Strategic Defence Review 2025

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I commend the authors on a major and wide-embracing review. It looks well into the future, but draws the obvious conclusion that, without guaranteed funding and being strong enough with allies to deter aggression, our security is suspect. We are not safe—or, at least, we are not yet safe.

This must be the 12th major review I have been personally involved in, or followed from the sidelines. In 1952, a Chiefs of Staff defence review concentrated on the Soviet Russian threat, and how best to deter it in the depths of the Cold War. Here we are again, facing an angry Russia. It were spreading communism 75 years ago; today it chooses to fear and threaten NATO. In 1957, Defence Secretary Duncan Sandys was relying on the nuclear deterrent and had decided that the days of the manned fighter were rapidly ending. Getting it right is no easy task.

In the time available, I shall concentrate on two major issues covered in this review. The first is people. Recruitment has already been mentioned; it is showing improvement, but is well below needs. It must be sustained and enhanced over the whole of a decade and more. Recruitment success of course depends not only on getting the recruit signed up but on the training effort that can be made available over a decade-plus, and the trainers found to turn the recruits into front-line performers. Recruiting targets will take even longer to reach if there are many premature retirements. This aspect is well recognised by this review. All improvements that sustain retention must be fully funded. People are the sine qua non of the forces. It should be remembered that the senior military leaders of the 2050s and 2060s are today’s recent recruits, or are about to join. The calibre of that 2050s and 2060s leadership will depend on the ability to retain and reward the most able of these new arrivals at every stage of their career.

Various proposals, both in this review and in the 2023 Haythornethwaite one, will be considered, but the respect for and status of rank, as well as special rates of pay, must not be forgotten. The present pay review body for the Armed Forces needs new guidelines that will encourage and sustain full careers for the brightest, and that attract and retain the types and range of skills now so urgently required.

The second major issue, also fully recognised in this review, is the “broken” nature of defence procurement. Regrettably, it is a recurring issue in just about every single one of the reviews of the past 75 years. Each new Government have a review and usually point to the procurement failures of their predecessor. New procedures are devised and trumpeted, only to prove ultimately as inadequate as before.

While new procedures may well be necessary, lessons to be learnt from past failure do not seem to be so fully analysed. For me, it is the Treasury’s mandate to spend wisely and be averse to risk. This seems to be one reason why just about every expenditure is not solely the responsibility of the budget-holder; it must be signed off, and at its own measured pace, by the Treasury.

The experience of procuring and financing urgent operational requirements, shortening or bypassing the Treasury’s more measured tread, may have lessons for the future; but setting shortened all-MoD procurement procedure target dates—maybe proving unrealistic for cross-government approvals—is not likely on past experience to be the right answer.

The failure of past reviews to deliver on their authors’ proposals was largely due to an inability to finance and deliver to time on the outcomes proposed and originally accepted. I wish this review a better legacy.

Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the purpose of this order is to continue into force, for another year, the legislation that governs the Armed Forces—the Armed Forces Act 2006. By way of background, Parliament renews the Armed Forces Act every five years through primary legislation. This first happened in 2011, then in 2016 and most recently in 2021. It will next be renewed in 2026. However, in the intervening years, an annual Order in Council, such as the one before us today, must be approved by both Houses. This will keep the Act in force for a further year, but for no later than 14 December 2026, when the present Act is due to expire. A new Armed Forces Act will therefore be required to be in place by December 2026 to renew the 2006 Act for a further five years, and then we will resume the practice of yearly renewals.

Having detailed the legislative framework for the draft order, I wish to turn to some of what lies at the heart of our Armed Forces. After announcing the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, we recently unveiled our comprehensive strategic defence review, which declares clearly this Government’s intent to meet the threats we are facing and return the UK’s Armed Forces to a state of war- fighting readiness. This is why we are putting people at the heart of our defence plans. As set out in the strategic defence review, there will need to be a whole-of-society approach—wider participation in national resilience and renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve. In support of that approach, it is therefore essential that we improve the recruitment and retention of our personnel. This is why the Government have made the largest pay increase for serving personnel in more than two decades.

We will expand opportunities for young people to experience more of what the Armed Forces have to offer, delivering a 30% increase in cadets and introducing a voluntary gap year scheme. Further to this, we have brought back 36,000 military homes from the private sector as part of plans to transform Armed Forces accommodation, while we will also deliver a generational renewal of military accommodation with at least £7 billion of funding this Parliament, including over £1.5 billion of new investment for rapid work to fix the poor state of forces family housing. We are intensifying efforts to root out bullying and harassment, which have, as we all know, no place in our Armed Forces.

Against the backdrop of improving support for veterans, as exemplified by the new VALOUR programme, which will see VALOUR regional field officers working closely with local services and local government bodies on the application of the principles of the Armed Forces covenant for the betterment of our veterans. We will be updating kit and equipment across all three services to ensure that our nation and those who serve and will be serving in the future are ready to fight the war of tomorrow. That will mean harnessing artificial intelligence, drones, cyber technologies and other innovations alongside more traditional approaches to land, sea and air warfare to make us stronger and safer, because tomorrow’s conflicts will belong to the smartest and most innovative, as the war in Ukraine has shown and is showing.

The defence review sets out a path for the next decade to transform defence and help make it an engine for growth, boosting prosperity and jobs across the whole of the UK while continuing to lead within NATO, ensuring our security is protected through collective power and capabilities. To achieve this, we need to ensure that we maintain a strong and effective discipline framework for our Armed Forces, which the Armed Forces Act 2006 provides and which this order maintains for a further year. The 2006 Act contains nearly all the required provisions for command, discipline, justice, enlistment, pay and redress of complaints. It provides the legal basis and associated powers for offices such as the Judge Advocate-General and the Director of Service Prosecutions, as well as the various service courts. Further, it establishes the Service Police Complaints Commissioner and the tri-service Defence Serious Crime Unit, and contains the legislation for the Armed Forces covenant. In short, the 2006 Act is a vital piece of legislation that our Armed Forces cannot function without.

Those in service protect the nation, our allies and partners and global stability wherever in the world they serve. It is only right, as I know all Members of the Committee will agree, that in this debate we honour their bravery, courage and unflinching duty through the small token of providing consent today. To that end, all of us here pay tribute to their public service. I beg to move.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I support this continuation order. As has been explained, it keeps His Majesty’s Armed Forces legal until after the Armed Forces Bill in 2026 is enacted. The Minister has given a good trailer for the debate that we will have on Friday on the strategic defence review, so I will not respond on that.

I would like to make just one point. When the 2021 Act was being debated, I, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and other noble Lords pressed for the obligation to have “due regard” to the Armed Forces covenant to be extended from local authorities to include central government departments. We quoted, as examples in need of central government consideration, Gulf War syndrome and the right of abode in the UK for Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans who had served full time in the Armed Forces. A compromise was reached, and the issue was set aside for further examination.

The present Government have made it clear from the outset that they would extend the responsibility for supporting the covenant to central government. This is most welcome—it will, I assume, be legally formalised when the 2026 Bill is being considered—but the importance and reach of the Armed Forces covenant has had a very long incubation. I was one of the first to raise an amendment to the covenant legislation, which I tabled to the 2011 Bill nearly 15 years ago.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I support this continuation order. I start by declaring my interests as a director of the Army Reserve and the chairman of the Reserve Forces review in 2030. I will ask a couple of questions but, in looking forward to next year’s Armed Forces Act, I also want to make a couple of suggestions.

Historically, we have always focused on our obligations under Article 5 of the NATO treaty. This is why we have a relatively small regular Army but one that is at high readiness and is expeditionary in nature: we always plan to fight a relatively short war in continental Europe. Equally, it is why we have a relatively small reserve. However, our planning assumptions have been called into question as a result of the war in Ukraine, which has been an extended campaign, meaning that we have to look carefully at both regeneration and reconstitution. It is also, in effect, a war between two reserve armies.

I absolutely welcome the SDR because it has, for the first time, forced us to look seriously at Article 3 and homeland defence—something where, in the past, we have perhaps not paid attention to the detail in the way we should have done. It is clear that, with the focus now on both Article 5 and Article 3, the demand on the workforce is going to increase significantly. That is recognised in the SDR. I was pleased to see that one of the recommendations was that the size of the reserves should increase by 20%—albeit with the caveat of “when we can afford it”—but, looking forward, I have some concerns.

First, we have the most wonderful department in the Ministry of Defence, as well as wonderful civil servants, but it is not a department that is set up for legislation. I wish to share my own experiences, having been the Minister responsible for two of the previous Armed Forces Acts. When the time came, we sometimes struggled to make some of the provisions we wanted to make, because we simply ran out of time. So my first plea to the Minister is this: can we get ahead of this and make sure that the work is done? The last principal muscle move was in 2006, when the single services used to have three different sets of service law. We combined those into a single Armed Forces Act in 2006 and I am sensing, from where we are today, that the next Armed Forces Act will also have to be a significant piece of work. As your Lordships are probably aware, the regular Army and the Army Reserve are dealt with through two separate pieces of legislation, and delivering a whole-force solution adds complication. I fear that what we will have to do in the next Armed Forces Act is combine those two pieces of legislation into a single Act, which will be a lot of work.

If the department does not necessarily like legislation, one thing it absolutely loves is policy. Every time we face a challenge, we seem to wrap around yet another piece of policy. We now have something of a Gordian knot of policy and I rather hope that, come the next Act, the Minister will adopt the role of Alexander and slice through much of it, because it prevents us having the flexibility to access society through the reserve and the regular force to deliver all the skill sets that we need. We have great aspirations to deliver zig-zag careers, enticing people to come into the Armed Forces, leave, go into civilian life and potentially come back. We have great aspirations from a regular reserve perspective for people to dial up or dial down their military service, but our policy makes that quite complicated, particularly our terms and conditions of service.

Defence Industrial Base

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, what steps have the Government taken recently to reconcile the possible risk of failures in developing novel defence capabilities against the need to ensure that government funds are paid out with due care and avoidance of unnecessary risk?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord asks a good question. We have reinvigorated and put more money into the defence innovation fund. With respect to defence, you cannot move forward without innovation, challenge, new technology and new ideas. One of the lessons from Ukraine is that sometimes, for not an awful lot of money, innovators—those who think for themselves—provide the defence equipment and security that we need. Of course, we must be sensible and not throw money away and waste it, but innovation is an important part of any defence industrial strategy, which is why it was mentioned in the defence review and why the Government are putting more money into it.

UK Nuclear Deterrent

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

We will hear from the noble and gallant Lord.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I was in command of the crew of a nuclear-armed Falcon on quick-reaction alert over a number of years, and I realise the cost of maintaining the V-Force on alert over many years as well. Will the Minister return to the first question as to whether the cost of maintaining new nuclear capability, which has been talked about, can be met with less than the 3% guaranteed for the defence budget?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

To be absolutely clear for the noble and gallant Lord, whatever the debate about the levels of funding for the defence budget, the nuclear deterrent will be funded both as it stands and for its renewal. That is a cast-iron guarantee from the Government.

80th Anniversary of Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Friday 9th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I too join in all the fulsome expressions of praise for and amazement at the bravery and efforts made by so many, both in and out of uniform, to contribute to victory—victory in Europe and, following the use of nuclear bombs, victory in the Far East.

If I may be permitted a brief personal reflection, I was two weeks short of my 10th birthday when the war started in 1939. I was living in Dublin. The Irish Free State, as it then was, was determined to remain neutral, and did so throughout the conflict—but that did not stop many thousands of my fellow countrymen crossing to the UK to volunteer and join one of the three services. My father had lost all of his right leg in the First World War, otherwise he too might have wished to join up again. But for myself and my sister, life continued much as usual. There was no food rationing. We had recently acquired a family car, but it was on blocks, as petrol was unobtainable. A very few cars had been converted to run, rather reluctantly, on gas, and they required an enormous storage balloon on their roof for fuel. For us and the rest, we depended mostly on trams and bicycles or, in the countryside, ponies and traps to get about.

For many of our age, life continued with but few changes from before the war started. We can contrast that with the destruction to life and, at times, the sheer terror of those exposed to the blitz, and those who lost loved ones. Many children living in the Home Counties were evacuated and separated from their parents and friends—an experience shared by a friend of mine of over 50 years’ standing. Meanwhile, in Ireland, we and our contemporaries seemed by and large distant from defeats and victories as they unfolded. News coverage was by newspaper or radio only, as TV had yet to reach into Ireland. I have no recollection of being encouraged to listen to news bulletins.

I doubt that today’s youth would be able to remain as detached as we and other young people in southern Ireland were in the early 1940s. Media in all its guises today tends to keep one’s undivided attention on what is happening, especially if were of the scale of another world war or major conflict. But it is also true that the direction of the media coverage has so much bearing on what is highlighted or what may be, as it were, left to one side. Media management of coverage has such an important part to play in so much of life today. The real challenge is that the truth it purports to relay is truly the same truth, whether it comes from the front line, a command headquarters or one or more of the nations’ capitals involved in the conflict. Any difference becomes the story of itself, and is ever more difficult to manage as the speed and global nature of information expand. Maybe this is a new challenge for AI. It is all too often a cause of serious, if passing, embarrassment, and more, for those involved.

To finish, today we meet to remember with true admiration those who answered the call of duty—those who were prepared to sacrifice all for the freedom and democracy of future generations. As we, the beneficiaries, honour, salute and thank them, so must we all, as much now after 80 years as we did after a single year, remember them.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving government Amendment 2, I will speak to government Amendments 7, 9 and 11 and to Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. They all focus on the importance of the definition of “relevant family members” in the context of the Bill. Before explaining the Government’s amendments, I will address Amendment 12 and explain why the Government have decided not to include it in the Bill but rather to create an affirmative delegated power, so that the definition may be brought forward in secondary legislation.

The definition of “family members” and their access to the commissioner has been at the forefront of the Government’s mind throughout. It has always been our intention to future-proof our inclusion of family members. Including the definition in secondary legislation allows it to be updated quickly, to account for changes in society, without needing to create new primary legislation. Our intent is to encompass all family units and not pre-judge this by having a full definition in the Bill—though I have to say that the definition that the noble Baroness seeks to put in the Bill is very good, as it is our definition. However, as I have made clear, the definition can be changed at some future point.

As noble Lords will be aware, the draft regulations covering the definition of “family members” for the purposes of this Bill have been distributed to all interested Peers for consideration. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has thoroughly scrutinised this power in its report. These government amendments fully implement the committee’s only recommendation, by changing the regulation-making power in the Bill to define relevant family members from the negative to the affirmative procedure. The proposed amendments would ensure that there is a debate on the Government’s definition of a “relevant family member” in both Houses when the secondary legislation is brought forward, which, based on the discussions so far, I am sure would be welcomed by noble Lords.

I hope that this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on the importance placed on the definition of “family members” in the Bill and the opportunity that the Government are trying to give to debate this further in due course. On this basis, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment that seeks to place the definition in the Bill.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I firmly support the Government in these amendments. There has been a tendency in the Bill to combine in one’s mind the specific complaints that the ombudsman used to deal with and the more general approach which the Bill is encouraging the commissioner to have. I think one wants to keep those two issues clear in one’s mind.

The other point, which I made in Committee, is that the Bill will get added to the Armed Forces Act 2006. Those not familiar with the Act should know that it has close to 400 sections, 17 schedules and goodness knows how many pages—more than 500. Every page of this Bill, when it is enacted, will get added to that. It makes absolute sense that, when we are trying to identify a range of individuals who may have access to the commissioner, it should be in secondary legislation and not on the face of the Armed Forces Act.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the Bill and my noble friend the Minister’s amendments. We had an interesting discussion about the phrase “relevant family members” in Committee. I declared an interest at that stage. I retain an interest, certainly until 20 September.

In view of the comment made by the Minister on the content of Amendment 12, I would like to know whether, in proposed new subsection (3)(a), the reference to

“a person whose relationship with A is akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners”

covers someone engaged to a member of the Armed Forces, rather than a spouse or a civil partner at that time. I hope the Minister might tell me that, when it comes to the secondary legislation, that will be set out more explicitly than it is in Amendment 12.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment covers an issue concerning access to service premises, about which both myself and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who is not in his place, expressed concern and on which I tabled an amendment in Committee.

I thank the Minister for his positive engagement both in Committee and at a subsequent meeting with his officials. That led to a helpful letter from the Minister, dated 23 April 2025, which clarified the position in relation to access by the commissioner and the overall authority of the commanding officer or head of establishment of service premises to refuse access on grounds of national security.

I tabled this amendment to keep the issue live pending clarification by the Government of the position. I have no desire to prolong our proceedings with unnecessary debate and I shall simply use this opportunity to put on the record the relevant part of the letter to which I referred:

“The Secretary of State’s power to restrict access is available in a particular case or more generally. We therefore anticipate that in practice the Secretary of State could provide the commissioner and heads of establishment with information in advance regarding specific sites (or parts of sites), activities, or broader criteria to which they will be preventing or restricting access. In addition to the military, the Secretary of State will consult with the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary to ensure all matters which infringe upon national security interests are assessed.


This mechanism will be broad enough to cover instances where, for example, a specific classified event is happening at a site that did not have any restricted areas. In these instances, should the commissioner wish to visit without notice, the head of establishment will still be able to prevent the commissioner from entering either all or part of the site. Although the Bill provides that this power resides with the Secretary of State, the application of broader criteria provided by the Secretary of State in relation to these matters will also function to allow heads of establishment to assess concerns relating to national security or personal safety and restrict access on those grounds.


In practice, heads of establishment and relevant security staff will therefore have the authority to conduct their own, fact-specific due diligence in line with these concerns, including delaying access while enquiries are made. Should disagreements arise, either party would be able to escalate this to the office of the Secretary of State”.


Unless the Minister, in his wind-up speech, seeks to amend the position, I am content. I shall listen with interest to the other contributions to the debate, but anticipate that at the end I shall seek your Lordships’ leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. It was very helpful for the noble Baroness to repeat what was said by the Government on this particular issue. My concern most generally is that the chain of command is respected, and if you were to introduce arrangements which reduced the authority of the chain of command, that would be unsatisfactory.

The only other issue on this is if the inquiry that the commissioner was making involved the commanding officer himself or herself. How would that be dealt with? It needs to be quite clear that there are arrangements, and what the noble Baroness read out covers that, but I should just like to be absolutely certain that, if the commanding officer himself or herself is part of the inquiry of the commissioner, then that can be dealt with.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for reading out the letter that I sent. I have placed a copy in the Library, and I will just check that this has happened, to make sure that is available to everyone. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for his remarks. The letter covers the points that he has raised as well.

It would be helpful for further clarification just to read a couple of remarks into the record, which will help the deliberations of all of us on Report. I thank the noble Baroness and other noble Lords for the conversations we have had about the no-notice power of the commissioner and the authority of the commanding officer of a site. We will make sure that commanding officers and others are aware of what they are able to do under the letter and under the Bill.

As highlighted in the letter I sent on 15 April, to fulfil their investigatory function, the commissioner will have wide-ranging powers including access to certain defence sites. The commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice of intent to visit those sites, unless—and for sites in the UK only—it is considered that giving notice would defeat the object of exercising the power. This matters, as it will help to ensure that malpractice cannot be covered up, for example—

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Colgrain (Con)]

My Lords, I am in favour of Amendment 21A in the name of my noble friend Lord Harlech, to which I have added my name.

At Second Reading, I asked a question of the Minister regarding when reserves would come under the remit of the Bill. My question was supported by my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton; sadly, he is not here today because he is with NATO in Moldova. The Minister was extremely generous with his time and subsequently gave me sight of a briefing note, which goes through in considerable detail the points that I wanted him to address; I am most grateful for that. However, the last paragraph of his briefing note brings me to the point of this particular question. It is entitled:

“How will the reserves find out about the commissioner?”


It goes on:

“During implementation, we are committed to ensuring the voices of reservists in scope of the commissioner are heard and their unique experiences and challenges are fully considered. We will actively engage with relevant reservists to ensure their welfare needs are effectively addressed, and that they are aware of the commissioner”.


Can the Minister reflect on that and see whether he cannot provide a form of words that would give us all comfort that, in fact, reservists will be made aware from day one of how they can access the commissioner? Can he also put that in the context of our debate earlier this afternoon, with particular reference to whistleblowing; and imagine what it would be like for someone who finds themselves, almost on day one, in a position where they need to access the commissioner? How would they do that? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. Much of what I would have liked to say has already been said, but the importance that is attached both to reserves and to the contribution they make to the regular forces will, as we go forward, grow more and more. It may well appear in the defence review as one of those key steps that are being taken. If it is, and even if it is not, I still believe that the recognition of the work of the Reserve Forces, right in the middle of the regular forces, needs to be recognised in this particular way. It would be invidious to leave the Reserve Forces outside, as it were, the responsibility of the commissioner.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support these amendments from these Benches. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, felt inspired to stand up and speak on the first day in Committee and that he has now brought forward these two amendments.

On reading the Bill, my assumption was that it included regulars and reservists, but the very fact that these questions are being asked means that it would be very helpful if the Minister could clarify the intention of His Majesty’s Government and, perhaps, think about some minor amendments to the wording of the Bill for clarity.

Some of the amendments we brought forward last week, for example about funding, might look rather different depending on whether we are looking at a commissioner whose remit is, in essence, to deal with regulars or one who deals with reservists, because the sheer numbers are different and some of the concerns might be different. If we are looking at funding the commissioner, and his or her sub-commissioners or deputy commissioners as outlined in the Bill, it would be very useful to be absolutely clear that we are covering reservists as well as regulars, which I assume is the Government’s intention but which is not entirely clear.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, mentioned cadets, which also came up in discussions last week. I assume they do not fall within the Bill’s remit because they are not subject to service law, but are there ways in which they, too, would be in scope?

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

It just came to my mind now, and my memory may be wrong, but I thought that was the case. If it was, it would be interesting to know why that provision has been taken out as the Bill has evolved, because it is probably quite a good thing. On the one hand, I can see the advantages of having a former member of the Armed Forces but, on the other, I would not want them to be in the Armed Forces on Friday and doing this role on Monday, which is why that time gap would be useful.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

I will say very briefly that I support Amendment 3, but I have some reservations about Amendment 4, mainly because of its length and its attempt to dot a lot of “i”s and cross a lot of “t”s. At the back of my mind all the time when we are discussing this Bill is that the Armed Forces Act is more than 500 pages long, and this will add to that. It becomes a nonsense to have an Act of Parliament of such complexity and such an attempt to deal with every conceivable possibility affecting the Armed Forces. It arises, of course, because the three single-service Acts were pulled together in 2006. It has produced a monstrosity, so where we can avoid adding detail to the Armed Forces Act by this Bill, we should jolly well try to do so.

[Lord Wrottesley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments of and comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and others. In doing so, I declare an interest in having previously served as a member of His Majesty’s Armed Forces.

Much has been made by His Majesty’s Government and other noble Lords of the attributes of the German model. A key feature of this model is its direct connection with and therefore accountability to Parliament. However, the Minister has previously stated that he feels that there is increased independence with the commissioner sitting outside Parliament—accountable to but independent of Parliament. There is a tension within these phrases that may be irreconcilable. We would all be keen to hear the Minister’s views on how to reconcile these tensions, which may even be contradictions.

I also support the comments made on term limits. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, about a limit of five years plus two for a total of seven years. In the corporate world, term limits often extend to two terms of four years, for a total of eight years, or three terms of three years, for a total of nine years. One of their key attributes is to allow for continuity and the retention of corporate memory, which still allows for a refresh and therefore introduces new experience into the mix within what is deemed an appropriate timeframe. I would like to hear from the Minister on why he feels seven years is an appropriate timeframe, as opposed to eight, nine or, as in this case, 10 years.

Armed Forces Personnel: School Fees

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I will always check the figures and, indeed, check hers, as she will know. She will also know that the allowance contributes towards the cost of boarding school education, with the MoD paying a fixed rate of up to 92% of fees for children attending state-maintained schools and up to 90% of fees for those attending independent schools. I would say to her that, in essence, this is exactly the same policy as the previous Government had.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, what impact has this policy had on recruitment and retention? Have the Government made any assessment yet of that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord will know that there have been considerable concerns around recruitment and retention. The Government have undertaken a review of that. He will also know that we have taken a number of measures alongside that to deal with it, not least of which was to ensure that we implemented in full the pay rise for Armed Forces personnel. We have extended childcare grants to armed services personnel serving overseas, and one of the biggest things we have done as a radical Government is to bring back from Annington Homes over 36,000 military houses, the state of which was a disgrace. This will be a major contribution to improving the morale and the recruitment and retention of Armed Forces personnel.

Air Defence Capabilities

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. Of course I will encourage Members to read the Government’s response to that report. I say to him, all Members of this House and others that the report was an important wake-up call to us about the importance of air defence in the future. Let us remember where we were. This country assumed that we needed to defend ourselves against the Soviet Union and bombers. We are now in a totally different situation where we face a 360-degree threat. The launch of missiles could come from a variety of launch systems, and we need to protect ourselves against not only missiles but drones, as we have seen with what may or may not have happened with respect to various bases. It is an important wake-up call not only for us but for Europe that air defence will become one of the critical systems that we will need to make available to ourselves and our country. Our population need to understand that homeland defence is also now of crucial importance to us all.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I too have warned before of the potential threat to the United Kingdom mainland from the air and of a second Battle of Britain. What new air defence capabilities will be added to the front line in the next 12 months?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is another important question from the noble and gallant Lord. We are upgrading the radar on the Typhoon fighters as part of the air defence, we are seeing the F35B capabilities and we are looking at what further investment is needed in air defence. Looking at ground defence in terms of air defence, I mentioned the T45 upgrade to Sea Viper, which deals with ballistic missiles, but there is also the Sky Sabre capability; we currently have seven and are in the business of purchasing more of those.