Armed Forces Bill

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a privilege to open for the Opposition on Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill, given the global circumstances in which we find ourselves, and the sense that the ability of our armed forces to stand up to renewed threats has not been at issue to this degree for many years.

Before turning to the Bill, I want to take this opportunity to place on record my thanks, and those of the Opposition, to a particularly special group of people: those members of the British armed forces who served in Afghanistan, in the cause of freedom and in the wake of the horrific 9/11 attack on our closest ally, the United States of America. The 9/11 attack was not just an attack against the US mainland; it was also an attack on ourselves, and not only because of the 67 British lives that were lost when the twin towers were hit, but because our western way of life seemed to be under direct attack.

So I am glad that President Trump followed his wholly inaccurate and misjudged remarks about the service of our personnel in Afghanistan with praise for our military, but their contribution should never have been in doubt. Given the immense pain that his words will have caused the loved ones of those who were lost in Afghanistan, we send a message to those families today that theirs was far from a loss in vain; it was a just cause, where British soldiers played as much a part as anyone else, and one for which we will be forever grateful.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those words. Will he associate himself with the Canadian, Danish, French, Australian and New Zealand armed forces, and those from many other countries around the world, who served alongside us in that NATO operation? They stood by us, even though article 5 does not apply to Australia or New Zealand, and lost troops in combat, yet I did not hear an apology for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to speak in this debate. Unusually, I pay tribute to the Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), who could be sporting the same colours as me. As a fellow veteran from the finest corps in the country, she will no doubt have many contributions of her own to make.

Today is Australia Day and India’s Republic Day. Given that we are talking about the armed forces, it is worth remembering that over the last 100 years it has been very unusual for us to have gone to war without very close allies by our side. In fact, the two largest volunteer armies in the world were the Indian army in the first world war and the Indian army in the second world war.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman gives me a very good prompt, because this morning I was at the war memorial in Bournemouth, where two new plaques were unveiled for the 12 Indian soldiers who died at No. 8A Indian general hospital, which is now Bournemouth town hall. The plaques mark their contribution to Britain’s fight in world war one and honour their sacrifice. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the sacrifices of our allies, particularly our Indian allies, have too often been forgotten. Will he join me in commending Ramesh Lal, who has been pivotal in making those plaques happen?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I absolutely will. I am very grateful for the fact that those soldiers are remembered in Bournemouth, just as they should be remembered across the country.

I crave a personal indulgence and remember Tim Robertson from the Australian special air forces regiment, whom I fought alongside in Iraq. Sadly, he was killed a couple of years ago while fighting fires in northern Queensland. Many veterans serve in many distinguished ways after they leave the service—some even on the Government Front Bench.

We are at a moment when the world has changed. Many of us have just been watching the events in Davos, and three speeches really stood out. The first—the obvious one—is the one that the President of the United States gave, which set out a vision that led many of us to question where this world is going. There were two other speeches, however, that were rather important and, in a way, much more fundamental to the way that we should see Britain and our armed forces. The first was by the Prime Minister of Canada, who set out a very clear warning to us all that the comfort that we had got used to, and the arrangements in which we had luxuriated, are no longer valid for this era. We can talk about spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, and we can talk about spending 3% after the next election, but these are luxury beliefs. They are not realistic and do not account for a changed world.

The third speech, which in many ways was the most challenging, was from the Chancellor of Germany, who correctly pointed out that Europe—he included us in that—has simply not been prepared for the challenges that we face. The Germans have answered that by raising €100 billion, as the Secretary of State knows. We are not in a position to raise money in the same way that Germany does, because our debt has been higher, but the truth is that we are still facing the same threats as Germany—we are just facing them in a different way. We are facing them in the North sea and the Baltic. We are facing them in the Irish sea and the Atlantic, where we see Russian and Chinese vessels scraping our cables and destroying our communications, or trying to do so. We see the ways in which they are attacking our energy infrastructure. They are trying to hit our hospitals through cyber, and to undermine the security of this state in many different ways.

Those three speeches should set the context for this debate. One warned us that our allies may no longer be there for us, the second alerted us to the fact that the comfort is over, and the third was absolutely clear that our contributions must rise. That is where we come to this Bill and these commitments.

I appreciate what the Secretary of State has said, and what my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has countered with. I do not wish to criticise the Secretary of State for the fact that the defence budget has increased—I recognise that and welcome it—but it is not enough to increase it to the level we would like. It is necessary to increase it to the level that we need, because that is one element of the Budget that we do not choose. It is chosen for us by the threats we face: it is chosen for us by the posture of the Russian and Chinese forces we face.

It is certainly true that we have seen some extraordinary news out of Beijing in the last 48 hours, with generals having disappeared, presumably down a salt mine, as they have fallen out of favour with the chairman of the Chinese Communist party’s military committee. It is also certainly true that the Russians are embedded in the most gruesome and horrific war in Ukraine, where they are murdering more of their own people than they are of the enemy, although they are doing their best to kill as many Ukrainian civilians as they can. None the less, it is true that those armies, navies and forces are attacking us, and we need to be ready to face them.

I would like to look at how this Bill provides a response to that. We have quite rightly heard about the emphasis on the reserve, and on the way in which medical teams, interpreters and others have contributed. I would like to pay tribute to the military leadership for the way in which it has looked to change how the armed forces work with reservists with careers or skills that are very hard to get through traditional military routes. In particular, I am thinking of cyber, because we are looking for something very different. I have huge respect for the Minister for the Armed Forces, a friend with whom I served on far too many adventures overseas, for the fact that he can do 30 pull-ups, but how fast can he hack into a Russian terminal? I am not sure it is in his skills set. These are different skills, and we need to look to the reserve to provide such skills.

That is where I look to our young people in this country. I do not know how many Members in the House have read the recent Centre for Social Justice report on the number of graduates claiming welfare at the moment. Apparently, it is 700,000. That is a huge number of young people who have an enormous amount to offer our community, our country and our allies, but who are being parked in a system that does not include them. To come back to what the armed forces are for, they are not just for the defence of the realm against foreign threats; they are for the cohesion of the realm at home, too. They are for bringing us together, making us understand who we are as Brits and making us proud of who we may be as Northern Irish, Welsh, English or Scottish. They are about understanding that we are stronger together and that we are part of a greater whole. Having 700,000 young people parked on welfare is a pretty big indictment of the failure not just of Government, but of our understanding of our own place in this country. I am not saying that the armed forces are the answer to all of that, but they are surely a contributory factor that we need to be looking at.

To turn to another area, over the last few years we have had long conversations about defence resources for Ukraine. We have heard about the shell shortages and the need for armour and next-generation light anti-tank weapons, but what is the real need in Ukraine? It is the need for technology that changes the game. When one talks to a Ukrainian general, or in fact to a more junior officer such as a Ukrainian colonel, one finds that the conversation is not about armour, as it so often is in the UK, or even about submarines—built so brilliantly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham). It is about drones and the technology that powers them. I say drones and technology because they are actually separate. The plastic, the rotors and the body—the design—last about nine months on the Ukrainian frontline and the power unit lasts about four weeks, but the technology that allows a drone to defeat the armour, get through the jamming and strike the enemy lasts between seven and 14 days.

That technology is where we need to be advancing fast, but for all our talk of sovereignty, the truth is that only two nations have a sovereign artificial intelligence capability, and that does not include us. They are the United States and China. At the moment, we have only one choice, which is to use the US approach, and that is clearly the right answer for today, but is it the right answer for tomorrow? That is the question we need to be asking ourselves. We need to be asking ourselves where we can develop that technology and how we can secure—for our own defence, within our own timeframe and within our own resources—the ability to understand a battlefield, shape events and determine the technology that will actually defeat our enemies. That is a huge challenge, and I appreciate that this Bill is not meant to answer all those questions, but this surely has to be the question that the armed forces are asking now.

I will close by merely saying that, yes, it is of course true that the numbers are inadequate, and it is certainly striking that in the last few weeks the Iranian regime has murdered roughly the same number of people as are serving in our Royal Navy today, but it is also striking that we are still—and, sadly, increasingly—dependent on foreign technology and not able to meet our own needs, which is where the armed forces and the armed forces equipment deal need to be looking next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my fellow Essex MP, the hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), not least as she has the privilege of representing Merville barracks, which I have visited a number of times down the years and which is the home of our elite unit, the 16 Air Assault Brigade. I have to be careful in saying that, because I have a former royal marine, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), sitting on the Benches behind me.

I thank the Minister for the helpful briefing on the Bill that he arranged for me at the Ministry of Defence last week. I am prepared to admit to the House that there was a slight communications mix-up. When I was originally invited into the Department, I left my phone in my office, thinking I was going into a briefing about events in Iran. I was both surprised and delighted when I was ushered into one of the historical rooms at the MOD to be pleasantly confronted by the entire team of officials responsible for the Bill. I am grateful to them for their subsequent briefing, which was extremely helpful.

The Armed Forces Bill is a very necessary piece of legislation that has to be passed by Parliament at least every five years. By tradition, this quinquennial Bill is relatively non-controversial. In that spirit, as the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), said, just as we did with the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, the Opposition see our role as that of a critical friend to the Bill by engaging in debate with an aim to improving it where possible—although we do, of course, reserve the right to hold the Government to account on a variety of matters. I may take the liberty of returning to two such matters in particular.

Although the Bill’s 55 clauses and seven schedules cover a variety of topics, with everything from drones—a particular hot button for the Minister, and indeed for my line manager—to powers of commanding officers, the Bill mainly encompasses four principal areas: reserves in clauses 31 to 37; defence housing and other property in a lengthy clause 3; the armed forces covenant in an equally lengthy clause 2; and potential changes to the service justice system, which is covered in several clauses, but principally clauses 5 to 16 and 20 to 26. I should like to say a little about each of those areas in turn.

Before I do, though, I place on the record that in this debate on the Armed Forces Bill—a very important piece of legislation regarding the future and welfare of His Majesty’s armed forces—not a single Reform MP has been present in the Chamber, let alone made a speech. If these people want to wrap themselves in the flag, they should at least take the trouble to turn up to support those who actually defend it, both in this country and around the globe. Reform Members have been too busy today spreading misinformation about my party’s attitude to Northern Ireland veterans—another reason, I suspect, that they did not want to come into the Chamber and face the music.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The shadow Minister will remember that one of the first things I did on leaving the Army in 2013 was to write a policy paper for Policy Exchange titled “The Fog of Law” on lawfare—that legal intervention on the battlefield that causes confusion and leads so many down a terrible path, of which Northern Ireland is one example, although there are many others. He will remember that our party has been on this for years, trying to clear the obstacles that have been created by various different constructs such as the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. I am sure he will now be one of the champions, along with the Leader of the Opposition, on finding a proper solution to answer that. Will he agree that this is how real government is done—by doing the hard work over many years to find the real answers that apply, and not simply by shouting at others?

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend is right. There is an old saying in politics that the world is run by those who turn up. Well, Reform did not turn up.

On the reserves, I should first declare an interest. I served as a Territorial Army infantry officer in the 1980s in the 5th Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment, a NATO-roled battalion that formed part of the 49th Infantry Brigade, which in turn was part of the 2nd Infantry Division, whose core mission was essentially to reinforce what was then the British Army of the Rhine, or BAOR, in the event of world war three. Including service in the Officers’ Training Corps prior to joining 5 Royal Anglian, I did some seven years in total. I was on Exercise Lionheart in 1984 as an officer cadet and also exercised in Cyprus and West Berlin as a junior officer.

Nevertheless, I was at no time deployed on active service and so, unlike the Minister, I have no medals at all, because I never did anything that merited one. Despite that, I am still proud to carry the late Queen’s Commission, and I like to believe that had the balloon gone up, our battalion would have done our best to defend the bridge over the Leine river, which was our wartime task.

Ukraine

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The vast majority of the seized Russian assets are held by Belgium—within its geography—which is why we are having discussions not only internationally but directly with our Belgian colleagues. I hope that progress can be made on that.

My hon. Friend is right that the threats we face from Russia are not just military threats. The sub-threshold or grey zone threats—the election interference that we see Russia perpetrating around the world, the cyber-threats and cyber-attacks against the UK and our allies, and the potential grey zone attacks on our undersea infrastructure—are all part of the increasing threat that Russia poses to our country, our values and our alliances. For that reason, it is absolutely right that the Government take steps in all those areas to look at what can be done to prevent Russian interference and to defend ourselves more strongly and better. That includes increasing defence spending, as well as other measures.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

May I start by paying tribute and offering thanks to all those on the frontlines in our uniform, guarding our seas, guarding our land and guarding our air? They will be on duty for the next fortnight, when many of us will be celebrating, and will not have the chance to be with their families.

May I raise a point that I do not really want to raise, but which I am afraid is fundamentally true? The promises of defence spending are actually on the never-never—they are for after the next election. The reality, as the Minister knows very well, is that the uplift he has spoken about is actually a reallocation of money that was allocated to Ukraine and is still allocated to Ukraine. It was coming out of one budget and it is now under the defence budget. That is Treasury chicanery, not a defence uplift.

The reality is that we are not considered serious. We complain, understandably, that we are not part of President Trump’s talks, but we are not willing to put in the money or put a stake in the ground to show that we are a capable and equal player. We see what Poland is doing and what the Baltic states are doing, and we are not doing it ourselves. Until we are willing to do it ourselves, I am afraid that the Minister, and all of us here, are not being serious. We are not truly standing with Ukraine, we are not truly defending the British people, and I am afraid that the promises will come to naught.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the passion with which he puts the argument. We are increasing defence spending; there is £5 billion extra in the defence budget this year. We will have more money in our budget every year for the next 10 years. There is not a single person who has served in uniform and seen a decade of rising defence spending ahead of them. We need to spend that well, but we also need to recognise that, with increasing threats, it is not just Defence that needs to spend money well; it is the whole of Government and the whole of society that need to step up. It is not just an MOD pursuit, although we take the lead in many cases.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his thanks to the service personnel deployed around the world. For Members who have not seen it yet, the Royal Navy Christmas advert, which shows the real-life events of HMS Diamond when she was in the Red sea and what happens for our people at home and those deployed abroad, is well worth a watch.

Russian Ship Yantar

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

That is a valid point. For years we have not taken homeland security seriously. The House will note that, in the strategic defence review, we have invested in integrated missile defence, which is important both for very sophisticated systems and for the low-grade systems we have seen flying in our airspace, which are sometimes more difficult to track and defeat. I can absolutely give the assurance that we are investing in integrated missile defence as we move forward with the strategic defence review and the defence investment plan.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I welcome many of the Minister’s comments. I would add my enormous thanks to the intelligence personnel who assisted not only in zeroing in on the ship but in understanding its capabilities a long time before anybody else arrived on the scene.

As a fellow former military assistant in the MOD, may I raise one point with the Minister? We have both seen Governments of every colour making decisions and statements that sound good on the day before the reality of a lack of kit becomes clear. I saw that under Blair and Brown, and again, yes, under Governments of my own stripe. I am sure that the Minister, too, saw that under them all. I raise this because the reality is that the world has changed. We are much, much more vulnerable today than we have been, but we have fewer ships at sea, fewer men in uniform and fewer planes in the air than we have had at any time. Yet the aspiration for the 3% is still “by the end of the Parliament” or “over the next five years”, and always on the never-never. He must be very careful, as I am sure he is hugely aware, that he is there to change defence, not to apologise for failure.

[Al Carns]

The right hon. and gallant Member raises a valid point. When we came into government, we took the significant step of raising defence spending, but he knows as well as any that it is not just about buying or investing in the same capability; it is about rebuilding and reshaping our armed forces to fight not yesterday’s war but the war of the future. We are absorbing many of the lessons from Ukraine to ensure that we can transform our military to fight in the most effective manner. That is why I got into this game in the first place—to move that along faster, particularly when it comes to autonomous systems.

The right hon. and gallant Member will have seen in the strategic defence review a massive increase of £4 billion for autonomous systems, as well as an increase in the number of drone companies. Just today, the Defence Secretary opened another factory down in Plymouth. I am away after this statement to go and open another in Swindon. A huge industrial base to build drones is growing in the UK. It is a Seedcorn capability that can expand rapidly at times of conflict. I am happy to take any of these points offline to talk further about how we can work collaboratively to move forward.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

To return to the issue of Chagossians, on which I am trying to make progress, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and FCDO officials have met with the Chagossian communities. Under the treaty, Mauritius will now be free to carry out a programme of resettlement of the outer islands, and we have agreed a new trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of Chagossians and the resumption of visits to the Chagos archipelago. Over the coming months and years, we will increase the UK Government’s support to and engagement with UK Chagossians, including through UK-funded projects designed through a new contact group, informed by the Chagossians’ own wishes, which met for the very first time last week and was attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that the payment from the 1960s, referred to by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), was also supposed to be spent on Chagossian welfare, but many Chagossian groups have raised the fact that that money did not go on Chagossian welfare. It went on many other things for the Mauritian Government, but not on Chagossians. What confidence does he have that this agreement is any more valid than the last one?

[Luke Pollard]

That is precisely why my FCDO colleagues are working very closely with Mauritius to ensure that the money that is included in the treaty, and the obligations that both the UK and Mauritius sign up to in the treaty, are fully delivered so that the Chagossians receive what this treaty says they should receive. That is a really important part of the treaty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can help me in giving a prediction. Two families have swapped leadership of Mauritius over the last 60 years. Does he see any reason to doubt that the same two families will swap leadership over the next 60?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

That is exactly the point. There are serious concerns about the uncertainties surrounding future growth and societal wellbeing. If there are such concerns when it comes to UK predictions about the UK, imagine how difficult it is to predict what will happen in Mauritius, so this should be dismissed.

It is interesting that after not answering the question for so long, suddenly the Government have popped up with a new device. They say that if we do not accept the figures, we are completely dismissing the Green Book, but the overall cost is not a Green Book issue, because this is about paying somebody money outside the UK, not about controlling cost. That is why the Green Book has never been used for this purpose before, and never will. I simply say to the Government that the money side of this has fallen apart again.

I come to the third element. As I said earlier, we have had no real vote or debate on the treaty, as opposed to the Bill. The old CRaG system has been rushed through, without a vote. I have to tell the Minister, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, that that is simply appalling, given that we are dealing with something as strategically important as this treaty.

Clause 5 of the Bill, which is a very flimsy document, is entitled “Further provision: Orders in Council”. Anybody who reads that will have a sudden intake of breath. The whole point of this Bill is negated by clause 5. What is the point of debating the rest of the Bill, given that clause 5 says that at any stage, and under any circumstances, the Government can change it all by Orders in Council? Absolutely everything can be changed by Orders in Council, with no vote and no dispute. If the Government decide to go in a different direction, they do not have to consult Parliament any more.

The sweeping powers in the Bill are ridiculous. When the Minister was in opposition, he used to spend his whole time moaning—quite rightly—about Governments who give themselves such powers. Even by the standards of previous Governments, this Bill is pretty astonishing. It is a massive sweep. This is not really democracy any more; it is monocracy. In other words, we have given up debate and dispute, and we have handed things over to one person—the Prime Minister. I say to the Government that the Bill is appalling, and they really need to rethink it. We simply cannot go through with something as appalling as this. I can remember the Maastricht debates, and various others in which we spent a long time debating clauses on the Floor of the House. That was the right thing to do, because such issues are important. International treaties are vital to our wellbeing, and the Bill simply does not work.

The last thing I want to say is on China. I would say this, because I am sanctioned by China, as are some of my hon. Friends. I suspect that others will be sanctioned as well in due course. If they carry on working with me in the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, they are bound to be sanctioned, and I look forward to their joining us at that table. There is no way on earth that China does not benefit from this Bill. China has its eyes on the very important flow of commercial traffic that runs just below the Chagos islands, which it has always wanted to be able to block, control or interfere with.

The Chinese already have a naval base in Sri Lanka, which they got by default on the back of the belt and road initiative, due to non-payment. For a long time, they have been looking at how, under their arrangements with Mauritius, they will eventually be able to intervene. They are two or three steps further forward as a result of this Bill. It does not secure us against that absolutely, because we gave up absolute security and control when we decided to hand over sovereignty to Mauritius.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

So many Labour Members seem to have forgotten that the reshuffle was a couple of days ago. They will have to wait another few months, possibly years, for their obsequiousness to be rewarded.

May I suggest that we are in a somewhat through-the-looking-glass world? Over the last few hours, we have heard very clear questions from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is no longer in his place. He explained that we are hearing a circular argument about legal intervention to which there is absolutely no response. All we hear from Government Members is ChatGPT-generated press releases—“I rise to speak”, “I rise to speak”, “I rise to speak”. ChatGPT knows you are there. That is an Americanism that we do not use. Still, they should keep using it, because it makes it clear that this place has become absurd.

This building and this Chamber are a complete waste of time when our electors and fellow citizens hear that we have listened to the arguments of Mauritius, China, India and the United States, but are not willing to listen to the arguments of Britain. We are not willing to stand up for the interests of the British people, or to look at the strategic interests of UK defence. Instead, all we hear consistently is that the Americans are for the deal. Of course they are for it; this is a territorial deal, and they have no interest in the territory. All they are interested in is the lease of the base. They are leasing the base off us at the moment, and they will be leasing the base off Mauritius via us into the future, so there is no change for them.

Of course, India is in favour of the deal. By the way, I respect the position of the Indian Government greatly, but do you know what? I am not an Indian MP. I have a different perspective, because my job—and, I thought, the job of Labour Members, but clearly I was wrong—is to stand up for the British people. Instead, all I hear is that Labour Members are standing up for the interests of different foreign powers. That is absolutely fine. They worship international treaties and stand up for so-called international law, but they conveniently forget—[Interruption.] Members should hear the end of the sentence. They forget that international law is conflictual, challenged and regularly, if not almost always, in direct confrontation with itself, because it highlights different interests. At different points, Governments champion different aspects of international law in order to seek different outcomes. That is how it has grown up. It is the job of sovereign Governments to stand up for our interests. I thought that was the job of our Government, but it clearly is not the job of this Government. Instead, this Government do something quite different; the moment that they are challenged, they run away. Brave Sir Keir bravely turned his tail and fled.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. This debate has to be fair on both sides. I will not have Members referring to the Prime Minister by name.

[Tom Tugendhat]

It could have been any Sir Keir —there are so many of them. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This Government have decided that instead of fighting for Britain’s interests, all they will do is turn around and capitulate.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will not. The problem is that this case is not just about these islands, or the issues we are debating today; it is about the way in which Governments approach these debates.

Just in case we are in any doubt about the changed nature of the use of law against us, it is worth looking at the timeline of these events—which is completely coincidental. We know, because colleagues have mentioned it, that in the 1960s a deal was done, a payment was made, Mauritius accepted it and we moved on. Just after the Falklands war, a legal action was begun, using Mauritius and extending a claim. Just after the Falklands war, the KGB started to fund the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. By the way, it is not me saying this—it is in the Mitrokhin archive; it is all public. Just after the Falklands war, when the Soviets realised that they did not have the military power to defeat NATO, they started experimenting with lawfare, and we have seen them do it again and again. If Members would like to read reports on this issue, Policy Exchange very kindly published a report by me in 2013, and another one in 2015—“Fog of Law” and “Clearing the Fog of Law”, for those who have trouble sleeping.

Since then, we have seen lawfare grow. We have seen states using the power of lawyers against the interests of the British people time and again, and the trouble with the capitulation we are seeing today is that it is not just about Diego Garcia, these islands or this interest; it is about the question of whether or not this Government will stand up for the British people, and for our security and our interests. Let me sketch out a hypothetical situation for you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is possible, although I hope it is not necessary, that British troops will be asked to do some peacekeeping in somewhere like Ukraine. It is possible that they will have to leave at a moment’s notice with the equipment they have, without the ability to re-equip—simply to go with the best that they have. It is possible that countries like Russia will object.

We know, because we have seen it happen in the late 1990s and all the way through the 2010s and 2020s, that the Russian Government and others have encouraged legal action against our armed forces. To be honest, Governments have been poor on this issue since 1999—Labour Governments initially, and then Conservative Governments—so it was very welcome that Lord Cameron stopped this, recognising that a different position could be taken. Sadly, this Bill reverses that position. It reverses the presumption that our Government, the British Government, will represent the legal interests of the British people and fight these cases. Instead, they will capitulate. The problem is that capitulation is what got us into this problem in the first place. We can look at the Bici case in Kosovo in the late 1990s, where we settled rather than fought, or at cases in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we settled rather than debated—rather than going to court and seeking a judgment. Those cases created precedents, and I am afraid that this Government are creating another precedent.

I know that the Minister will say that the Governments of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, and many other places have correctly said that this case has no connection to them. I am delighted that they have said so, and they are right, but they are sadly mistaken in thinking that that means nobody will test that point.

[Jacob Collier]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Had the hon. Gentleman been in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, he would have been welcome to contribute, but given that he has such a passing interest, I am sure he will not mind if I carry on.

The reality is that it is not up to the person who is pursued by law as to whether they will be challenged; it is up to the aggressor, and we know who the aggressor is. We know who has been using lawfare against us. We have seen it time and again, and I am afraid that the effect of this Bill is to concede that point. I am fascinated that so many Government Members feel that they had no choice but to conclude the negotiation. Admittedly it was begun mistakenly by a Conservative Administration and, yes, I did write to the then Prime Ministers—both of them—complaining about it and pointing out the error of their ways. I was a Minister, and I wrote about it and complained about it, as did Lord Murray of Blidworth—I think that is right. I am going to get his name wrong, forgive me—that is one for Hansard. We both wrote, because we both thought it was wrong at the time.

What can I say? We left office. The civil servants re-presented the same offer and sadly, here we go again. The British people feel so disenchanted at the moment because we see changes of Government and no changes of policy. We simply see a continuation and the Whips’ briefings coming out again. We simply see the pointlessness of democracy in this place, because we might as well not bother being here. The Foreign Office stitched this one up. The Minister cannot even change the judgment, and he has sacrificed everything on the whims of an international process with no regard to the interests of the British people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We have stretched that answer out well, haven’t we? Let us go on to Tom Tugendhat.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

5. If he will have discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential merits of removing taxation from death-in-service payments.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

10. If he will have discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential merits of removing taxation from death-in-service payments.

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) for his important question. He has my absolute assurance that if anyone dies in service, from training all the way through to combat and operations, they will absolutely be exempt from inheritance tax provisions. I will continue to discuss that issue, as well as many others to do with armed forces pay, with my opposite number in the Treasury. This Government are deeply proud of the armed forces, and I am deeply proud of them. They will have my full backing as we move forward.

[Tom Tugendhat]

First of all, I place on record my full congratulations to the hon. and gallant Member for his recent award in the new year’s honours. That is a fantastic achievement for somebody for whom I have the greatest admiration, and with whom I have served in numerous fields. May I raise the problem with his answer, however? Retention in the armed forces is already suffering; numbers are already coming down and people are struggling to make the maths add up between serving today and having a future tomorrow. The problem with these arguments and the lack of clarity from the Government is that too many people are making decisions on which we all need them to think again. We need people to serve and stay, and it is his responsibility to keep them there.

[Al Carns]

I thank the right hon. and gallant Member for his response. We need to take a holistic view of this. I remind him that we have missed every recruitment and retention target for the past 14 years. We are working really hard to get after that now: we have just put in place wraparound welfare, we have done the Annington Homes deal, we have put additional resources into veterans’ homes for after service, and we have given the biggest pay rise in 20 years. We are working really hard on that, in discussions with our Treasury counterparts, and we will move it forward.