Autumn Budget 2025

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister made strong welcome statements to NATO allies about the UK’s commitment to defence at the summit in The Hague on 24 June. He pledged the United Kingdom to increase spending on defence and wider security to 5% of GDP by 2035, with a projected split of 3.5% for core defence and 1.5% for resilience and security. He also indicated that by 2027 the UK expects to reach 4.1% of GDP on defence and security combined. This was presented as an historic commitment, aligning national security with economic security, and signalling Britain’s determination to remain a credible and capable partner in NATO.

However, when we turn to the Treasury’s position, as expressed by Ministers in recent Statements and in the Budget, the difference in tone is striking. The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, has been all too clear. In March this year he said at the Dispatch Box,

“our fiscal rules are non-negotiable”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. 1824.]

He said that decisions on major spending, including defence, would be taken in the usual way, guided by forecasts and fiscal rules. Again, in July he stated:

“The Chancellor will ask the OBR to produce a new forecast in the autumn before the annual Budget and will take decisions based on that forecast”.—[Official Report, 10/7/25; col. 1461.]


The Chancellor’s Budget Statement is largely silent on defence and security. Yes, a conditional “set to spend” 2.6% of GDP by April 2027 is floated. Is this the same as the Prime Minister’s 4.1% of GDP on defence and security combined by 2027? It is hard to tell.

Much of this money has been found at the expense of overseas aid—soft power raided to pay for hard power. There is no mention by the Chancellor of the intention to reach 3%, let alone 3.5%, of GDP in the next decade. Defence does get a mention in spending to buy, make and sell more defence products and to support newbie Team Derby. This is putting the cart before the horse. Surely the Chancellor should speak in terms of the need for stronger defences in today’s world. This should have a firmer place in important government statements of national fiscal priorities. Indeed, did the Minister once touch on national defence just now? If he did, I am afraid I missed it.

The nation should be reminded of the urgent need to start paying more to enhance our conventional forces. Credibility rests on not just words but firm resources being allocated. Armed forces cannot be built up overnight. Long-term planning and certainties are necessary. If Treasury Ministers signal hesitation, or, worse, indifference, while our Prime Minister signals resolve, that sends a mixed message to allies, to those who challenge us and to our Armed Forces themselves. To treat defence as a residual claim on the public purse is to invert the priorities that safeguard our national interests. Will the Treasury now share the Prime Minister’s strategic vision? Will the Treasury accept that increasing defence expenditure for the next decade must be planned and signalled now, not judged later by the elegance of some inflexible fiscal rules or by changeable, maybe dodgy, forecasts?

Queen’s Speech

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, after the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, I return to matters of life and death. Does the Minister share my concern about how interpretation of human rights legislation—I stress the word “interpretation”—has impacted or may impact on the actions or behaviour of the Armed Forces? Does he agree that it threatens, even erodes, the ethos of trust and mutual support that forms the bedrock of discipline and all activity in the three services? The Armed Forces Acts have laid down a litany of what constitutes a service crime or misdemeanour. Behaviour of all in the services are bound by that legislation.

The statutory quinquennial revision and renewal of those Acts are used to ensure that they were relevant to and remained in step with inevitable changes in social and societal behaviour and other perceptions of the day, but they do not directly deal with human rights. The Armed Forces and human rights legislation are potentially incompatible. Only service men and women effectively contract with the state to make the ultimate sacrifice, backed by the Armed Forces Acts to enforce discipline and obedience.

How does that mesh with Article 2, the right to life, under human rights legislation? In 1998, in concert with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I spoke to amendments to exclude the Armed Forces from the Human Rights Bill, on the grounds that it would be preferable that aspects of human rights conventions be enacted within the Armed Forces Acts. At Third Reading, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sought to reassure the House. He said:

“I urge your Lordships to be of the view that the convention is a flexible instrument. It poses no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces”.—[Official Report, 5/2/98; col. 768.]

Since then, numerous cases against the MoD have been brought under that Human Rights Act. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor’s reassurances have been frittered away—most spectacularly by the Supreme Court findings last June.

The cardinal point for me in that ruling was that it was far from unanimous; three of the seven judges dissented. In their minority view, they stated that,

“the approach taken by the majority will make extensive litigation almost inevitable after, as well as quite possibly during and even before, any active service operations undertaken by the British army. It is likely to lead to the judicialisation of war”.

Is that not a wake-up call? A position of absolute legal clarity on the field of battle for forces stationed overseas, or even on home soil, does not exist.

That is the last thing that servicemen and their commanders want to hear. They expect to and should want to deal in absolutes: is it right or wrong; is it legal or is it not; am I covered or am I not? Nuanced findings and the plethora of cases dealt with or being dealt with by the MoD over the past decade or so can but create confusion, muddle and uncertainty.

I will quote verbatim the majority finding of the Supreme Court because it is very important. It stated:

“It will be easy to find that allegations are beyond the reach of article 2 if the decisions that were or ought to have been taken about training, procurement or the conduct of operations were at a high level of command and closely linked to the exercise of political judgment and issues of policy. So too if they relate to things done or not done when those who might be thought to be responsible for avoiding the risk of death or injury to others were actively engaged in direct contact with the enemy. But finding whether there is room for claims to be brought in the middle ground, so that the wide margin of appreciation which must be given to the authorities or to those actively engaged in armed conflict is fully recognised without depriving the article of content, is much more difficult. No hard and fast rules can be laid down. It will require the exercise of judgment. This can only be done in the light of the facts of each case”.

So no prior certainty there for the Armed Forces in the wide field that lies in that middle ground.

As is clear from the number of cases faced by the MoD in recent years—some settled out of court; others being challenged by the MoD in the courts—there is a plethora of claims in this middle ground. The Supreme Court finding can only embolden more to be made.

I believe that the time has come for that minority view of the Supreme Court that war cannot be controlled or conducted by judicial tribunals to be reflected in new legislation that will not countenance it for the Armed Forces.