King’s Speech

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, for some variety of topic I will start by warmly welcoming the wider acceptance across government departments of the covenant duty of care in the forthcoming Armed Forces Bill. This was much pressed for by me and others in debates on the 2021 Bill.

Will the Government now tackle the dark scourge of lawfare? I have repeatedly raised concerns about growing legal pressures placed upon our Armed Forces which risk undermining operational effectiveness and fairness for those who serve. I first raised this when the Human Rights Bill was being debated in 1998. I argued that there were incompatibilities between that Bill and the then three single service disciplinary Acts. The sitting Lord Chancellor assured the House that it would always be possible in a combat situation to resile or derogate from the Human Rights legislation, as necessary. Practical experience since has shown that withdrawing from the Human Rights Act for combat reasons has never been considered possible, let alone attempted. However, numerous operational cases based on human rights legislation have made their way through the courts—even to the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.

A decade ago, in a debate on alleged war crimes and the interplay between international law and domestic legislation, I and others pressed the Government to reintroduce formal Crown immunity for overseas operations. The complex and expanding legal landscape risked burdening commanders and front-line troops with uncertainties at moments when clarity is essential. Later, during a debate on vexatious legal claims against British service personnel, I and others pressed for combat immunity or other legal protection to be arranged for those engaged in active operations. In the Queen’s Speech debate the following year, I urged Ministers to consider both combat immunity and a statute of limitations for historic allegations, arguing that our service men and women deserve clarity and protection when involved in testing combat operations.

Our Armed Forces must of course operate within the law, but they must also be protected from legal encroachment that threatens their ability to act decisively in combat. The highly respected US army general, General Petraeus, said that the UK must decide how its legal architecture supports rather than inadvertently constrains the effectiveness of those it asks to serve.

Recently, we have seen examples of apparent piracy on the high seas, when special operations forces boarded a vessel. Fortunately, no individual member of the crew was hurt or died as a result of the boarding. If they had been, and a claim was made, would the special operations member or the Minister who authorised the seizure be in the dock? Should it ever be a Minister? The position is unclear, and would be even more so were a Prime Minister to order the destruction of a terrorist civil airline, akin to the 9/11 attacks. These problems, sometimes summarised as lawfare, must be grasped.

With no sign of a new Bill of Rights, the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill would be an opportune legislative moment. Much detailed work has already been done, and I urge the Government to use the Armed Forces Bill to act on this subject.