Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Craig of Radley

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 49, I will speak to Amendment 63. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for signing these amendments.

It is extremely disappointing that, as currently drafted, the Bill does nothing to address the shameful scandal of visa fees for veterans. As Stephen Morgan said:

“Commonwealth service personnel have contributed an enormous amount to our national defence and we owe them a debt of gratitude. Extortionate visa fees have left non-UK veterans facing financial ruin and feeling abandoned by the country they served with courage and distinction.”


Under current rules, Commonwealth personnel face a fee of £2,389 per person to continue to live in the UK after having served at least four years. It means that someone with a partner and two children could face a bill of £10,000 to stay in Britain. I remember that, at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, called this a “shameful scandal”, while the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said that it was a “bizarre situation”.

The Government finally announced a long-awaited public consultation on 26 May on proposals that would waive visa fees for those who had served 12 years or more. However, as the Sun reported:

“Ministry of Defence figures show only 20 of the 200 non-UK personnel who left the Regulars last year would qualify … when the majority serve between four and 11 years … The average length of service for all UK armed forces leavers has been about 10 years since 2015.”


The proposed changes also do not apply to family members of those who have served or those who have been medically discharged, meaning that they will help only a minority of those affected. Amendments 49 and 63 would mean that Commonwealth, Gurkha and Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans who have served four years would pay just the cost price of £243 for an application for indefinite leave to remain. I know that the Royal British Legion and organisations such as Citizenship 4 Soldiers have long campaigned on this.

The government consultation closed on 7 July. The Minister said at Second Reading that the Government were

“currently analysing the feedback from that consultation and we shall respond in due course.”—[Official Report, 7/9/21; col. 775.]

Is that response ready today? If not, when will it be ready? Can the Minister explain why this Government can justify making Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans, who have served our country with the same courage and distinction, wait two years longer before they are allowed to live in the country they have fought for? This is about not only fairness but our moral obligation to those who have served our country in the Armed Forces. I want to see movement from the Minister on this issue; otherwise, we will certainly return to it on Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 49 and 63, but I shall speak to Amendment 63 and concentrate on the plight of the few UK Armed Forces veterans of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps. For completeness, I also include veterans of the Royal Navy Hong Kong Squadron. They were all full members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces throughout their service. They took the same lifetime oath of loyalty as all other British service members, and paid full UK taxes. Officially recognised as veterans by Her Majesty’s Government, they are not being treated fairly and reasonably, as the covenant requires. I have already explained the background to this issue to the Minister and raised it many times in this House, so I will not repeat myself now in this Committee.

The recent swift action by the Government to evacuate and grant right of abode to thousands of Afghanis shows that the Home Office can respond fast. Is there any reason why the Government have prevaricated for the past nine years and refused to come to a decision about granting the request of the Hong Kong veterans for British citizenship and right of abode? These veterans’ covenant rights should apply in Hong Kong as they do anywhere else.

The imposed national security law in Hong Kong has put the “one country, two systems” paradigm in a precarious state. These veterans find themselves living under Beijing rule. They, along with many other Hong Kongers, are worried, but they are small in number and believe their case is now a matter of humanity, not politics. They feel they are being treated as aliens, not veterans of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

They, as much as other past members of the Armed Forces, deserve a positive decision, not the endless excuse that their case is being “actively considered”. That euphemism has been the response of Home Office Ministers and a frequently repeated response to approaches from Members of both Houses on behalf of these veterans for the past nine years and more. Over 60 individual applications from this small group of veterans, which I forwarded to the Home Office on their behalf in March 2020, over 18 months ago, have gone unanswered. It all smacks of a Sir Humphrey-style reaction, unworthy of the Home Office, unless it aspires to remain a department unfit for business in this area. It is long past time for this request to be resolved finally and clearly.

Is this not an equally pertinent example, as was the case of Gulf War syndrome, highlighted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in the earlier Committee debate, of the need to include the Secretary of State for Defence in the list of those who must have a duty of care under the covenant? These Hong Kong Armed Forces veterans’ concerns and requests are not ones that could be devolved or passed to a local authority. Including the Secretary of State in this Bill is necessary to fill this gap in the duty of care under the covenant. Will the Government acknowledge that this Hong Kong veterans’ claim is a long-standing and legitimate one that should be honoured by reaching a decision now?

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Craig of Radley

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard)
Monday 10th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I draw attention to the penultimate line on the front page of today’s list, which states that the target for the day is to complete Amendment 23. That means that we are not going to do drones today. No Member has moved from their seat; never mind.

The essence of this group of amendments, with which I broadly agree, is to prevent mission creep. Having sat on the Front Bench opposite, I recall that whenever you create a right for the Government to do something or other, civil servants will creep up to you and say: “Make sure it is not restricted, because you might need it.” I fear that, far too often, they do.

The Minister wrote to me and several other noble Lords. On the second page of her letter, under the heading “Proportionality”, her second sentence states:

“It is the government’s intention that, at least initially, the powers to direct in clauses 2 and 3 would only be used by the Secretary of State in relation to ACPs that have been identified within the airspace change masterplan, currently being developed by NERL through the Airspace Change Organising Group (ACOG) with a view to incorporation of the masterplan into the CAA’s airspace strategy”.


I read the whole sentence for the avoidance of doubt. The words that sprung out at me are, “at least initially”. Further on in the letter, the Minister seeks to soften those words with a series of intentions. However, intentions are not law: they are the words of the Minister. If she repeats those words into Hansard they become a little more useful. Nevertheless, there is a serious issue with that part of the Bill ending up in mission creep. There are so many things for which the CAA or the Government might wish to use these powers.

I share the view that the task in front of those who are trying to deliver the programme is such that consultation—ideally on the face of the Bill, as put forward by Amendment 4—would be useful. It would certainly be useful to hear the extent to which the Minister can assure the House about consultation. On the appeals procedure, I refer again to the noble Baroness’s extremely useful letter, in which she says:

“There is no formal appeals process against an ACAA decision relating to individual ACPs. CAP1616 is a fully transparent process in which consultation and engagement exercises are run throughout.”


With the greatest respect, a consultation and engagement exercise is not an appeal. Because of the extent to which this process is entirely within the CAA’s ambit, one can see a situation where, without some hook in primary legislation, small fish in this sea could find themselves swamped. A formal appeals procedure somewhere in the Bill might usefully add to it. I hope that the Minister will be able to react to those ideas.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I first pick up the question that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, started with, which is whether we shall end at the target of Amendment 23. My understanding is that we shall, because that has been agreed through the usual channels. Amendment 24 is in my name, so it is important that I can be confident that we will stop, if we get that far, at Amendment 23. I take the nodding to mean that that is the case and I appreciate it.

While I am on my feet, may I ask a more general question about all these amendments? There has been a great deal of talk about the interests of the civilian side of the aviation industry and how it interacts with the Department for Transport and the CAA, but I am not clear how the Ministry of Defence’s position will be properly safeguarded. The CAA has RAF representation, but I do not feel that that is at a high enough level and I would like to be reassured that the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Defence are in continuous contact, at the right level, on these points. The Ministry of Defence, and the Royal Air Force in particular, needs aviation space not only for getting in and out of airfields; they also have training needs and other areas that have to be safeguarded if the Royal Air Force is to continue to be effective in its training.