Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(2 days, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I also take this opportunity to welcome this provision. I just have one question, and I apologise in advance to the Minister that it is detailed, but I am attempting—dare I say—to help the Government. Since this Act became an Act, the Armed Forces Bill has been published, and an element of the Armed Forces Bill is to seek to reinvigorate the reserve.
Schedule 1, paragraph 4 talks about disqualification in the original Act:
“A person is disqualified from being the commissioner if the person is a member of the regular or Reserve Forces”.
Most people reading that would assume that the Reserve Forces refers to the part-time volunteer reserve. I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. But, of course, on leaving regular service, former regular personnel also have a reserve liability, initially as part of the irregular reserve, where they can be called to training at any point for up to 15 days. This depends between service, but potentially for six years. If this also applied to the irregular reserve, as we refer to it in the Army, it would effectively disbar former members of the Armed Forces from applying for this job for six years.
There is then a more interesting question, given what the Armed Forces Bill is seeking to do with the recall reserve. It seeks to align the three services where a recall liability would then be for a further 18 years, part of what we call the strategic reserve—which is confusing. That would effectively disbar a former member of the regular forces who is not in a part-time volunteer reserve for up to 24 years. I have got no problem with the period of how long they would be disbarred but, given that we are seeking to reinvigorate these other two aspects of the Reserve Forces, it is causing some confusion. When we are talking about the reserve, do we mean just the active reserve, or that if you are a member of a strategic reserve—that is, recall reserve— it will not apply?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of these regulations, defining “relevant family members” under the Armed Forces Commissioner Act. That clarity is welcome, and these Benches will not oppose the regulations.
Having said that, there are still one or two unaddressed concerns which emerged during the debate on the passing of the Bill in this House. Recent cases have raised serious concerns about the way in which complaints are handled. There continue to be too many service personnel who lack confidence in the system and fear adverse career consequences if they come forward. That culture of hesitation is precisely what the creation of the commissioner was intended to address. As the Minister knows, these Benches supported the establishment of the commissioner; we recognised the need for a stronger, accessible and trusted route through which serious welfare concerns could be raised. That is why we also welcome the extension of the commissioner’s remit to relevant family members. Service life affects not only the individual in uniform, but the families who support them. On the face of it, the definition in these regulations is broad and sensible, and it is reassuring that it has been developed in consultation with the Armed Forces Families Federations.
However, the Minister will recall that during the passage of the legislation, I sought to strengthen the provisions specifically in relation to whistleblowing. My concern was and remains that, given the reputational damage suffered by the Ministry of Defence in recent years, particularly in relation to servicewomen, we should provide a simple, clearly understood and protective route for raising serious concerns. I was not persuaded that existing mechanisms were sufficient. There is already statutory precedent for whistleblowing protections within Armed Forces legislation and, although my amendments were not accepted, the Government committed to a review of whistleblowing in defence, an undertaking which I welcomed and accepted in good faith. I ask the Minister to give us an update on where that review has got to, because I would be personally interested to know if there is an interim or final report scheduled to be published.
Against that general backdrop, I will ask the Minister two questions specific to the regulations. First, what practical safeguards will prevent career or informal detriment, direct or indirect, to the victim, where a family member approaches the commissioner? If families are to be empowered to raise concerns, they have to be confident that doing so will not harm the serviceperson whom they seek to support.
Secondly, although these provisions will be monitored, there is no statutory review clause. Given the novelty and sensitivity of this expanded remit, will the Government commit to publishing a formal review within a defined period?
As I indicated, we on these Benches do not oppose these regulations. They form part of a broader, necessary reform if confidence in the complaints system is to be restored, and that restoration of confidence is vital. Our service personnel and their families deserve a system that is independent in spirit, deserving of their trust and does what it says on the tin. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, everybody knew that this contract between Palantir and the MoD was going to expire in 2025, with, we understand, interest from British companies in tendering for the new contract. We now know that, in February 2025, the Prime Minister attended a meeting in Washington DC with Palantir, at which the now disgraced former ambassador, Peter Mandelson, who held shares in a company engaged by Palantir, was also present. In December 2025, the MoD, without competition, awarded a lucrative three-year contract to Palantir. There is a very unpleasant smell hovering over this particular bucket of fish. Will the Minister tell the Chamber what was discussed at that February meeting in Washington and, if he does not know, go away and write to me? Why, given the interest of British companies, was this contract not put out for competitive tender?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for the courteous way in which she asked the question. I will reflect on what she has said and respond appropriately once I have discussed it with others.
On the fundamental issue of single-source contracts, I can do no better than to quote the Conservative spokesperson in the other place, who said:
“It is true that many contracts in the MOD are rightly let on a single-source basis”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/26; col. 691.]
In this particular instance, the MoD judged the capabilities and record of Palantir in the delivery of the systems that it has, and the artificial intelligence and data sharing that can take place, which started with the enterprise agreement that the last Government entered into in 2022, enabling Palantir to embed itself in all sorts of operations that were and are ongoing and will continue. The transparency notice that we published a few weeks ago, in December, laid out why the direct award was justified in this case, giving it to Palantir as a single-source contract and not making it available to more general competition. It was in our interests, the interests of the MoD and the interests of our country that we let that contract to Palantir to deliver the very special capabilities that it has.
Ministry of Defence: Budget Shortfall
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
First, it would be wrong not to acknowledge the service that the noble Lord undertakes on behalf of our nation; perhaps he can pass that on to the other reservists he will be training with at the weekend.
What the noble Lord asks will, again, be subject to the defence investment plan. Reserves are important to this Government. They will be an important part of how we ensure that we have war-fighting readiness in the future, and alongside that they will need the necessary training.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the premise of my noble friend Lord Young’s Question could not be simpler: if the money is not there, what will be cut? The Minister’s admirable verbal limbo dancing has not answered that Question, so let me try to help. Can I turn this on its head and invite the Minister to start spelling out what is being funded? For example, in reply to me yesterday, we seemed to make some encouraging headway on training and equipping the Special Boat Service to enable our elite soldiers to board sanctioned, illegally flagged vessels. Could that one get a tick?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am not going to comment on the operation of Special Forces, and the noble Baroness would not have done that in her previous role, however nicely she was asked. I outlined the money being spent to other noble Lords: we are developing munitions factories and money will be spent on that; there is a defence housing strategy and money will be spent on that; the Typhoon and T26 deals are enabling imports and money to be spent there; we are spending money on the DragonFire laser system; there is a new programme to build drone factories; and we are spending billions of pounds on the nuclear deterrent. All sorts of moneys are being spent.
While we are talking about this, let us also reflect on what our Armed Forces have done in the last few months, notwithstanding that this debate is about budget. We have seen RAF Typhoons take action in Syria, the carrier strike group, a commitment to the coalition of the willing, forces in Estonia and elsewhere, and support for the American action to deal with the shadow fleet. I know that the noble Baroness supports all of those. I understand the point of the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Young, but we should also reflect on what we do and the challenges this country faces.
Royal Navy: Nuclear Submarines
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
There are debates about the defence budget, and it is a matter for the Opposition to explain some of the promises that they are making, as my noble friend pointed out—we will no doubt hear much on this in a later Question. I am pleased to celebrate that this Government are investing record amounts of money in the Ministry of Defence and our defence industry and capabilities.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister update the House on the nuclear submarines out of service? Can he say what conclusions the submarine dismantling programme has come to, based on HMS “Swiftsure” at Rosyth? What are the current projected costs of the overall decommissioning and dismantling programme?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I can give some of the information that the noble Baroness has asked me for. The Defence Nuclear Enterprise submarine dismantling project has achieved a major milestone as it completes the fin cut and removal on HMS “Swiftsure”. She will become the first decommissioned Royal Navy submarine to be dismantled by the end of 2026, establishing a unique and world-first methodology for submarine disposal. Over 500 tonnes of conventional waste have already been removed and recycled from HMS “Swiftsure”, and the innovative programme of work will enable around 90% of the submarine structure and components to be reused or recycled. That demonstrates to the noble Baroness that considerable progress is being made, and HMS “Swiftsure” is an exemplar for what will come next.
New Medium Helicopter Contract
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, since this Government came to power, despite rhetoric, reviews and pledges, MoD orders have effectively dried up. Out there is a desert in the defence industry. That uncertainty is unnerving for the industry, with a stark warning from Leonardo that the helicopter factory at Yeovil is at risk of closing unless it receives orders. An invisible defence investment plan will certainly not keep it open. Can the Minister confirm whether the new medium helicopter programme started under the previous Government is still going ahead or has it been scrapped? If it has been scrapped, how will the Government secure the factory at Yeovil?
Boarding of Sanctioned Vessels
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with their counterparts in the United States about possible future support by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force for US boarding of sanctioned vessels.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, any future requests from the US for Royal Navy and Royal Air Force support for operations will be considered on a case-by-case basis. This includes appropriate consideration of the legal basis for any proposed activity. The MoD will continue to step up action against shadow fleet activity to protect our national security, our economy and global stability, but we cannot comment on hypothetical future operations.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, these Benches applauded the successful boarding by the United States of the illegally flagged MV “Marinera” and the detention of that vessel, because that direct interception hits the Putin war machine and the brutalistic regime of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. I understand that there are currently 107 sanctioned vessels flying false flags and, in my opinion, the sooner they are boarded, the better. Can the Minister confirm that the UK has the capability to continue to support the United States in such operations and to commence such operations on our own account, and that the Special Boat Service will be given the necessary resource to train and equip our elite soldiers to do that?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The unity of purpose between His Majesty’s Opposition, the Government and all Members of this House sends a hugely important and significant signal to Russia and our adversaries, so I very much welcome the first part of the noble Baroness’s question. I anticipated her question. I do not normally do this, but I want to read something because if I am not careful, I will stray into areas that would not be appropriate. I apologise to the House, but I think it is important to read something, so please forgive me if I take a little bit longer than I would normally, because the noble Baroness has made an important point.
“As we have made clear in our recent statements regarding the US military operation to interdict the MV ‘Bella 1’, the UK will not stand by as malign activity increases on the high seas. Alongside our allies, we are stepping up our response against shadow vessels, and we will continue to do so. We are fully committed to tackling the threat posed by the shadow fleet and are working with partners to maximise efforts. We will use the range of tools at our disposal to crack down on sanctions evasion and illegal maritime activity”.
I hope that goes some way to answering the noble Baroness’s question.
Ukraine and Wider Operational Update
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I begin by echoing the comments of my right honourable friends in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Defence Secretary, in supporting the Government in taking measures to tackle the ongoing scourge of sanctions-busting shipping activity.
The enforcement of sanctions on Russia and Iran is crucial to defending our interests both at home and abroad and critical to upholding our ongoing support for Ukraine, and any action we can take to weaken Putin’s war machine is welcome. I thank all those service personnel who took part in the operation to assist the United States in the capture of the MV “Bella 1”. As ever, their commitment to our country and our security is exemplary.
On the substance of the declaration of intent signed by the Prime Minister and the President of France, there is a list of unanswered questions. I understand that the Minister will not be able to go into operational specifics—I would not want him to do that—but I hope he can shed some further light on this plan.
The Secretary of State’s Statement in the other place mentioned that the meeting in Paris last week was
“the largest meeting yet of the coalition of the willing”,—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 384.]
with 39 nations present. But as far as I can tell, it was only Britain and France that agreed to send troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace agreement. Can the Minister confirm that all members of the so-called coalition of the willing will be contributing to the multinational force for Ukraine in that eventuality? Does he know which other countries have expressed a willingness to also make such deployments?
There is a matter of critical, fundamental principle we must acknowledge here: any peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine will be fragile. Russia has not exactly garnered a reputation for reliability, and there is always a risk in the event of a peace deal being negotiated that Russia could violate any such agreement.
I do not need to spell out to the House what the consequences of that would be if we had British troops in that country who could then find themselves forced into direct combat with Russian troops. It is an outcome that none of us would wish to see happen, but the Government and the British people must be prepared for that scenario.
I therefore ask the Minister: does this not heighten the importance of the national conversation on defence, as outlined in the SDR and committed to by the Government? Surely we must now prepare the British public for a future which in reality will be less secure and less peaceful. The prospect I have just outlined is very important for the British public to understand, so I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm how the progress on the national conversation is proceeding.
The other point is support for our troops. Are the Government absolutely satisfied that they will be going in as best equipped as we can possibly make them? This rather underlines how important it is that the Government not only ramp up defence spending but that we begin to see this much-delayed defence investment plan.
I confess to disappointment that despite repeated undertakings which the Government have given, that investment plan has not yet materialised. We were told just before Christmas that we would see it before the end of the year, but there has been no sign of it. I understand that we might not now see it until spring this year. Given the scenario that the Prime Minister is outlining, this is beyond the theoretical and the hypothetical. This is actually getting into the very real and raw territory of what we need to fund the MoD to make sure these troops will have everything they require. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what he understands the position to be in relation to that investment plan.
We also have the helicopter factory in Yeovil teetering and the frigate-building programme stalling, and our munitions supplies have not been replaced at anything like the speed necessary. All of that I adduce in support of my proposition that we must now have clarity. There is a need for this defence investment plan, in whatever form it is in, to see the light of day. The most important thing is that we ask a lot of our Armed Forces; we all hugely respect what they do. If troops are to be deployed in Ukraine as part of a multinational mission post some peace agreement, they need to be safe in the knowledge that our Government—and all of us—care about them, and the Government have their back.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, during the previous Government, there was a bit of a triumvirate when the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was the Minister. Many times, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I would stand up and ask questions, and I would associate myself immediately with his comments. Today, I find myself in a similar position, standing up to associate myself and these Benches with the comments and questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, which are extremely important. My questions should therefore be seen very much as additional to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie.
I first thank His Majesty’s Armed Forces, particularly at the start of a new year, and say how important it is that we support them. Obviously, our personnel were not actively involved last week, but we support them and we want to ensure that the situation for our Armed Forces will be such that we are ready to deal with all the international situations that may come up in 2026. Although this Statement was officially labelled, “Ukraine and Wider Operational Update”, already in 2026 we have had Iran, Ukraine and Russia, and the other issue, of course, is the situation with Venezuela.
I do not propose to ask the Minister questions specifically about Venezuela, but I stress that the importance of supporting the United States last week in tackling the tanker and dealing with the shadow fleet is precisely that we understand that that was in accordance with international law. It is important to stress that we support His Majesty’s Government as long as the action taken is in accordance with international law. Will His Majesty’s Government ensure that, where actions are taken, even by our closest ally, the United States, we will hold them to account if we believe that they are not acting according to international law?
We clearly have a difficult situation where, on some issues, we agree entirely with the United States and on other issues we find ourselves perhaps at one remove. Could the Minister help the House understand where the United Kingdom is in discussing with the United States the situation of another sovereign entity—namely, Greenland? We have had reassuring answers from the FCDO, suggesting that the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and for the Kingdom of Denmark. But Greenland is a significant geographical part of NATO. There are questions around what support we as the United Kingdom, particularly the MoD, are giving to Greenland and to the Kingdom of Denmark.
Building on questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, if the United Kingdom were to commit troops to Ukraine, what would the conditions be? I understand that there would be a vote in the other place, but would it be just the United Kingdom and France? Are His Majesty’s Government sure that, if we did that, we would not actually be creating vulnerabilities for our own troops, because the prospect of peace in Ukraine still seems a long way off?
Finally, is the Minister convinced that the commitments to defence expenditure are adequate? He said in the Chamber last week and the Secretary of State said in the Commons as part of this Statement—or in response on this Statement—that we have our 3% commitment, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked, if we are not spending that money, and if we are not letting the contracts and there are vulnerabilities for our frigates and helicopter services, where does that leave us in terms of national security? Supporting the United States in supporting Ukraine is important, but so is our national security.
Defence Spending
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We certainly will. I will not have our country categorised as a middle-ranking power or a diminishing power. I just do not believe that, and I do not think that the noble Baroness does either. She is quite right to challenge us on investment; we need the investment that I have outlined in the answers that I have given. I know she supports that investment, and I look forward to working with her, and collectively across this House, to ensure that we have the capacity and the capabilities we need to play the full and proper role in NATO that she and I support.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the Government have stated, encouragingly and repeatedly, that defence is a number one priority, but there is a current budget black hole in the MoD of £2.6 billion, defence industry partners are being starved of essential orders, the Autumn Budget was deafeningly silent on how we reach the spend of 3% in the next Parliament, and the defence investment plan is taking longer than an elephant’s pregnancy. That is a bizarre reflection of priority. Can the Minister, with his legendary bonhomie, shine any light on this gloom?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness will first have to tell me how long an elephant’s pregnancy is— I have absolutely no idea whether that is good news or bad news, and I do not know whether anybody else does.
The noble Baroness makes a serious point, challenging the Government on the defence investment plan. I say to this House and to the noble Baroness, who I know takes a keen interest and is very supportive of defence overall, that the defence investment plan will be published when we are in a position to have made the necessary choices to deliver the war-fighting readiness that we want and the capability to fight if we need to, now, in the middle term and in the long term. There are in-year choices that we are dealing with, and the chiefs are fully involved in the discussion and debate on how we take that forward.
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention
Baroness Goldie Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, in seeking to address legacy issues arising from the Northern Ireland Troubles, I suspect that what we are all agreed on is that there is no absolutely right way in which to proceed. A judgment about what is the least harmful approach has to be made. May I ask the Minister two questions? Why have the Government created equivalence between our Armed Forces serving their country and terrorists who committed murder and torture? How can such an abandonment of our Armed Forces be the least harmful way to proceed?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I say right from the outset that the Government do not see any moral equivalence between our Armed Forces and terrorists. Let me be absolutely, fundamentally clear on that in answer to the noble Baroness’s question. It is important to put that on the record and for everybody across the Chamber and beyond to hear that.
We are seeking to replace the 2023 Act, which had no support and was actually unworkable. Any Government would have had to deal with that particular situation. We have come forward with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, for which we are seeking to build as big a consensus and as big a support as we can. As part of ensuring that we respect the work of all our Armed Forces, including the tip of the spear, we are for the first time putting in legislation protections for those veterans. We continue discussions with them and the bodies which represent them about the best way to take that forward.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Baroness Goldie ExcerptsMonday 5th January 2026
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 View all Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 139-R-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (2 Jan 2026)
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Callanan on the amendments in this group. I raised specific concerns about defence and security in Committee, and I have considerable sympathy with the remarks of my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Leicester on their amendments. I accept that the Minister has acted in good faith in repeating the advice that he has been given.
After the Committee debate on these defence and security issues, I read Hansard and the Pelindaba treaty with care. It seems that, as my noble friend Lord Lilley indicated, once UK sovereignty over the base is relinquished in consequence of this treaty, that sovereignty transmits to Mauritius and the base is then subject to whatever international agreements Mauritius has entered into. There are restrictive consequences for the base from the Pelindaba treaty, but my concern is slightly broader than that of my noble friend Lord Lilley. If, in the eyes of the other signatories to the Pelindaba treaty, Mauritius is deemed to be in breach, all the other signatories have a locus to raise an objection and deploy international law. That cannot be addressed unless this treaty is renegotiated to retain sovereignty of the base in the hands of the UK, and I wish to place on the record that that is my opinion and understanding of the position.
The Minister rightly does not wish to be drawn into discussing sensitive operational issues relative to the base, and I agree with that. However, before stage 3, I ask him to ask his officials to draft him a letter to be placed in the Library, explaining how the renunciation of sovereignty of the base by the UK and the acquisition of that sovereignty by Mauritius, then governed by the Pelindaba treaty, is compatible with free and unrestricted usage of the base by the US, the UK and our allies.
The Minister has been placed in an impossible position by his Prime Minister: this treaty was negotiated on a basis far removed from the harsh reality of the world we live in. Defence and security seem to have become incidental sacrifices to the worship at the high altar of heady diplomacy and international jurisprudence. It should never have proceeded as it did and, for that, I do not blame either of the Ministers sitting opposite, but I want the Minister to explain how the Government will fix it.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I wish to make some comments on Amendment 22 in my name, and I will seek not to transgress my time in relation to this one.
In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, pointed out the difficulty arising from the fact that while the Mauritius treaty makes provision for the leasing of Diego Garcia by the United Kingdom, this does not change the fact that in the event that the Mauritius treaty is ratified, Diego Garcia would come under the sovereignty of Mauritius.
This is problematic for two reasons at least. First, the Republic of Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, which means that no nuclear weapons can be held in the territory over which it is sovereign. Secondly, Article 7 of the Mauritius treaty expressly states:
“Each Party confirms that none of its existing international obligations or arrangements now in force or effect between it and any third party is in conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, and that nothing in this Agreement shall affect the status of existing international obligations or arrangements except as expressly provided for in this Agreement”.
Can the Minister confirm—I know the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has already made reference to this—that the Government have discussed this matter in its entirety with the Government of the United States and that they have confirmation from the US that they have secured their solemn pledge that no nuclear submarines or other nuclear weapons will be able to be taken to Diego Garcia if sovereignty is transferred?
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that point. But I very gently say that while of course he must not discuss operational matters, this cannot be pushed as an excuse for dodging questions about compliance with international law. Any attempt to deploy that stratagem, to the point of avoiding the demonstration of compliance with international law when non-compliance is feared, would form a deeply troubling precedent.