage. We have a programme to address coastal erosion and, while we cannot predict future erosion, specific studies have concluded that the overall land area of parts of the island that are not shaped by military construction decreased by less than a single percentage point over the last 50 years. However, I know that this is not really his point. He is using climate change and rising sea levels, but equally a significant pollution event, a meteor strike or something else could happen, so have the Government considered what they would do in an unpredicted and unpredictable situation that may arise and render the base unusable? That is the kernel of what he is getting at.

For obvious reasons, we do not want to get into a debate about other future hypothetical scenarios, whether they relate to the base becoming unusable or its no longer being needed. It is difficult to see that happening. The US, which has invested heavily in Diego Garcia, agrees that opening up the possibility of the agreement with Mauritius being terminated early is not helpful. However, I take the noble and gallant Lord’s point that, when dealing with a treaty over such a long period, we must at least be aware of the possibility that things can change. That is why we have included in the treaty the joint commission as a mechanism for agreeing between the UK, the US and Mauritius any developments relating to the base that we wish to raise. Should any of the hypothetical scenarios that I have referred to transpire, these are the sorts of issues that could be discussed in the joint commission, with decisions taken based on all the circumstances at the time. We have also included provision in the treaty for the matter to be raised up to prime ministerial level if necessary.

Using these mechanisms the UK and Mauritius would, in close consultation with the United States, agree a way forward. Ultimately, there is provision in the treaty for it to be terminated on two grounds, both of which depend on action by the UK. One is our failure to make payments. As noble Lords know, the UK abides by its international obligations, but in any particular case the Government of the day would need to consider their options in light of all the circumstances, looking at the terms of the treaty as well as wider international law. It is this wider international law, which we have not discussed previously, that I encourage the noble and gallant Lord to consider. He may wish to bear in mind that the international law of treaties permits the termination of a treaty when it becomes impossible for the treaty to be performed as a result of

“the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty”.

That is wider international law; that is not something that is held within this treaty itself. That is helpful and I hope it reassures him about his concerns.

I hope that the noble and gallant Lord can see that we are taking steps that are necessary to prevent the base becoming unusable and that, however hard hypothetical situations might be for us to imagine today, there are processes in place established by the treaty to resolve them. Using these processes, based on the circumstances of the time, no doubt any future UK Government would do what was in the best interests of the UK.

In the same vein, Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, discusses the ability to extend the agreement at the end of its initial 99 years. I assure him that there is already provision for the treaty to be extended by 40 years and beyond with the agreement of both parties. Even if agreement is not reached, the UK has the right of first refusal during that first 40 years after the initial period expires, meaning that no other country can use Diego Garcia without the UK being offered use first. I cannot accept his amendment as it seeks to change a carefully negotiated aspect of the treaty.

Similarly, I cannot accept Amendment 40, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which calls on the Secretary of State to publish a statement of the Government’s understanding of the legal status of the Chagos Archipelago should the agreement be terminated. The noble Lord is aware that the UK honours its international obligations and is committed to the treaty. The grounds for terminating the treaty are incredibly limited, as I have said, and entirely depend on the UK’s actions.

I thought it might be helpful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, in particular, to outline a little more detail about from the law of treaties, which I am relying on in my attempts to persuade him this afternoon. Article 61 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which the UK and Mauritius are both parties to, provides that:

“A party may invoke the impossibility of performing a treaty as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from it if the impossibility results from the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty. If the impossibility is temporary, it may be invoked only as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.


Impossibility of performance may not be invoked by a party as a ground for terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty if the impossibility is the result of a breach by that party either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty”.


That covers the situation that he refers to—sea level rise—but would also cover many of the other situations that, at this stage, we are able to envisage occurring in the future.

I hope that noble Lords feel able to not press their amendments.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for the way in which she has attempted to deal with my and our concerns. She has certainly pointed to an alternative way, but I still feel that this is something which should and could be sorted out before we get into formal ratification, and therefore I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, my Amendment 32 would require a referendum of the Chagossian people, which we have heard about already, before any transfer of sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory could take place. I thank those noble Lords who have added their names to the amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for bringing us the results from his committee; they have been very instructive to this debate. At its heart, the amendment is very simple. It asks whether a people who were shamefully removed by force from their homeland and who have been denied a voice that the rest of us enjoy should be finally allowed to speak for themselves. I believe the answer to that question is yes, absolutely.

Of course, the Chagossian community did not leave their islands by choice. They were removed by the British state and scattered across the world. Since that moment, decisions about their future, and about a homeland they were forbidden to return to, have been taken over their heads, in rooms to which they were not invited. If there was ever a community entitled to the clearest expression of self-determination, it is this one.

The Minister has argued that a referendum could not alter the terms of the treaty, but that is to misunderstand the purpose of this amendment, or indeed any other amendment which calls for the right of self-determination for the Chagossian community. The issue before us is not whether a referendum rewrites international law but whether Parliament is prepared to authorise the transfer of sovereignty without the consent of the people most directly affected by it. This House has both the historic right and the responsibility to insist that consent comes first.

We have already heard that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination published its opinion on 8 December. That is something new in the international sphere that we hear so much referred to in this House. It gives its opinion on the process of this treaty and some of its contents, especially in relation to the explicit prevention of the return of the Chagossian people to their ancestral lands in Diego Garcia. In relation to the process which the Government have engaged in, the committee said that the lack of meaningful participation of the Chagossian people is

“affecting their rights and lands, restricting the exercise of their right to self-determination”.

The UN committee clearly believes, despite all that we were told in Committee, that Chagossians have a right of self-determination. I would be very much obliged to hear from the Minister on this specific point when she responds.

I also worry greatly that to proceed without consent from the Chagossian people would establish a deeply troubling precedent—one that I know is already feared by other populations across our cherished overseas territories. If sovereignty of one overseas territory can be transferred without the freely expressed will of its people, then no territory can be entirely reassured. Self-determination cannot be conditional on convenience or on the balance of diplomatic pressure exerted on the UK by a coalition of our adversaries, either through an international court issuing a non-binding advisory opinion or by other means.

In all other parts of our British Overseas Territories, there is a simple principle that is acknowledged by everyone: people get to decide their own future. But the Chagossians are told that this principle does not apply to them because they are not a permanent population. That argument cannot possibly stand because it was our Government who made them not a permanent population; the UK Government ensured that they could not be. To deny them self-determination on that basis is to compound a historic injustice with a present one.

Of course, the Government will be aware that there is now a Chagossian Government in exile. Denied a voice yet again by a Government who trumpet their respect for international law, the Chagossians have now elected their own leader here in the United Kingdom—a Government in exile, if you will. Surely our Government must now acknowledge that they have got it wrong in not seeking the views of Chagossians before handing away their homeland to Mauritius.

What is striking is that the Chagossian community are united in a call for a referendum. The Minister will refer to a broad range of views on sovereignty within the Chagossian community, and that is absolutely true, but the Chagossian community has consistently referred to the right to self-determination, whether they live in the UK, the Maldives or the Seychelles. The Chagos Refugees Group, which seems to be the only group that the UK Government engage with, has only ever called for self-determination. Similarly, the UK Chagossian groups, including Chagossian Voices, BIOT Citizens and others, have echoed that call. Across generations and across the diaspora, they are asking for the same thing: not special treatment but equal treatment; not a veto over foreign policy but a voice for their own destiny.

Taking that wide range of views into account—a point repeated frequently by the Minister in this place, and in the other place—it is clear that this amendment does not dictate the outcome of a referendum. It does not presume what the Chagossians will decide, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, has said. It simply says that they must be asked, and the answer must matter. If we are serious about self-determination and believe that it is a principle, not a slogan, then we cannot exempt the Chagossians from it. I urge the House to support this amendment in a cross-party spirit and affirm that no people, especially one wronged so grievously by the UK Government, should be denied the right to decide its own future.

In closing, I refer to Amendment 33 on “Referendum No. 2” in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. While, of course, I believe my amendment is better as it is a condition precedent to the treaty being implemented, I will also support his amendment because, as we say in Ulster, half a loaf is better than no bread. Despite that, I hope noble Lords will support Amendment 32.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I regret that I missed the opportunity to add my name in support of Amendment 32 from the noble Baroness. It is remarkable and significant that there is sufficient interest in the Chagossian community, after so many years since they and their forebears were evicted, to form with due process a Government in exile. I have already exchanged emails with the nominated First Minister, Mr Misley Mandarin.

The Minister was perhaps too optimistically dismissive in Committee when she suggested that there was insufficient Chagossian presence on the atoll to form or justify an independent authority. There is none there; they were evicted in the 1970s. There is also the recent finding of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to consider. Have the Government considered whether this might influence the thinking and advisory findings of the international court, which triggered this Government’s search for a long-term arrangement for Diego Garcia as a military base?

I note that the other far neighbour of the Chagos Archipelago, the Maldives, has raised seemingly legitimate human rights concerns about the Government’s methods of rushing these matters through this House. The number of amendments on Report is a reasonable measure of the many concerns held in this House. Though the treaty has been agreed, I urge the Government to proceed at a measured pace to allow these many concerns to be properly and fully considered. Will they reassure the House that there is no set time limit for these national procedures to be considered, as, if they were to be conceded, it might invalidate the treaty as signed on 22 May 2025?

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, before I speak to my Amendments 33A and 18, I totally support the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, in her Amendment 32 and hope that noble Lords will accept that it is a really sensible way forward. So much has happened even since we started talking about this issue a while ago. We have heard about the committee report. I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for a very good report which ends up saying what many of us thought: obviously we cannot say it of every single Chagossian but, overall, they feel that they want to stay part of a British island archipelago. We would not be here if there had been no forced removal originally and the people of the Chagos Islands had been afforded a self-determination referendum back in 1965, as the Ellice Islands were prior to their detachment from the Gilbert Islands.

The report of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is new. I do not understand why the Government are pushing this so quickly. Why is it being rushed through? Why are we having Report and Third Reading all in the same week, when there is so much controversy over this issue? It seems very strange.