Armed Forces Bill

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

I begin by apologising to my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard. I fear that what I am about to say may not be the most welcome contribution to this debate. I do not know half as much about this as the many noble and gallant Lords and other Members in the Chamber, but I do want to say this.

Last week, I went to an RAF base for an event—I declare an interest because my son-in-law is the station commander—and I was very struck by the extent to which it celebrated the local connection between the base and the community. There were representatives of local organisations and schools and others there, in addition to the lord-lieutenant, with whom I had a friendly word, and I got a sense of what lies behind the debate we are having today.

All I would say to my noble friend is that it is possible that we might lose something valuable by proceeding with this clause. But I am very grateful and interested to hear what he says in reply to this debate. I have an open mind, but I think that some valid points have been made.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I am chairman of the current Council of the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations, and I am extremely grateful to my noble friends for tabling these clause stand part notices. Since the Haldane reforms of the early-20th century, most recently renewed in the Reserve Forces Act 1996, to which my noble friend Lord Minto referred, many of the functions supporting the reserves and cadets have until now been provided by autonomous regional organisations known as the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations. Thirteen in number, with a wide membership across the UK, they are made up of former reservists, regulars and cadets—employers, politicians and representatives of universities and local government—all of whom wish actively to support the reserves and cadets from the communities in the regions.

These 13 regional RFCAs are being abolished by the Bill. Each of these RFCAs is run by an executive, overseen by a board, which is elected by the members and, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, said, wholly unremunerated. Each board holds the executive to account for delivering against service level agreements covering estate management, support to cadet units, and carrying out employer and community engagement on behalf of the reserves, cadets and, indeed, defence generally, including running the employer recognition scheme. The unremunerated board is to be done away with by the Bill. The county lords-lieutenant are appointed as the RFCAs’ presidents and vice-presidents. The Bill removes the involvement of the lords-lieutenant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

Yes, and the self-employed. That is because they do not have to ask for time off or negotiate with their bosses for training days. I would argue that not only does such uncertainty put people off being in and remaining in the reserves but it leads to the number of service days that active reservists can commit to. I was just trying to look it up, but I think I am right in saying that the number of service days that active reservists have served has decreased year on year. I think that measures such as this would improve that. Anything we can do to support employers to support our reservists would get my vote.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Harlech’s Amendments 40, 41 and 45, to which I have put my name.

In an era when the Secretary-General of NATO tells us that we could be at war within three to five years, while I hesitate to make life more difficult for employers, I think we have little option but to require those things which the amendments demand of them. This goes to the point made by my noble friends Lord Swire and Lady Fraser that we need to do better by employers too. As a quid pro quo, we should arrange matters so that reservist training adds more value in the civilian workplace, so that the time employers allow reservists for military training is used more efficiently.

Defence qualifications which produce skills that are significantly useful in the civilian workplace often have limited civilian recognition because no thought has been given to matching acquired skills to recognised civilian standards. Similarly, relevant civilian qualifications frequently do not transfer into the defence system, purely because no thought has been given to it, so time is wasted teaching people material they already know.

Too often, the Army assumes a baseline level of zero knowledge rather than assessing existing competence. Qualified civilian paramedics who become reservists with the intention of becoming combat medical technicians are required to complete entry-level medical technician training, which they have already done in their civilian workplaces, rather than focusing on the military application of the skills they already possess. A more intelligent approach that is pragmatic and less risk-averse is required.

Employers also need to know that reservists’ time is used well, yet the brutal truth is that a lot of training is done in a way that wastes time. Mandatory annual training consumes a disproportionate amount of the limited time available. For example, fire safety, manual handling, data protection, and similar packages are repeated every year, regardless of experience or previous completion. Rather than asking how reservists can fit into systems designed for the Regular Army, we should ask how these systems can be redesigned to maximise the value generated within the limited time that reservists—and their employers—are able to give.

Courses across the board are often shaped to fill a fortnight, rather than designed pragmatically around the time actually required to achieve competence, wasting significant amounts of the time reservists commit and creating an impression of pointless bureaucracy. This approach values conformity over efficiency. It is not helped by the fact that the system seems reluctant to open some training facilities out of hours, and to ask regular training staff to work late and at weekends, which is time reservists really need to be used to be more efficient.

Reserve training doctrine usually mirrors that of the Regular Army, with an expectation that trade training should encompass everything required to operate a capability before an individual is considered employable. Is this the right approach for the reserves? In many professions, individuals are taught the minimum required to operate safely before building competence and experience on the job. I am convinced that if employers considered that the time reservists gave up for military training was well used, and that much of the training and military experience was valuable in the workplace, they would be more comfortable employing reservists. At the same time, it would make being a reservist vastly more satisfying.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

46: Schedule 6, page 133, line 17, at end insert—
“(aa) the chairs of the regional councils;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow for regional chairs to sit on the RFCA board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 46, 47 and 49 in my name. To understand the importance of these amendments, one needs to appreciate the significance of the nationwide membership of the RFCAs. The 2019 Sullivan report on the RFCAs, which recommended conversion to an NDPB, itself provides an explanation at paragraph 2.2.2, where it says:

“A key strength of the RFCAs is their extensive volunteer membership (numbering around 8000), bringing with it a wide breadth of expertise and community links—without which the RFCAs would unlikely have access to the information and knowledge needed to discharge the duties … Their position as the link between Defence and the wider public, continuity of staff and expertise, and tri-Service drive enables the RFCAs to deliver across all functions, particularly community and employer engagement (the latter proven by the success on the Armed Force Covenant and Employer Recognition Scheme work strands). This is particularly valuable in cases where local knowledge and understanding may be limited in MoD customers”.


What is proposed in the Armed Forces Bill is the removal of all the regional chairs from the central board—the new decision-making arm of the RFCA. If the Armed Forces Bill proceeds as drafted, the members who currently elect those chairs will be completely disenfranchised, with the consequence of a loss of defence’s connection with society and the advocates and supporters of the reserves and cadets across the UK. The members have made it very clear that this will be sufficiently significant that it will lead to a reduction in the membership to a negligible number. Is that really what the Government want, when they state in the strategic defence review their ambitions to increase the size of the reverses, to increase the number of cadet and to create a completely new homeland and critical national infrastructure defence force, and that a whole-of-society approach to defence is essential?

In discussions with the MoD over the last 12 months, matters had developed to a point at which the MoD had agreed in writing, confirmed by a Government Minister at the RFCAs’ annual conference, that regional chairs would indeed sit as full members on the national board in order to protect the societal links and work done by the engaged and experience membership. Stepping back from that commitment, as the Bill does, is already being taken very badly by the membership.

I do not blame the Minister; I do not believe that the implications of what is proposed have been explained to him. They cannot have been, because if they had he would not be proceeding with this. This is about something more important even than the Permanent Secretary’s perception of how he will improve his oversight of what, in the context of the MoD’s overall budget, is a relatively small amount of funding that the RFCAs receive and use on maintenance of the volunteer estate. It is about the country’s ability to defend itself in time of war, because the effect of Section 38 and Schedule 6 will do irreparable damage to the Government’s ability to defend the country through the use and expansion of the Reserve Forces, of which the RFCAs are a demonstrable key enabler.

This will also have a damaging effect on the Government’s aim of growing the cadet forces, in which, again, local RFCAs are pivotal enablers. The Denny report, entitled The Impact and Value of School-Based Cadet Forces in the UK, identified that those with cadet service were statistically unlikely to be not in education, employment or training—something rather topical these days.

Turning to Amendment 49, I mentioned earlier what the Sullivan report says about a key strength of the RFCAs being their extensive volunteer membership. I will give a couple of examples of how the membership helps defence. My first example is that in the first decade of this century, the country was mobilising reservists in large numbers to go to Iraq and Afghanistan to bolster the Regular Army. The Regular Forces live on the patch: there are welfare officers, commanding officers and RSMs’ wives—a whole machine that is wheeled in action to look after the welfare of the families left behind. For the reservists, who are scattered over the area from which their unit recruits, which can be several counties or several cities, there is no such welfare machine. That is when the RFCAs’ membership comes into action, visiting and offering help and advice.

Reservists have the added complication of a civilian employer. An RFCA member who is an employer can visit them and explain what is happening and the legal position. I commanded a reserve regiment during the mobilisation of large numbers of reservists for Operation TELIC between 2003 and 2005. Without the support and influence of the RFCA, particularly with employers, the reserves would have responded less effectively. It allowed me to command and lead while employment matters could be successfully dealt with by the RFCAs. I know that other commanding officers had similar experiences. It was the RFCA that led on the work relating to employment that was subsequently woven into the Future Reserves 2020 White Paper.

My second example is that, being apolitical, the RFCAs have been extremely helpful in defence, especially in the devolved Administrations. In Scotland, when the Government announced the expansion of the cadet forces in schools, one of the nationalist papers printed a story suggesting that this was about training child soldiers. Its apolitical position allowed the RFCA, through its members and connections, to persuade the Government in Scotland that that was not a fair representation. They agreed, and the story died.

The SDR proposed increases in the size of the reserves and the cadets; the creation of a new homeland defence force; that defence should become a whole-of-nation responsibility; and that resilience in the civilian community needs to be improved. Therefore, it seems quite extraordinary that the RFCA’s membership, which could do so much to enable these things, should be abolished for no good reason.

Further, as was said earlier, this is directly against the new Prime Minister’s drive on the devolution of power and influence outwards. Whereas the Reserve Forces Act 1996 included in its Schedule 4 detail on the grass-roots membership, this is completely and deliberately removed by Clause 4(2)(b) in Part 3 of Schedule 6 to the Armed Forces Bill. There would henceforth be no reference at all to membership in primary legislation, for the first time since 1908. Thousands of volunteers across the UK would immediately be disfranchised and lost.

It has been suggested that the membership might be reinvented through secondary legislation; the Minister referred to this earlier. However, we all know that this is a poor way of doing it. It relegates the voluntary concept to a secondary level of importance and makes it much easier to amend, change and delete it. I beg to move.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, set out so clearly and cogently. I do not intend to repeat them all, as I agree with everything he said, but I want to make a couple of wider points centred on the requirement for a regional approach to our reserves and cadets.

There has been wide acknowledgment of the benefits that such an approach would bring. However, a couple of things have not been mentioned to the extent that they should be. First, there is the matter of footprint. The Reserve Forces and cadets allow us a military footprint across the United Kingdom that is no longer possible with our sadly depleted regular forces. This matters. It means that defence and defence issues can be represented locally by people who are local; the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, pointed out one example of where this has been an inestimable benefit in Scotland. That is one very important point.

My other point concerns the matter of identity. Within military organisations, identity matters—identity of the group. In the regulars, it is perhaps identification with your ship, your regiment or your squadron but, as far as regulars are concerned, it is identity with your locality. That is fundamental to it, and that identity is fundamental to the effectiveness of any military organisation. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, said that the Bill does not seek to destroy the regional aspect of the Reserve Forces. That may be true to an extent, but he knows as well as anyone here that the regional nature of the Reserve Forces is not just about the wiring diagram. It is about the authority that those regional forces have; that is absolutely fundamental.

In response to an earlier amendment, the Minister said that devolution is achieved through overarching strategic direction and that mayors cannot do what they like. Actually, though, that is the whole point: within certain limits, they can. The point of devolution is giving them authority along with responsibility. There is overarching strategic direction, although it will not necessarily work in the case of mayors because you could have a Conservative mayor and a Labour national Government; I am not quite sure how far the Conservative mayor would follow the national Government’s overarching strategic objectives, but we are not discussing that matter here today. So I accept that there is an overarching strategic directive, but it is strategic. It is not operational or tactical. Therefore, local authorities will have a great deal of freedom to decide things, but they will need the authority to carry through on those decisions. Authority goes along with funding in many instances, but with other things besides. That is one of the reasons why Schedule 6 is potentially so damaging for the Reserve Forces.

This speaks to what we would term “mission command” in military parlance. You give overall direction on the broad objectives that you want to see achieved, but you leave a great deal of freedom open to your subordinate organisation—in this case, the regional forces—to decide how it is to be done. Yet they must have authority along with that responsibility. If mission command is to operate effectively, at a superior level, you need to listen to your subordinates’ concerns when they tell you that something simply will not work so you must come up with a different plan. At the moment, as the legislation is framed, the link between the subordinate and superior formations will be, at best, neutered and, at worst, cut off completely.

Amendments 46 and 47 seek to ensure that the RFCAs are properly represented at a senior level and that their voices can be heard. However, that plays both ways. If their voices are not heard, they will lack authority at the local level. If they lack authority at the local level, it will have an impact on recruiting and retention, with lower morale and lower effectiveness. Nobody in this Chamber wants to see that, I know.

Equally, Amendment 49 seeks to ensure that the RFCA’s wider membership is enshrined in primary legislation and that its breadth and diversity are retained so that, again, the wider community and regional links are retained and have credibility across that regional community.

As I said earlier in Committee, I have concerns about Schedule 6 overall. If we are to retain it, I plead with the Minister to take these issues away and correct those bits of it that will restore the authority and the voice of the local Reserve Forces and cadets, in particular through the RFCAs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we do not accept any of the amendments before us as drafted. Am I going to speak to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the rest of the Committee about what we may do to take on board some of the comments that have been made around Clause 38? Of course we will have discussions about it and of course we will see whether there are changes or improvements that could be made that are acceptable to the Government and which seek to address some of the problems that the noble Lord and others have laid out. That is the commitment that I have always made.

I cannot promise what the outcome will be. This is Committee; it is not a full-on Report stage and it is not Second Reading or Third Reading. Committee is about challenging the Government on what they are doing and the Government responding by saying that they will consider how they may take things forward. Just to set the framework, this does not alter the fact that the Government believe that there should be a national strategic body and regional councils. I will say a little bit more about that as I carry on with my remarks, but do I believe that points are being made that are important for the Government to consider? Yes, I do. I cannot satisfy everybody’s demands that Clause 38 should not stand part of the Bill—that has been referred to in respect of Amendments 46, 47 and 49—but we will address all that.

I have an important comment to make to the noble Lord, Earl Howe, for the Committee to recognise. I do not see this as a debate between people who are young, thrusting and understand today’s society and what the noble Earl said—that he should not be seen as an old-fashioned reactionary. Of course he is not seen that way. He and his wife, who I think he said was the lord-lieutenant in Buckinghamshire, are doing great service and are important contributors to the fabric of our country. This is not a debate between those who are modern and those who are old-fashioned. This is a discussion between people who have at their hearts the understanding that lords-lieutenant, reserves and cadets all make a massively important contribution to our country. The discussion between us is about the most effective way of doing that.

I go back to the point that I made before: the Government’s view is that by establishing of a body that allows a strategic framework to be set and that deals with and responds to some of the criticisms that were made by the various reviews to which I referred earlier, we can establish an overall framework within which those regional councils can operate. The regional councils will be a matter for discussion, but they will retain local knowledge, local experience, local expertise, the local connection, the reserves, the cadets—all those points made by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, for which I thank him, as well as those made by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Craig. Of course they are vital to our country. Nobody is seeking to abolish them. The debate between us is how we make things more effective. The Government’s view is that you have the overall strategic framework within which localism operates.

Again, there is disagreement here. It think that is perfectly compatible with the overall, overarching way in which the Government are seeking to devolve power within an overall strategic framework that allows people to make their own decisions and take their own steps forward. That is why the Bill—the primary legislation—requires that regional councils are not abolished but maintained and protected. What those regional councils should be, how they should be set up and on what area they should be based will be a matter for discussion. It will be a matter on which we will try to reach a consensus.

It goes on, on page 137, to list all the various regulations which I referred to earlier. The view of some in the Committee is that those regulations—membership of the national body and all the other things to which I have referred—should be in primary legislation. The Government’s view is that it should be done in secondary legislation. The commitment I have made to the Committee is that those regulations, which are already drafted, can be shared so that people can seek to understand whether some of the concerns—not all of them—they have about membership, et cetera, are addressed by them. It may be that they are not, but the Government are not going to go back. The draft regulations will not say we accept that Clause 38 should be abolished, but they may say we think the area should be this, the membership should be that, and this is the way forward for us. Giving draft regulations in good time to your Lordships’ House will enable a discussion to be had on Report which can take that forward and people will make their own mind up as to whether that is appropriate.

From the Government’s perspective, therefore, Amendments 46, 47 and 49 are not necessary, because the Government are seeking to deliver some of what those amendments are asking for in a different way. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, in a very interesting, logical and emotional way, put forward the case for the regional chairs and for many of the established ways of working to continue, supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and many others. The debate between us will not be about how we reach consensus, because there is a disagreement, but I have been asked whether, if Clause 38 and Schedule 6 are to remain part of the Bill, there is something we can do which may satisfy some of the concerns that your Lordships have expressed in a way which means that some of the old-fashioned reactionaries among us, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned, can at least address some of the very important points, which are not old-fashioned or reactionary but are important considerations which any Government should make when they seek to make a significant change, to ensure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is the commitment I make to your Lordships’ Committee and, with that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, not to press his amendments.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of these amendments. I thank the Minister for his response and for offering to meet and discuss these matters, to which of course I am open. I say to him that the way the Bill is drafted, there are to be regional councils but there are no members beneath them supporting them and they have no representation at national board level, so they are suspended in mid-air and it seems to me rather pointless. We are in Committee, so I reserve the right to return to this matter on Report, but for this evening I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 46 withdrawn.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

48: Schedule 6, page 134, line 22, leave out paragraph 4
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure non executive board members remain unpaid and therefore genuinely committed to the reserves and cadets.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 48, 50, 51 and 52 in my name.

Amendment 48 is about payment to the new non-executive board members. The members of the RFCAs and all their forebear organisations, commencing with the county territorial associations in 1908, whether acting locally or nationally, have never been paid. The volunteer ethos is of very considerable significance, especially in the world of reserves and cadets. Imagine how it will look to the reservists, who volunteer and put their lives on the line, and to the cadet forces, if the non-executives are to be paid. It is a really bad look and unlikely to attract the best of society who are absolutely committed to the reserves and cadets.

Furthermore, we are living in a time of scarce resources, especially in the field of defence. Yet here is the MoD deliberately adding cost, when it knows there is a ready supply of volunteers who will do, and indeed are doing, this work for no financial reward. One can guess the reaction of those who have shown, over many years, their dedicated and unpaid commitment to the reserves and cadets, to the appointment of paid non-executives with no apparent commitment to the reserves or cadets. It is a mistake to offer money to entice people to apply for these roles.

I turn now to Amendment 50, which seeks to reinstate lords-lieutenant. Lords-lieutenant are the sovereign’s representatives in their respective lieutenancies or counties. It is their foremost duty to uphold the dignity of the Crown. Historically, each lord-lieutenant was responsible for organising the county’s militia. The Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907 established county territorial associations, with the lord-lieutenant as the president of the county association. The relationship of lords-lieutenant with the military today is maintained via their presidency of their county RFCAs. All lords-lieutenant are affiliated to one of the 13 regional RFCAs; one of them is president and they rotate the presidency among them.

This is constituted in primary legislation, most recently in Schedule 4 to the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Removing that would remove the final vestiges of a military role and an important part of the symbolic relationship of the lords-lieutenant to the Crown. Service personnel hold the sovereign in the highest regard. To cut off this link between reservists and the Crown seems, to say the least, inappropriate. Lords-lieutenant have evidenced considerable concern over the review’s proposals and the consequences of breaking this important link. Under the Armed Forces Bill, the involvement of the lords-lieutenant, which was established under paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Schedule 4 to the Reserve Forces Act 1996, is to be abolished. Paragraph 4(2)(b) of Schedule 6 to this Bill will omit

“section 111 and Schedule 4 (provisions of schemes for the constitution of associations)”.

It has been suggested, as an afterthought, that the continued involvement of the lords-lieutenant might be achieved through secondary legislation or regulation. The involvement of the lords-lieutenant is currently in primary legislation and to relegate it to regulations is nothing short of insulting. It also makes it much easier to amend, change and delete it. If it is proposed to amend the law in a way that affects a class of persons, it is customary to consult them. Even if there is no statutory duty to do so, there have been cases where the courts have held that failure to consult is a reason for upholding judicial review of the Government. I understand that the Association of Lord-Lieutenants has not been consulted. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment carefully.

Amendment 51 addresses the establishment of a national council. The strength of the RFCAs lies in their embeddedness across the regions. This was not accidental; it reflects the original Haldane model from 1908—a decentralised, citizen-based structure designed to mirror national diversity and ensure societal ownership of the territorial Reserve Forces. It has endured and worked for over a century. What is today described as “connecting defence with the nation” is rooted in this model, so it is right that Schedule 6 of the Bill establishes regional councils through paragraph 14 of proposed new Schedule 4A. What is extremely odd, though, is that the drafters have not understood that the regional councils are irrelevant if their views are not brought together and debated centrally, so that a single considered professional message can be delivered to Ministers.

Abolition of the membership, discussed in the debate on the last group, also presents a conundrum as to where the regional council members will be elected from. When we questioned this, we were told, “Don’t worry, it’ll be dealt with in secondary legislation”. This is a quite extraordinary response. Without a national council, the regional councils are completely irrelevant, and without a membership they will be ineffective. This seems to be an attempt to pay lip service to devolution, while in fact cutting it off at the roots. A national council is fundamental to the functioning of the new structure, and the amendment would establish one.

Amendment 52 addresses the external scrutiny team. The Council of Reserve Forces and Cadets Associations external scrutiny team provides an independent annual assessment to Parliament of the state, capabilities and health of the United Kingdom’s Reserve Forces, identified as fundamental to advising Ministers and the single services on the effectiveness of training, fighting efficiency and leadership of the reserve, thus meeting the FR 2020 proposition to reservists. It was established following the Future Reserves 2020 review and operates with statutory duties mandated by the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

The Armed Forces Bill, in paragraph 5(b) of Schedule 6, introduces the concept that the Defence Council can remove responsibility for producing the annual assessment or report and award it to someone else at stroke of a pen. This is not the case in the current legislation. Will the Minister therefore explain what lies behind this change? To whom might the responsibility for producing the independent assessment be transferred? What would be considered appropriate grounds for transferring it? When might this happen? How will Ministers ensure the assessment continues in future to be conducted properly and truly independently of the MoD? I beg to move.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to these amendments, and I agree with the points that have been so well made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I will start my brief remarks by making just a couple of general points. First, while there have been some criticisms of the arrangements of reserves and cadet forces, particularly in fairly recent reviews, most of these have been attended to subsequently. The general opinion was that, in the round, the Reserve Forces and cadets operated extremely well and were extremely valuable, and the arrangements that had been set in place had served this country extremely well for a very long time. There is, therefore, a burden of proof on anyone seeking to change the current arrangements to show why any proposed alterations will be better than the arrangements that are already in place. I fear that the Government fail on this count in many instances in this particular part of the Armed Forces Bill.

Secondly, the Minister has previously indicated to the Committee that some of the shortcomings might be attended to in secondary legislation, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, just referred to this. That is all very well, but as everybody in this Chamber knows, we cannot amend secondary legislation; we take it or leave it, and usually, we have to take it. Of course, there must be secondary legislation for the detailed implementation of an Act and the measures in it; but issues of principle should be settled in primary legislation, not in secondary legislation, for some of the reasons that the Lord, Lord De Mauley, just pointed out. Quite a number of the issues covered by the amendments this evening are issues of principle and, therefore, belong in primary legislation, not in secondary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for the amendments whose presentation to us he led on.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, as I have said on a number of occasions both to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and to the Committee as a whole, that I will continue to have conversations between now and Report about what we may or may not do with some of the amendments before us. That commitment has already been made. On the points that he made about spending, I am perfectly willing to answer another Private Notice Question or whatever if he is successful at another time, but perhaps not this evening.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their view that the non-executive members of the new RFCA board should be unpaid. That view assumes that unpaid service better demonstrates commitment. I do not accept that. Commitment is not determined by whether a member is remunerated. There is no evidence, in my view, that remuneration reduces dedication to the Reserve Forces or cadet organisations. I take the point that has been made about their voluntary ethos, but, in terms of the board’s membership—

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

I suggest, in answer to that point from the Minister, that what it does is call into question their independence from their MoD masters.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That might be a matter for us to consider in the conversation that we have. I do not want to go on for too long, but I understand many of the comments that different people have made this evening; I agree with some of them to a larger or lesser extent. I have never thought, generally speaking, that, in certain circumstances, unpaid work is the way forward. This is one of those situations, in respect of the board: I do not think it undermines the voluntary ethos as a whole because, here, it is related to board membership. In that circumstance, it is perfectly reasonable, given the new board that we wish to set up, that the position should be remunerated, although I accept the point that, in the broader establishment of lords-lieutenant and others across the wider—

--- Later in debate ---

As I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and others who asked about accountability, it is right that primary legislation should secure the requirement for annual reporting, rather than fix a particular organisational model in statute. In that way, we protect the outcome of rigorous reporting to Parliament without unnecessarily fixing the means of delivery in primary legislation. With those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendments. I also thank the Minister. He said that voluntary bodies all over the country have paid people at their heads. Of course they do. I am a trustee or president of, I think, seven charities. Outside the Government, those paid are universally the executives, not the non-executives.

My concern on the point about the amendability of regulations is different from the one that the Minister addressed. My concern is that the Government can amend them—not that we cannot—and that they can do so much more easily than with primary legislation. I am sure we will return to these issues on Report, but for this evening, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 48 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to the first three amendments in my name, which are in group 12: Amendments 61, 62 and 63. I am not going to do them justice at this time of night, because the first amendment is calling for an independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention and in order to do that justice, I need to rehearse the difficulties we have seen in Armed Forces recruitment. Capita was mentioned earlier in proceedings today. Issues of retention have also been raised.

Given the lateness of the hour and the hope that noble Lords, Hansard, doorkeepers and officials in the box will get home at some point in the wee small hours, I will simply express the view that it is important for His Majesty’s Government to have an independent review of recruitment and retention. Each time there is an SDR, we hear that we need to look at the size of our Armed Forces and the size of the reserves, yet there is very little clarity on the recruitment process and retention. We have heard proposals this evening from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about increasing paternity leave entitlement precisely as a way of enhancing retention. The country needs clarity on recruitment and retention. As Parliament, we need to be able to scrutinise the current provisions and perhaps give suggestions to His Majesty’s Government about ways in which we could be improving the system. I am raising that issue, but I am not going to go into any further detail this evening.

I hope that Amendment 62 will be seen as uncontroversial, even by someone sitting where the Minister is—even though it is an amendment. It suggests a duty to provide medical records on discharge, simply to ensure that anyone leaving the services is able to go straight away to register with their GP. In particular, if they have issues—perhaps they had a medical discharge or, even if not, they might be at risk of undiagnosed PTSD—then having those medical records will be crucial for them, and it seems only right that their record should be provided as soon as practicable.

Amendment 63 ought to be self-evident, although I realise that the Minister may feel that it is not purely an MoD matter but is perhaps more for the DWP. It would insert a clause introducing a personal independence payment assessment exemption for amputees. The logic is that it seems odd to keep requiring PIP assessments and reassessments when, if someone has had a limb amputated, that is not going to change between assessments. It may be that robotics or other medical innovations change someone’s capacity to work; but given that we are talking about someone who may have had a limb amputated as a result of their service, relieving them of PIP reassessments would appear to be a more appropriate way of acknowledging the reasons why they have lost the limb, while ensuring that we do not put them through unnecessary repeat medical assessments. I beg to move.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

I support Amendment 61 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, requiring an independent review of Armed Forces recruitment and retention. At this late hour, I will just say that, at a time when there are nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training, we cannot even recruit 10,000 a year, and our Armed Forces are well below the relatively tiny strength at which they are funded to be. This suggests that something is seriously wrong with the recruiting process, and the report needs to be done.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I shall briefly speak to Amendment 62. My noble friend raised the point about it being important for veterans to be able to have their details in their hands. The NHS guidance for veterans specifically notes that it takes several months for the full records to follow the veterans, and if veterans have complex health issues but no information, the GPs that they see are in deep trouble.

On amputees, importantly, unlike many amputees in the civilian world, most amputees in the military world also have a significant number of other injuries. There is already an issue about amputees in the civilian world having to have repeat PIP tests, but it seems sensible to look at this area.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

This Bill is, as we have said many times, a political choice. Ministers could have chosen not to do it, and they could have done the right thing. Ministers could have chosen to consult the Chagossian people before they agreed this treaty. They could have held a referendum of the Chagossian people, and again they chose not to. The Government should stop hiding behind the potential decisions of international courts and take ownership of the treaty for which they are responsible. They have chosen not to consult the Chagossians before proceeding. We disagree with that in the strongest possible terms and we will support amendments that would deliver the referendum that the Chagossian people morally deserve. I beg to move.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, it might help the House if I were to provide a brief overview of the International Relations and Defence Committee’s recent report, which my noble friend Lord Callanan referred to, on Chagossian views on the agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago. What I will cover touches on many of the amendments in this group.

On 11 November last year, we were asked by the Government and Official Opposition Chief Whips to undertake a short piece of work on the impact of the Bill, including on the Chagossian community. In Committee, the Government also invited us to, and I quote the Minister,

“engage a range of Chagossians to ascertain their views on the implications of the Diego Garcia treaty, and to produce a report”.—[Official Report, 11/11/25; col. 227.]

We accepted the invitation because we thought it important to allow Chagossians to have their say and believed that our previous work on the agreement meant that we were well placed to do so.

Time, however, was very much against us. Within about a month, we had to launch a mechanism to gather views from a globally dispersed population, allow Chagossians time to respond and leave us sufficient time to analyse the responses and produce a report in time for the debate today. This time pressure shaped how we designed and conducted this exercise, leading to our decision to conduct an online survey. Had circumstances allowed, we would also have held a series of round table discussions directly with Chagossian community members, an approach we used in our previous work on the agreement.

In the end, the online survey was imperfect, but it was the only practical option available given the constraints, and it was no substitute for a proper consultation or referendum. We recognised the challenges it would pose, including potential language barriers, limited digital access and reliance on people submitting responses in good faith. Throughout the process, we have sought to mitigate these challenges, including through direct promotion of the survey among Chagossian community groups, providing translated versions in both French and Mauritian Creole, and adopting a post-collection data-checking process to strengthen the robustness of our survey results.

Our survey received over 3,000 responses from Chagossians in the United Kingdom, Mauritius, the Seychelles and beyond. This is an extraordinary response rate given the short time available and shows a high level of engagement from the global Chagossian diaspora, which is believed to number around 10,000. While we cannot claim to have provided a scientific measure of the collective will of the Chagossian people, the high volume of responses gives us confidence that the results provide meaningful insights into Chagossian perspectives on the agreement. Before going into detail on our findings, it is worth saying that, had successive United Kingdom Governments conducted a more comprehensive engagement exercise with Chagossians during the negotiations, our survey would not have been necessary.

I turn to our key findings. Our survey revealed several strikingly consistent themes. First, there was a profound and enduring sense of injustice. Many Chagossians describe the multigenerational hardships they and their families have experienced as a result of their forcible removal from the islands. Across responses, there was a powerful sense of the economic, cultural and emotional loss. Many spoke of the need for meaningful compensation to address the injustices experienced and a deep desire to return to the islands, whether to visit or to live, to reconnect with their homeland.

Secondly, the survey revealed widespread distrust of the Mauritian Government and a scepticism over their willingness and ability to meet Chagossian needs. While not universal, this sentiment was strongest among UK-based Chagossian and was shared by a significant number of respondents in Mauritius and the Seychelles. Many highlighted previous ill-treatment by the Mauritian Government and expressed concerns that Mauritian-led resettlement, financial support and environmental stewardship would not reflect Chagossian priorities.

Thirdly, Chagossians expressed a clear desire for greater agency, autonomy and voice in decisions that affect them and the future of the islands. Many felt sidelined by the negotiation process and lacked trust that the agreement would allow their needs to be met. Despite the fact that self-determination was not a subject of the survey, it was raised frequently, particularly by UK-based Chagossians who felt strongly that the Chagossian people should have a decisive say over the sovereign status of the islands.

For me, one of the starkest revelations from the survey is reported at paragraph 44. I should say before I refer to the detail that, because we did not want to raise false expectations, we deliberately asked no questions about sovereignty; indeed, there is no mention of it in the survey document we published. However, a very substantial proportion of UK respondents, and indeed some from Mauritius, used the free text boxes to make the point strongly that they would prefer the archipelago to remain under British sovereignty. What makes this so compelling is that the point is consistently and clearly made despite the appalling treatment the British Government have meted out to these people. If they would prefer British sovereignty in these circumstances, what does that say about the Government’s decision to grant sovereignty to Mauritius? I will come back to the Government’s recent Statement later, but it contained yet another example of the Government, with Mauritius, making decisions directly affecting Chagossians without involving them.

Our survey provided insights into Chagossian views on the technical aspects of the agreement. On resettlement, respondents asserted the importance of employment opportunities and infrastructure as key enablers for resettlement. The absence of healthcare, education, housing and other basic services were seen as significant obstacles. The exclusion of the island of Diego Garcia, the only island with any real infrastructure, was a particular source of frustration for some.

On financial support mechanisms, respondents emphasised the need for direct financial support and for Chagossian-led oversight of the £40 million trust fund established under the agreement. Respondents were clear that meaningful financial support for the Chagossian community is not simply a matter of easing material hardship but a moral obligation. Chagossians see financial payments as a way to deliver justice and provide redress. In that context, many felt that the £40 million allocated to the trust fund falls short of the scale of harm endured and does not represent adequate reparation. There was scepticism that Chagossians living in the UK, but also those living elsewhere, would be able to benefit from the fund, given that it is to be administered from Mauritius.

On marine conservation, respondents advocated strongly for approaches that include Chagossian co-stewardship of marine resources. The importance of integrating traditional Chagossian knowledge into modern conservation frameworks was highlighted.

We offer a cautious welcome to the Government’s Statement of 15 December. It addresses some of these concerns but by no means all, and I am sure that the remaining ones will surface in the debates to come. The Statement confirms Chagossian stewardship of the trust fund, albeit with just one UK representative on the 12-member board, which in my personal opinion, given the likely relative distribution of the Chagossian diaspora, does not seem fair.

The Statement clarifies the resettlement criteria, which will extend resettlement rights to Chagossians born on the islands and their children but not their grandchildren, and confirms that Chagossians will be able to hold British and Mauritian citizenship. Nevertheless, full-scale resettlement remains a distant prospect, so heritage visits will continue to be a vital means for Chagossians to be able to re-establish a connection to the islands and should therefore be reinstated without delay. It is essential that the Government continue to explore ways to increase support for Chagossians in the UK and ensure that they too really can access the benefits of the trust fund.

Finally, I thank my fellow committee members and all the committee staff, who worked hard to deliver this challenging piece of work against such a difficult timeframe. Most importantly, the committee thanks the Chagossian people who engaged with our survey. We hope that, in a small way, we have provided them with a long overdue opportunity to have their voices heard.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 11, 12, 13 and 16, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley, who is detained by difficult transport situations in France—he is perhaps not the only person in that situation—and, in the interest of brevity, to my own Amendments 24 and 25. Some of them would make Mauritius responsible for any outstanding reparation claims—it seems odd that that needs to be said, but such is the asymmetry of this deal in every other regard that it is worth setting out that it would be very strange if Britain remained liable despite having handed away the territory—while some ask for ratification to be delayed until after we have heard from your Lordships’ International Relations and Defence Committee.

In the interests of brevity, I shall talk about just three points in this group. The first is the timing of the ratification process. A judicial review was brought on 26 October by some diasporan Chagossians, some of them born on the Chagos Islands and some born in exile. Lengthy and detailed arguments were heard that day, and the judgment was initially expected on the same day. Then we were told that the ruling would come the following week, and then that it would come before Christmas, and now that it will come on 12 January. So why are we breaking with precedent and convention and rushing ahead with Third Reading without the customary lapse of at least three days between Committee and Third Reading?

It seems to me unfortunate that we are creating the appearance of collusion. We are creating the appearance of rushing through the Bill so that the judicial review will be ineffective. That criticism could easily have been anticipated—the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, said she had never heard about prebuttal, but there will be a lot of prebuttal and rebuttal and some fairly crucial “buttal” in all this, I suspect—by our observing our normal timetables and allowing a reasonable time to elapse.

The second is the point referred to by my noble friend Lord Callanan: the decision on 8 December by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which called on

“both Mauritius and the United Kingdom to suspend ratification of the agreement, and to engage immediately in a renewed dialogue to ensure the free, prior and informed consent of the Chagossian people”.

Given that the entire Bill is predicated on this Government’s exaggerated deference to non-binding opinions by courts that have no jurisdiction, that alone ought to have put an end to the entire business. If we are so in hock to UN bodies—without jurisdiction, in this case—telling us what they think, which we treat as final and binding, why did we do so on the first but not on this?

Strategic Defence Review 2025

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, for his role in leading the strategic defence review team and for delivering such a thoughtful and important contribution to UK defence policy. I am particularly grateful to the review team for appearing last week before the International Relations and Defence Committee, which I chair, to discuss the findings and recommendations of the review. Before I go further, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McCabe, on his maiden speech, to which I listened carefully.

I welcome the Government’s recognition that national security and defence must be the first duty of government and that today’s threat landscape requires an integrated response. The SDR’s recommendations come with serious financial indications, but defence is the best insurance policy we have. As General Sir Richard Barrons convincingly told the committee, the costs of war, both in human and economic terms, are considerably higher than the price of preparedness. If we fail to invest now in deterrence, resilience and technological advantage, we risk being outpaced by adversaries who will not wait for us to catch up.

The committee welcomes the ambition and breadth of the SDR, and we are pleased to see it echoes many of the conclusions in our report, Ukraine: A Wake-up Call. However, laudable ambition must be matched by credible delivery. There is, as yet, no comprehensive funding profile aligned to the SDR’s recommendations, or clear pathway to the Government’s ambition to spend 3% of GDP on defence, let alone to the Prime Minister’s NATO pledge of 5%. Without this, delivery of the SDR’s recommendations is at best uncertain. The defence investment plan due this autumn must address this and set out the trade-offs involved if the 3% of GDP target is not achieved.

The SDR rightly commits to a NATO first posture. Meeting NATO’s evolving investment benchmarks, enhancing interoperability with allies and reinforcing our forward presence in eastern Europe and the high north must follow. Domestically, the SDR’s emphasis on home defence and resilience is timely, but can the Minister set out what the Government will do to ensure that the

“more substantive body of work”

needed to the UK’s critical national infrastructure will be undertaken promptly?

Regarding the billion-pound commitment to homeland air and missile defence and the creation of a new cyber and electromagnetic command, how can the Minister be confident that this funding will be sufficient for the SDR’s objectives?

The SDR’s focus on innovation and digital skills is essential. The war in Ukraine has shown the importance of rapid procurement cycles and scalable technologies. We welcome the £400 million identified for defence innovation and the doubled investment in autonomous systems, yet SMEs still face major challenges in engaging with the Ministry of Defence. Radical procurement reform is essential, and concrete timelines for this are still lacking.

To return to the essential theme of resilience, defence in the 21st century is no longer confined to the battlefield; it requires the full mobilisation of society—an integrated approach that connects the population, industry, infrastructure and education. While there is much in the SDR that reflects a broader understanding of defence as a collective national effort, which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, referred to, the MoD continues to show its complete misunderstanding of Reserve Forces, such an important part of connecting to wider society, and the pressures on those who seek to train while holding down civilian jobs. Can the Minister guarantee that the Reserve Forces will not be singled out, as they so often have been in the recent past, for cuts and so-called in-year savings?

The MoD is persisting in its efforts to neuter the Reserve Forces and cadets associations, whose council I chair, which could and would, if encouraged, rather than deliberately constrained as is proposed by converting them into a more costly NDPB, do so much to promote the resilience that the country so desperately needs. I know that Ministers simply do not understand the damage that they will be doing, especially to the SDR’s aspirations for the reserves and national resilience, if they follow what their officials are pushing them into, and I ask the Minister to look again at that.

To conclude, notwithstanding what I have just said, the shift in the strategic approach set out by the SDR is welcome. To turn its ambitions into reality will require strong and continuing commitment, especially on funding but also on improved relations with industry and sustained engagement with the public. I emphasise, though, the need for a fully costed road map and ask the Minister what plans he has to keep Parliament updated on the implementation of the SDR’s recommendations.

Diego Garcia Military Base

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will have negotiated in good faith. I know too that if there had been an agreement that he felt was in the national interest then he would have recommended to his Government that it should be supported.

The point that I am making is that the principle was established that negotiations were happening to see what arrangement or agreement, if any, could be made between the UK and Mauritius with respect to Diego Garcia. This Government’s judgment is that we have reached such an agreement. The noble Lord is quite right to point out the security guarantees that we have. He will know that in the treaty there is a 24-mile buffer zone around the island, and the US and the UK can veto any development within that zone. He will also know that there is a further exclusion zone beyond that encompassing the rest of the islands, which means we can prevent development that we are opposed to there as well. That is why we felt we could sign an agreement containing the sorts of security guarantees that the noble Lord himself sought but did not manage to achieve, and therefore did not feel there was an agreement that he could come to or recommend we agree to. We feel that we have guarantees that will protect the integrity of the base by excluding others who would seek to undermine it.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, the Statement twice refers to guaranteeing the UK full continued control over Diego Garcia for the next 99 years and beyond. What is the exact legal position that the Government have negotiated regarding the situation beyond the year 2124, which, after all, is little more than a single lifetime away? What concerns me is that the wording available to the public suggests that any extension depends entirely on obtaining the agreement of the Mauritian Government at the time, which does not sound much like a guarantee of full UK control of Diego Garcia beyond 99 years.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that, in addition to the 99 years, there is in the treaty an option for a further 40 years. He will know the importance of respecting a treaty, which is a legally binding agreement between two Governments, whether through an international court, national courts or sovereign Governments themselves. The important principle is that what is in the treaty is what has been negotiated. As far as I am concerned, we will ensure that the treaty is respected, and that is the legal basis on which we go forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will reflect on that—I note that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, was shaking his head when I answered. I will see whether I can add anything further to the points made by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. Clearly, the treaty lays out 99 years, with the 40-year further option on that. If the noble and learned Lord is asking me what happens at the end of 139 years, I will reflect on that so that others who may follow me can consider their options in 139 years’ time.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

I will clarify my question. My understanding, from what I read—which is available to the public—is that the Mauritian Government have to agree even to the 40-year extension, let alone what happens at the end of that 40 years.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will clarify that. I tried to be open and frank in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I will reflect on that and whether I need to write to the noble Lord to ensure that we have correct factual information. We may differ on opinions, but it is important that we have factual information in front of us. If I need to, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and put a copy of that in the Library, as well as giving a copy to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, just for clarity’s sake.

Strategic Defence Review

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a good suggestion, and I will look at it and try to take it forward.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Council of Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations, with a bit of a history with the Reserve Forces. I thank the Minister for his call yesterday, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his team. My welcome of the SDR is caveated slightly on the apparent gulf between the ambition, which it is difficult to fault, and the funding, which is more concerning. There are a number of issues that I would like to debate, but I will pick just one for this evening. The SDR places a welcome emphasis on home defence and resilience, yet it also acknowledges that:

“A more substantive body of work is necessary to ensure the security and resilience of critical national infrastructure … and the essential services it delivers”.


The Minister mentioned just now that he would address the issue of timelines. I am asking him to include in that thinking about and telling us about the timelines for that important piece of work.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

In a similar vein to my answer to my noble friend Lord Reid, some of these timelines will need to be discussed and worked out to ensure that they are deliverable. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that his point is well made; clearly, we need to get on with that task. There is an urgency to much of this, and we need to address that and ensure that we make much of this happen as soon as possible.

Ukraine (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the International Relations and Defence Committee Ukraine: a wake-up call (1st Report, HL Paper 10).

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I speak today as chairman of the International Relations and Defence Committee to introduce our report, Ukraine: A Wake-up Call. The report provides a sobering, and now urgent, assessment of the implications of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine for United Kingdom defence policy and the broader security of Europe. Before delving into the detail of the report, I thank the members of the committee, including my predecessor as chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde; the excellent clerk and staff, who put a huge amount of work into the report over the summer; and the witnesses who appeared before the committee.

The findings in our report are stark. The war in Ukraine has shattered the assumptions underpinning western defence thinking since the end of the Cold War. This is indeed a wake-up call not just for us but for the whole of Europe. The war has exposed critical gaps in our capabilities and the fragility of our defence industrial base—all because of our assumption, now revealed as wrong, that future conflicts would be short and limited.

The first conclusion of the report is that NATO deterrence failed. President Putin calculated that the West lacked the political will and the military capability to stop him. This calculation, tragically, was in part correct: our deterrence posture has been found wanting. We must rebuild deterrence through improved military capability, clear messaging and a united front with our allies. This has taken on a new significance following the rift created by the heated exchanges between President Trump and President Zelensky last week and the continuing developments this week.

Another significant development since the publication of our report has been the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and the ambition to increase it to 3% in the next Parliament. While welcome, our report concluded that 2.5% of GDP may not be enough to meet the UK’s growing defence needs or plug existing gaps. Subsequent events have underlined that point.

This leads me to the current state of our Armed Forces. The Army in particular has already shrunk to its smallest size since the Napoleonic era, and it is questionable whether it will be able to field sufficient fighting forces beyond an initial deployment. The Prime Minister has said that he is willing to put troops on the ground in Ukraine to help guarantee the country’s security. While I fully understand his objective, it is difficult to imagine how the Army would be able to maintain a credible deterrent force in Ukraine, for any extended length of time—let alone fulfil its other obligations, which seem likely to grow—without increasing in size significantly.

Crucially, we must rebuild the appeal of military service to the next generation. We also need to revitalise our reserves. Ukraine has shown that well-trained and properly equipped reserve forces can, literally, make all the difference. Ours are woefully underfunded. We must ensure that they are ready to mobilise at scale, when needed, and that numbers are boosted so that they can also be deployed to protect critical national infrastructure at home.

Critical national infrastructure deserves a specific mention, because the experience of Ukraine provides a clear warning to the United Kingdom: Russia has relentlessly attacked Ukrainian energy systems and communication networks. We are already witnessing a troubling shift towards more aggressive hybrid tactics being deployed, in the UK and nearby, by Russia and others. We must up our game in countering hybrid attacks. If not, our enemies will realise that they can get away with it, placing us in an ever more vulnerable position.

Defence is not just about soldiers and capabilities; it is also about cybersecurity, the security of our supply chains and resilience within our communities. The concept of total defence, long practised by nations such as Sweden and Finland, must be adopted here. We must move beyond the notion that defence is the sole responsibility of the military. Total defence entails a high state of readiness by both the state and society to defend themselves in case of threat of war, crisis or natural disaster.

I will now speak in my personal capacity rather than as a member of the committee. There is a little-known but influential organisation, which is critically poised to play a leading role in helping the United Kingdom achieve a total defence stance, called the Council of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association. I declare an interest in that I am currently its chairman. The CRFCA has strong and embedded relations throughout the United Kingdom, with local and devolved Administration politicians, business leaders and opinion influencers through the extensive nationwide membership of the Reserve Forces and cadets’ associations. The RFCAs are the only defence-related organisations that reach all the regions and devolved nations, and the membership connects with all sectors and communities in society.

The Minister recently commented in answer to a Written Question:

“The RFCA has an extensive volunteer membership … bringing a wide breadth of expertise and community links. The RFCAs’ extensive network of volunteer members, based within communities across the UK, enable the RFCAs to … connect to society … While the number of hours volunteered is not formally recorded either for the volunteer membership or non-executive board members, it is estimated that this figure is around 69,000 hours per year”.


In answer to another, he said:

“The vast majority of active members make no claims, reflecting their sense of service and deep connection with the UK’s Reserve Forces and Cadets”.


There is a move afoot in the Ministry of Defence to dispense with this organisation, first created by Haldane in 1908 when it was realised that, to be efficient, while command and training of the Reserve Forces should be centralised, conversely, the raising and administration of those forces could be efficient only if decentralised, this being deemed essential to the encouragement of local effort and the development of local resources in time of peace. This is what the RFCAs, the successor to what were the county associations, provide today with their wide membership; they are local in origin and situation, cognisant of local capabilities and requirements and thoroughly integrated into their communities.

In its stead, the MoD wishes to create a non-departmental public body with one centralised board of paid non-executive directors with little or no experience of, or commitment to, reserves or cadets. There is a significant risk that this, as well as the proposal that the current membership should be retained merely in an advisory or associate capacity, will disenfranchise the members when they recognise that they will have little ability to have a say on how central government directives are implemented in the regions from which they come and on the support they give to sustain the reserve.

At a stroke, the MoD will have lost a body of natural supporters with deep links into the society of their communities and regions, just as the strategic defence review may well place a greater reliance on the reserve for the total defence of the United Kingdom. To quote a former commanding officer tasked with raising a new reserve battalion: “My experience of raising a new battalion has convinced me that the associations are essential to look after the interests of the Reserve Forces as a whole, not just a harmless institution that has to be humoured. It therefore concerns me that there is a view among some civil servants and regular officers of the MoD that the RFCAs are anachronistic and expensive bodies which work against the established chain of command and are positively detrimental to the ‘one Army’ concept”. The RFCAs are here to help and can make a significant contribution to the defence of the nation.

To return to the committee’s report, yet another urgent lesson from Ukraine concerns our defence industrial base. Decades of budget cuts and reduced industrial capacity since the end of the Cold War have left the UK’s defence industry unprepared for high-intensity prolonged conflict. Our procurement processes are too slow and risk averse. Ukraine has, by necessity, embraced a model of rapid innovation, working hand in glove with commercial technology companies and adapting in real time on the battlefield. This is the agility we need. To achieve this, the Government must rebuild trust with the defence industry, whose leaders repeatedly told us that it needs clear, long-term commitments—not shifting goalposts—to enable it to scale up production.

We must also broaden our partner base, including those we may not traditionally think of as military suppliers, in order to provide the cutting-edge capabilities our Armed Forces require. Recent events have underscored the critical need to strengthen our industrial engagement with our European partners. We found that increasing collaboration in integrated air and missile defence should be high on the list of priorities for the Government. The report also highlights the importance of nurturing partnerships. Of course, it did not predict the schism in the western alliance we are witnessing right now, but that only serves to make it even clearer that the UK Government must now use all their diplomatic skills—as I think the Prime Minister seems to be doing, and I commend his efforts—to ensure the unity of the western alliance in support of UK and European security efforts.

Finally, we must acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: the UK is a medium-sized regional power. This may not be a bad thing, but it requires hard choices to be made and a realistic narrative from the Government about what our Armed Forces can deliver. Our report calls for a coherent model that leverages technology, industry, the reserves, diplomacy and society itself to rebuild our deterrence posture and make sure that it is credible. This should be at the heart of the strategic defence review, and the Government must ensure that their response to the review is swift and provides a clear road map for how this can all be achieved. The hard-earned lessons from the war in Ukraine are our wake-up call, and the time to act is now. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords all want to rush away and catch their trains, so I will only be a couple of minutes. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. There was an unusual convergence of views among the vast majority of those who spoke, which I think should be encouraging to His Majesty’s Government and to us all. I do not have time to give credit to all noble Lords who have spoken but, save for the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and my noble friend Lord Balfe, there was little I heard that I disagreed with. Even with them, I am sure there are things that we can find to agree on.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and others, concurred that increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP will not be enough. As we said in the report, it is not just that we spend more, but that we spend more astutely. I agreed strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on the need for the MoD to sort out recruitment. The Minister told us a bit about how that will be done.

My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford spoke specifically about reserve numbers. He is right that it would not be difficult to increase reserve numbers dramatically, and we should. I will not go into detail, but I have the experience of recruiting reservists based on 50 years of close involvement. I joined the Territorial Army in April 1975, and I am the honorary colonel of the reserve unit that I joined then. I know exactly what needs to be done. It does not need to be hugely expensive. I am available on call to the Minister. I beg him not to rely entirely on the counsel of regular soldiers in the MoD; I respect them hugely, but point out that reservists’ motivations are different to those of regular servicepeople who have shown, time after time, that they misunderstand the motivations and needs of reservists.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, gently chided us, pointing out that we forecasted a gradual shift of US priorities. I hope the Grand Committee will forgive us our optimism. I think the views expressed by most noble Lords today suggest that the vast majority of the report is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, as valid today as it was when we wrote it. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friends Lord Soames, Lady Fraser and Lady Goldie, for echoing my concerns about the future of the RFCAs. I say to the Minister that we want to help; please do not tie one hand behind our back.

I thank the Minister for his response to the debate. I am pleased that we agree on so much. It is often said that we always plan and prepare to fight the last war, rather than the next. We must break that mould.

Motion agreed.

Strategic Defence Review

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, for bringing this important debate today. I thank him particularly as a former member of the International Relations and Defence Committee—which I now have the honour of chairing—for his contributions to the committee’s work. I also declare my interest as chairman of the Council of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association.

The strategic defence review provides a welcome opportunity for the Government to rethink their approach to defence. I will focus my remarks largely on the role that Reserve Forces could play in that.

Over the last couple of years, the global security environment has changed dramatically. As other noble Lords have said, we are witnessing a period of growing instability. Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has been a turning point for European security and has raised serious concerns about Russian intentions elsewhere in Europe. In the Middle East, the conflict between Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah threatens to escalate into a wider regional war, potentially drawing in Iran. Tensions in the South China Sea are escalating, and a wave of coups in the Sahel is plunging millions into physical and economic insecurity. This raises the question as to whether our Armed Forces are equipped to deal with this new reality.

The International Relations and Defence Committee recently published a report, which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to, and which we have submitted to the SDR team, on the implications of the war in Ukraine for UK defence. We found that years of strategic neglect have left our forces stretched thin and limited in size. We are underprepared to respond to the worsening global threat environment, and in particular to meet the very real and growing threat from Russia.

Our Armed Forces lack the necessary mass, resilience and coherence to sustain prolonged, high-intensity conflict at scale. This of course also weakens their deterrent effect. If we are to prevent conflict with Russia, deterrence is our best insurance. After all, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine itself represented a failure of NATO’s deterrence posture. We must therefore restore the credibility of our deterrence posture, which has to include, as other noble Lords have said, increasing troop numbers.

Yet even apart from the well-documented challenges of recruitment and retention, increasing troop numbers comes at a significant cost. This is where my own submission to the SDR comes in; the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord West, may be glad to hear that it is a tri-service proposition. Ukraine has shown that recruitment of the rank and file of a second or third echelon force need not be the problem. It recruited half a million from a population about two-thirds the size of ours in six months in 2022. What it could not do was provide the experienced people to train them. We, and other nations, had to step in and help.

My concept, in simple terms, is based loosely on the very successful Home Service Force of the early 1990s. It is that we should utilise some of the quite large number of experienced people who have recently left the regular and Reserve Forces to form cadres of about 50, as the nucleus each of a battalion-sized unit, 500 strong, the bulk—the other 450—of which would be recruited only at a time chosen by the Government when the threat level warranted it. I hope the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord West, will forgive me for using army language, but I do it for simplicity. The cadres would need, say, 10 to 15 days of training a year to maintain and update their skills. I ask only that this concept—the submission goes into considerably more detail—is given thorough consideration, and I would of course be delighted to discuss the detail with the SDR team and/or the Minister.

I turn to our Reserve Forces as they are currently constituted. As my committee’s inquiry into Ukraine revealed, their capability has been eroded over recent years. Successive Governments have failed to articulate a clear vision for how the reserves can effectively supplement and support our Armed Forces. It is time to reverse this. Our report says that the Reserve Forces, whose numbers have declined over recent years—largely because of reduced funding and a broken recruiting system—need a co-ordinated approach, including addressing clarity of purpose, demanding training, appropriate logistical and administrative support, equipment and proper funding. I know that the Reserve Forces and cadets associations have specific attributes that are able to help, and they stand ready to help.

I ask the Minister for his assurance that the Government will give due consideration to enhancing the role of the reserves. What plans are there, if any, to respond to the recommendations made by General Sir Nick Carter in his Reserve Forces review?

This is not just about troop numbers; the whole of society has a role to play in defence. We need to move beyond the idea that defence is solely the military’s responsibility, become better at conveying the significance of national security to the wider public and set out how they can contribute to a more resilient society. The volunteer reserves are part of the answer, but the Government must also draw the wider public into a conversation about defence—including the potential for higher, and especially better and cleverer, defence spending—as well as greater civic responsibility.

One useful lever available would be to involve the signatories to the Armed Forces covenant, especially the gold award holders, who ought to have a predisposition to help. There needs to be a greater sense of urgency and awareness about the risks facing the UK. An honest dialogue about the country’s vulnerabilities and what is required to keep it safe is essential. The Government must develop a compelling value proposition that resonates with citizens, emphasising the importance of national security in their daily lives and moving beyond the notion that defence is solely the military’s responsibility. There is much we can learn from our Scandinavian partners and their concept of total defence, which integrates civilians into national security. The Government should build on this framework to create a similarly compelling vision for the UK.

We are at a crossroads. The choices we make now will determine whether we can restore our nation’s credibility and remain an influential player on the global stage. Alternatively, we risk the fate of being relegated to reactive crisis management rather than playing a proactive role in preventing conflicts. The war in Ukraine has moved this debate from theoretical speculation to urgent reality. Complacency in defence is no longer an option.

Reserve Forces and Cadets’ Associations

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord De Mauley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the contribution of Reserve Forces and Cadets’ Associations to the work of the Reserve Forces and the cadets, to national defence and to the Armed Forces covenant.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as president of the Council of Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations. The forerunners of today’s Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations were established by Haldane in 1908 as County Territorial Associations. Through a series of Acts of Parliament they acquired a tri-service role, and in 1967 moved to their current regional structure, establishing a national council. In 1996 they gained their current name and in 2014 they were given the role of setting up an external scrutiny team to provide an annual independent report to Parliament on the state of the reserves. Today, the RFCAs also maintain and develop most reserve and cadet properties, other than those on regular bases, and sea cadet sites, which are charitably owned.

The RFCAs provide a voice for and a range of services to the Reserve Forces, the cadet movement and, more recently, wider defence. They are voluntary organisations, run by 13 regional committees representing their members, who are mostly unpaid volunteers from a wide range of backgrounds, including business, legal, education, local and national government, agriculture, banking, accountancy, property and military, both ex-regular and reserve. Collectively, they willingly give their time to further the interests of the reserves, the cadets and wider defence, and have considerable local influence networks. Each regional RFCA has a paid staff headed by a chief executive, appointed by its committee and reporting to it. The regional chairs sit on the national council, which is supported by its own chief executive and small staff. Because of their membership, RFCAs have critical links to business through regional business groups. They also have a range of equally important links to civic society through their membership and through 13 lords-lieutenant, who are their presidents.

As I mentioned earlier, the RFCAs maintain and develop most reserve and cadet properties—about 5,000 of them around the whole of the United Kingdom—and provide administrative support to the Army cadets. Recently, defence has given the RFCAs an additional, important role to deliver wider engagement with society and to encourage businesses and civic institutions to sign up to the Armed Forces covenant. This recognises that the RFCAs enjoy a degree of immersion in the civilian world which the MoD and Armed Forces lack. They do all this with an annual budget of about £112 million.

Perhaps partly because they are apolitical, the RFCAs have been especially successful in working with the devolved Administrations, managing to maintain consensus on matters where direct approach from the MoD could easily lead to friction. The RFCAs are currently unclassified, arm’s-length bodies, and Cabinet Office guidelines stipulate that it is good practice to apply a tailored review process to such bodies.

Accordingly, the RFCAs have undergone such a process. This review, the report of which is currently in draft, concludes that the RFCAs offer excellent value for money—a striking point, given the persistent weaknesses in the MoD’s own track record in managing property. It makes a number of detailed recommendations, many of which I accept, on matters such as updating service level agreements with the single services, the proper safeguarding of cadets, and so on. Its main concern appears to be the proper safeguarding of taxpayers’ money, something I also think is extremely important.

However, the report points out that the structure of the RFCAs, with no statutory basis for the council, is anomalous and—to tick the right boxes—suggests a fairly dramatic upheaval. Despite conceding the success of the RFCAs across their roles, the RFCA review proposes to put in place an arrangement under which an executive committee headed by the national chief executive would replace the council as the overall authority. National and regional councils would become purely advisory organisations. All appointments would be via an OCPA-compliant process—the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments—instead of election by the membership. In many cases, willing volunteers would be replaced by salaried individuals. The membership would be disenfranchised, though allowed to call themselves “associates”.

RFCAs are strictly non-party political, but there is an analogy here with a political party or a national charity. Suppose the national chief agent were put in charge, with regional agents reporting directly to him or her and the volunteer officers consigned to an advisory role. The loss of talent and commitment at all levels can easily be imagined. Yet, at a time when the Armed Forces are arguably more culturally isolated than ever before, this one strong defence bridgehead into civic society is threatened, critically risking damage to the delivery of the covenant.

Were the draft report’s proposals to go through, they would drive a coach and horses through valuable links to civic society which are at the heart of the Armed Forces covenant—one of the few remaining areas of policy where there is a broad consensus across Parliament and the devolved Administrations. It would also appear to typify the attitudes which the Prime Minister’s aide Dominic Cummings has firmly in his sights, as he says in his blog:

“The government system … is a combination of, inter alia: 1) extreme centralisation of power among ministers, officials … 2) extremely powerful bureaucracy (closed to outside people and ideas) defined by dysfunctional management incentivised to spew rules rather than solve problems”.


The draft report on the RFCA review proposes a solution to a purely bureaucratic issue by pulling down a successful structure and pulling up some of defence’s last remaining roots in the civilian world, which serve it so well. The perceived weaknesses can be addressed in a straightforward way without the wholesale change proposed, as has been explained to those driving the changes, with the council of the RFCAs being a legal entity under primary legislation. The RFCAs are happy to see the council put on a statutory footing; indeed, this would require much simpler amendment to primary legislation than the much more drastic surgery proposed under the review. The national and regional councils should remain volunteer-led, rather than a de facto extension of the MoD. The changes proposed in the review would, in my judgment, fatally undermine the very strengths that the report extols and seeks to preserve.

As Sir Roger Scruton, the philosopher who, so sadly, recently died and whose funeral took place on Friday, once said,

“good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created … the work of destruction is quick, easy and exhilarating; the work of creation slow, laborious and dull.”

Royal Marines

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, and so many others who have served. I am president of the Council of Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations and so want to focus on the Royal Marines Reserve.

Members of the RMR complete the commando course, earn the green beret and serve on front-line amphibious operations worldwide alongside their regular counterparts. They embody all the qualities the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, spoke of and provide an essential link to our civilian population. The RMR is a compact organisation, recruiting from four main unit locations in Bristol, London, Merseyside and Scotland, each of which has four or five detachments around the country designed to give them a good geographic coverage. The RMR punched above its weight in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first decade of the new millennium, when integration into the Regular Forces at the junior level was seamless and the professionalism and ability of the reserves was clearly recognised. As an example of this, in 2008 RMR Lance Corporal Matthew Croucher received the George Cross for his actions while deployed with 40 Commando in Afghanistan.

The RMR currently has men deployed on global counterterrorism and counterpiracy, maritime security operations and defence engagement. I understand that the RMR is on course to achieving its target manning level for 2020—the Minister might care to indicate the figures. There are, however, a number of issues affecting it and an important one is the slow responsiveness of the contracted service medical process. Candidates are frequently initially identified as potentially medically unfit and by the time they are reviewed and found to be fit, recruit training has started and the next chance to join is 12 months later. This is a recurring problem across the reserves and I urge my noble friend to address it.

The RMR routinely contributes to 3 Commando Brigade, the Lead Commando Group, 1 Assault Group RM and elsewhere; for example, through ship force protection teams. It provides an important contribution to British defence from a small establishment and at a small cost. It is a real blow that all overseas training in the current year has now been cancelled to help make the savings required, with likely effects on recruiting and retention. I am concerned that, perhaps because of its small size, the RMR’s contribution needs to be better recognised.