Armed Forces Bill

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Magan of Castletown, who has rightly pointed out the inadequacies of the funding package announced last week in the defence investment plan. However, that is not what I wish to talk about this afternoon.

I welcome the strengthening of the Armed Forces covenant, but I do so in the wider context of the funding—and underfunding—of defence. We put the Armed Forces covenant into being in 2011, following several years when the Armed Forces had been under huge pressure as a result of the double commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan. At that time, there was an imbalance between what the nation was asking the Armed Forces to do and what it was providing them with in order to carry out their tasks. That imbalance was translated into what is now the Armed Forces covenant. The covenant now focuses largely on individuals’ requirements and making sure there is no disadvantage, which is good, and we are now going to widen it and its legal underpinning.

I stress that the origin of the military covenant, as we called what is now the Armed Forces covenant, was a moral foundation to ensure a balance between what the nation was asking of the Armed Forces and what the Armed Forces were being given to do it with. In welcoming the strengthening of the covenant, I make the wider point that there is that moral consideration, as well as the legal underpinning.

Secondly, I welcome the defence housing strategy, but we have been there before. I have been in and out of the Ministry of Defence for the better part of half a century, and successive Governments have vowed to do what they can to improve the standard of service accommodation, both for married families and for single-living accommodation. They have identified money to be put to one side specifically to improve that, but time and again those pots of funds have been raided when other priorities were deemed to be higher. In the context of the underfunding of the defence investment plan, can the Minister say whether, this time, we have a commitment that the money being ring-fenced for the housing strategy will itself be preserved and used for the purpose for which it has been identified?

Thirdly, I welcome the reference in the Bill to a veterans’ commissioner for England. Such commissioners exist in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but there is no commissioner yet for England. Some 20 years ago, with a previous Government, one argued hard that there should be such a commissioner. The Government of the day said that there should not. Well, that same party is now in power, and we seem to be going down the track of having a commissioner for England. I welcome that, but as I understand it, it was announced almost two years ago and a person has not been recruited, identified and put in place.

Fourthly, I raise Clause 48, which amends the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 and will have some unintended consequences. I am not a diver, but the unintended consequence of strengthening that Act is that it places the hitherto innocent activities of diving parties into an illegal framework. If they conduct their diving as they have in the past, this legislation having changed, they will be conducting illegal activities that will render irrelevant their insurance to cover their hobby and diving practices.

As the Minister is aware, I chair the Gloucester 1682 Charitable Trust. That trust exists to fully expose for the benefit of the nation the story of the “Gloucester”, lost off the Norfolk coast on 6 May 1682. Why is that important? It was carrying James, Duke of York, who went on to become James II. If he had drowned, the course of English history would have been changed. If John Churchill, who was with him at the time, had drowned as well, he would not have gone on to become the first Duke of Marlborough, win the battles of Blenheim, Ramillies, Oudenarde and Malplaquet, and end the War of Spanish Succession. The course of European history would have been changed. I highlight the story of the “Gloucester” because we also run the risk of being prevented from continuing to excavate and bring to the surface artefacts that can tell the story of that ship and that important episode in British and European history. I therefore ask the Minister for assurance that the amendments to the Protection of Military Remains Act will not hinder our work as far as the “Gloucester” is concerned.

Fifthly and finally, I raise a subject I have raised many times in this House. In 2013, I was privileged to be given a debate in my name relating to the Northern Ireland Troubles. Well, 13 years later, we are still really no further forward. The Act recently passed has now been suspended, and the current Government’s intention to bring new legislation has itself been suspended. We cannot allow ageing soldiers, ageing veterans, to continue to run the risk of vexatious inquiries and subsequent court cases. If these things could have been settled, they would have been so 20, 30 or 40 years ago, when the evidence was fresh. Most of these cases collapse because the evidence is inadmissible and, frankly, old, and it is difficult to get fresh evidence. I therefore ask again that resumed efforts be made to bring fresh legislation forward to prevent further inquiries and the harassing of now aged and ageing veteran soldiers who served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

Defence Investment Plan

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I cannot say that we are seeking to join that bank, but within the MoD and across government there are considerations of what other mechanisms we might use to fund defence.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

What is the defence intelligence assessment of the Treasury’s inexplicable decision not to fully fund the strategic defence review of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson? If it is purely to force change on the Ministry of Defence and move from legacy systems to innovation, surely, that is a rather blunt instrument—or have I missed the point somewhere along the line?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. The original assumption was that we would look towards 2035 as when we need to be ready. However, with the intelligence and the work being done, we are looking more towards 2030, and that is in addition to what we do now. Those are the parameters within which government is operating, and that is the work the DIP seeks to address.

King’s Speech

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, yesterday, I had the privilege to visit an exercise being conducted this week deep underground, less than half a mile from your Lordships’ House. It was being conducted by the headquarters of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, a British-led NATO strategic reserve corps. This is the United Kingdom’s principal land fighting component dedicated to NATO. We have committed to make that corps available, with two fully rounded-out war-fighting divisions—that is a force of about 30,000—and the necessary combat support brigades. In the exercise, units of the corps were deployed forward in Estonia and connected to the exercise headquarters here in London. In the exercise scenario, the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps was facing two Russian combined arms armies in Estonia and was integrating military capabilities drawn from the land, air, space and cyber domains, all enabled by AI. It was an impressive demonstration of the best of the modern capabilities to which we aspire, drawing significantly on the Ukrainian experiences gained over five years on the battlefield.

I was very pleased to note the ambition, forward-thinking battlefield concepts and levels of innovation shared between the Army and industry, and especially that many are small and medium-sized enterprises and some using hedge fund money. The Army’s aim is to have this level of capability fully developed and deployed by 2030, the date by which it has assessed that Russia could mount a land attack in eastern Europe or the Baltic. If there was to be a ceasefire in Ukraine, this date could of course come forward, as Russia could reconstitute its forces more quickly. There was no doubting the commitment, enthusiasm and professional dedication demonstrated by all involved in that exercise, but the level of capability required to deter or defeat a Russian attack will not be met by 2030 at the current level of investment into our Armed Forces, and certainly not into our land forces.

There is talk of an additional £18 billion being spent on defence in the next four years, but that is not the £28 billion that the service chiefs have identified as necessary in the short term, nor will that take us to 3% of GDP by 2029, and certainly not to 3.5% by 2034. There may be a temptation, in trying to find this additional money, that His Majesty’s Government consider raiding the international development budget again. Already, we know that that has been reduced from 0.7% to 0.5% of GDP, and more recently to 0.3%. This dramatically weakens our soft power potential, which, when combined with our hard power capability, is what brings the UK influence on the international stage. More immediately, one has to wonder when, or if, the defence investment plan will ever be published. Without it, defence programmers cannot allocate money, contracts cannot be let to industry, production capabilities cannot be boosted and the security of our nation cannot be assured.

Yesterday morning, as I walked to the exercise location, the Household Division was rehearsing for the King’s birthday parade next month. We can all be very proud of the immaculate standards of the bands and the soldiers of the Household Division, and I am confident they will deliver a spectacular parade. But I would be even more proud if we were able to deliver a full war-fighting division into the field, let alone the two we have committed to NATO. Our enemies smile at our weakness and our friends shake their heads in disbelief at our lack of commitment to the security of Europe. I have said it before: we are drinking in the last chance saloon. The leadership of this country needs to wake up and take action before the dead hand of history calls time.

Strategic Defence Review 2025

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I am conscious that I am about the halfway point in our debate and therefore I risk some repetition, although repetition lends emphasis. I add my welcome to the majority of the 62 recommendations in the strategic defence review but emphasise that without sufficient and timely funding, the review will not make the impact to which the authors aspire and which the nation needs.

I believe we universally agree that the current funding plans are woefully inadequate and threaten to deliver the dire security outcomes that the review sets out to avoid. Irrespective of the many other funding pressures the Chancellor is juggling, this review must be fully funded to 3.5% of GDP by 2034 at the latest and not deferred until sometime after 2035.

At risk of further repetition, I remind your Lordships of the key figures relating to the late 1930s, a period of history with worrying analogies to today. In 1935 we were spending less than 3% on defence and failed either to deter or appease Hitler. In 1939, when the war broke out, that figure jumped up to 19%. In 1940, when we were fighting for our very survival, the figure was a staggering 46%. That is the cost of having to fight a war. Surely the Minister would agree that it is much better to pay the correct premium for capable Armed Forces now and insure ourselves against future war. Deterrence must be our strategic objective.

Funding is the big issue, but so too is our agility to respond quickly to new circumstances. If the war in Ukraine has taught us anything, it is that war drives the pace of innovation in ever-accelerating cycles. Changes on or above the battlefield, change on or under the surface of the sea and change within the characteristics of new threats are highly dynamic, but they do not amount only to embracing new technologies as the means for the future. Mass matters, whether it is masses of drones, masses of firepower or masses of soldiers on the ground. As the bloody front lines of Ukraine testify, quantity has a quality of its own. This applies equally to the quantum and timing of change in the defence-industrial sector, as well as in the zones of conflict. We must produce more and do it quickly.

An aspect of the SDR that is particularly to be welcomed is its emphasis on national preparedness and resilience, as a response not just to direct confrontation but to the kaleidoscope of threats in the grey zone. But, as president and founding chairman of the National Emergencies Trust, I am alarmed to hear that the timetable for delivering a more resilient nation mirrors the timelines of spending on hard aspects of defence—not until the mid-2030s. I am told that resilience planning is focusing on the nation being prepared to face new threats domestically—but not before the mid-2030s. I fear that in this area too, the no-money/spending tail is wagging the threat-response dog. Can the Minister comment on the timetable for strengthening our national resilience?

Of course, plans, when made, can be accelerated either for deterrence from threats abroad or for resilience to threats at home. But what intellectual justification can there be for not increasing our capability at home and abroad until the mid-2030s? I am not alone in believing it more likely that, following some form of ceasefire in Ukraine in the coming months, Vladimir Putin, with his armed forces reconstructed through the clear focus on his war economy and defence industry, will be in a position to test NATO’s resolve in two or three years’ time—perhaps sooner but certainly before the mid-2030s. Putin may not want to occupy one or all of the Baltic states again, but a serious incursion into one or other would test the viability of NATO’s Article 5. Would we fight for Estonia, and with what consequences at home or abroad? More to the point, would the United States fight for Estonia? Vladimir Putin, that unreconstructed KGB colonel, would love nothing better than to drive a wedge into NATO and shatter the cohesion that defeated his beloved Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union in the late 1980s.

Our Prime Minister said earlier in the year that he was ready and willing to put British boots on the ground in Ukraine; he may have been willing, but can the Minister tell the House when we will be ready? I submit that not until the mid-2030s will be too late and that it represents a huge risk to our cherished way of life.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief, not least because the points made by my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill are ones with which agree.

When my noble friend the Minister replies to this debate—which is worth having, without a doubt, and raises serious issues—can he reassure the House, first, that the commissioner will have the powers she or he needs to investigate, whether in individual or thematic investigations? Secondly, can he confirm that the amendment we are considering, however well-intentioned, which it clearly is, does not in fact add anything to the powers the commissioner already has under the Bill? Thirdly, can he say something about the role of anonymity in relation to these matters? I think there is a common concern around the House that people should feel able to raise matters in that way.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome this Bill and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward to this point. I will speak in support of Amendments 3 and 5. I believe that there is a distinction between a complaint that an individual wants to see resolved and the challenging of something that is wrong in the system. It is the challenging of something someone perceives to be wrong in the system that is at the heart of whistleblowing.

In order not to risk engaging your Lordships’ House any longer, I would like to say that, as a former Chief of the General Staff, I support this. I believe it would strengthen the chain of command and strengthen the role of the commissioner, and I urge support for Amendments 3 and 5.

[Lord Wrottesley (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly rise to support the amendments laid by my noble friends Lady Goldie and Lord Minto, and congratulate them on their principled work on matters defence and, in particular, on this Bill. I wholeheartedly wish to commend all noble Lords who have engaged with this legislation and the constructive contributions from across the House. I also declare an interest as a veteran.

I add my support for Amendments 3 and 5, as at the forefront of all our minds is supporting those men and women who serve, and their families who, in turn, support them. It is an honour and often a sacrifice to wear the uniform, and it is precisely because service personnel do serve for us and our freedoms that we enjoy these deeply cherished and fought-for freedoms. The very least we can do is strengthen protections around their welfare and well-being, formally safeguarding their voices and those of their nearest and dearest under whistleblowing regulations, so that they are always heard and their welfare is never taken for granted.

The whistleblowing provisions and clarifications sought by several contributors to this debate—those provisions inherent in these amendments—are vital to providing further support and protection to our service personnel and their families. As my noble friend mentioned, this Bill is stronger because of cross-party collaboration and the shared respect that we all have for those who serve. I put on record my support for these amendments. I hope they become part of this Bill and sincerely commend the work done by all involved in bringing the Bill before Parliament.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1935 we were spending less than 3% on defence? We failed to either deter or appease Hitler. Is he further aware that, in 1939, when the war had broken out, our defence spending rose to 19% and in 1940, when we were fighting for our lives, it was 46%? That is the disastrous cost of fighting a war. Does he agree that we must do all we can to prevent history repeating itself?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I completely agree. The noble Lord will know that at various conferences and in various decisions I have made I have talked about the importance of deterrence. That has to be at the forefront of our minds as well.

Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for the work he did on this, and for his general welcome and question. If noble Lords will forgive me, because it is such an important question I am going to read an answer, which is unusual for me. It is important that this is accurate with respect to Pakistan and the question from the noble Baroness. I apologise for this, but it is important that we get this right.

We are in regular contact with the Government of Pakistan and we are very grateful for their continued assurances that ARAP-eligible Afghans who have completed their security checks will not be deported. If an individual in scope of the review has their decision overturned, they should be offered the same level of protection from deportation from Pakistan. We are engaged in ongoing constructive dialogue with the Government of Pakistan over the ARAP scheme.

We have explored every avenue to try to extend protection from deportation enjoyed by Afghans in Pakistan. We have confirmed eligibility and completed security checks for those in scope of the review while it is under way. While we have not been able to find a mechanism for achieving this on the UK side, we are grateful to the Pakistan authorities for their continued assurances that ARAP-eligible Afghans will not be deported. Indeed, to my knowledge, no Afghan with confirmed ARAP eligibility has been deported from Pakistan. We look forward to their ongoing support as we relocate Afghans to begin their new lives in the UK.

I apologise for reading that, but it is important to be completely accurate.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. If any of the groups or individuals who supported the British forces in Afghanistan deserve proper treatment, it is the Triples, who supported our special forces in difficult and dangerous circumstances. In welcoming the content of the lengthy Statement, I am pleased that there is no party-political issue.

Would the Minister agree with me on two things? First, Mr James Heappey and the former Minister of State for Veterans’ Affairs Mr Johnny Mercer played a significant role in this, at some risk to their personal integrity. Secondly, would he agree that 25% is an interesting figure? Could the Government err on the side of generosity and allow more than 25% and, where the circumstances are that the decision is in the balance, act in favour of the individuals? As I said, they are extraordinarily deserving. We have to be very careful of our national and international reputation when we operate in faraway places.

Combat Air Capability

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As it stands, we are certainly sharing the costs with Italy and Japan, as the noble Baroness points out. Regarding other partners, we are considering that and discussions are taking place, without any firm commitment as it stands. Interoperability is key. She will know that Germany, France and Spain are also developing a sixth-generation fighter—SCAF—as is the United States. They are all part of NATO, so interoperability becomes essential.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, while we accept that future generations of fast jet aircraft should be able to fly off aircraft carriers and fixed land bases, will the noble Lord accept that we also have land forces that need major investment? Will he also consider that going to just 2.5% of GDP is wholly inadequate and that the conversation should be about 3% or 3.5%?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The review will, of course, look at the necessary profile with respect to air, land, sea and intelligence and technology sharing. The Government have made an absolute commitment to 2.5% and are determined to deliver on that as soon as they can.

Royal Navy: Climate Change Training

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

That was a very nice allegory; I entirely agree. It is embedded in everything that all services, not just the Royal Navy, undertake. This is to ensure that what is inevitable—the climate change we are facing within the next relatively short period of time—is completely planned and catered for. As I said, that will give us a strategic advantage.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I think we can all agree that the main purpose of the Question is to express our concerns about the health of our planet. However, I will extend that to say that I am concerned about the health—as the noble Lord, Lord West, will be pleased to know—of the Royal Navy. Will the Minister comment on His Majesty’s Government’s view of the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s statement yesterday that the economy should be put on a war footing, not just to grow the economy, but to grow the size of the defence budget from 2.5% to 3% in the interests of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I am increasingly thinking this is rather like Groundhog Day. I entirely agree, but the words “war footing” are slightly alarmist. There is no doubt that we are in a considerably more unstable environment and that we need to invest in industrial capacity to rebuild our stockpiles and re-equip all our forces. As I said the other day, we have 22 ships and submarines on order. We have 1,200 armoured vehicles currently on order. The RAF has its greatest lift capacity since the Second World War. The new Chinooks announced yesterday by the Secretary of State are extremely good news.

King’s Speech

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, has suggested, there may be formula for following a maiden speech, but it is genuinely the greatest pleasure and a real privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Old Windsor, and to congratulate him on his most excellent maiden speech, which focused quite appropriately on the importance of the Commonwealth, and to welcome him into your Lordships’ House. There is no doubt that the arrival of the noble Lord in this House will be of enormous benefit to our deliberations. After an early career with Barclays Bank, via a couple of years advising opposition shadow Ministers, the noble Lord then worked in the television media industry, first with Granada and later with ITV. In 2004, he began 19 years working in the Royal Household, first as Assistant Private Secretary then Deputy Private Secretary, and in 2017 he became the Private Secretary to Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. These years covered the noble Lord’s key role in the very successful state visit to Ireland; planning for the Diamond and Platinum Jubilees of our late Queen; culminating in the sadness of Her late Majesty’s death, the state funeral and the proclamation of His Majesty King Charles III. In his last months in office, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Old Windsor, worked jointly with Sir Clive Alderton to ensure a smooth succession within our monarchy. I have no doubt that our House will benefit hugely from the noble Lord’s insights into constitutional and other important matters.

It is also with great pleasure that I note His Majesty stated in the gracious Speech:

“My Government will continue to champion security around the world, to invest in our gallant Armed Forces and to support veterans”.


This very clear statement of intent is of course to be most warmly welcomed, but the live debate is how all this is to be delivered.

There is no shortage of issues to be championed around the world—Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Yemen and Armenia, to name but five. This Government’s record of support for veterans is significant: the establishment of the Office of Veterans’ Affairs, the appointment of a Minister of State for Veterans’ Affairs to sit in the Cabinet, and inserting a question into the last national census to determine the number of veterans in this country. All this is very positive and to be warmly welcomed.

My concern today is with the commitment

“to invest in our gallant Armed Forces”.

“Gallant” they most certainly are, but what about the level of investment? Of course, there are very many calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spend more on this or that issue and, as we approach a general election, we often hear the refrain, “There are no votes in defence”. However, as we approach this election, I am not so sure that that mantra holds quite so true. We can debate whether the current international environment is the most dangerous it has been since 1939. However, whether true or not, we can rightly observe that our world is precarious: a war in Europe, a war in the Middle East, conflicts in Africa and deep tensions around Taiwan, compounded by migratory pressures as a consequence of climate change and an inequitable distribution of wealth in the world.

The previous Secretary of State for Defence argued passionately for a greater share of overall GDP to be spent on defence, and with some success. However, the increases that he managed to secure have been largely swallowed up by inflation, the deficits in the defence equipment programme and the huge costs of replacing our nuclear deterrent—a cost that previously sat outside the defence budget, being regarded as a core national capability. Today, the Ministry of Defence must absorb the nuclear replacement costs at the expense of our conventional capabilities.

Technology is, of course, the way forward but the disappointing fact of life for Chancellors of the Exchequer to accept is that new technology does not fully replace older technologies; one complements the other. The number of clubs in the golf bag grows—replacement is not on a one-for-one basis. If we need a vivid demonstration of this, we need look no further than the bloody close- quarter fighting going on in Ukraine and in Gaza City.

Once again, I make the case for increased investment in our overall defence budget and especially in our land forces. The current Chief of the General Staff and his senior officers are making the very best of the resources that have been made available to them, and I congratulate them on this, but they and other commentators know that the level of investment in our land forces is insufficient. We would not be upgrading only 148 Challenger 2 tanks or taking out of service the Warrior armoured infantry fighting vehicles were more money to be available, not to mention the depletion of war stocks of ammunition, largely gifted to Ukraine. Yes, there is more money in the future programme later in the decade but today only 20% of the future programmes are committed to contract, and the remainder stand vulnerable to reduced or cancelled funding.

In the early 1930s, history shows that there were no votes in defence, but in 1939, when faced with a rising threat in Europe, we knew that we had begun to rearm too late. Our Army was defeated on the battlefield in May and June 1940. Today, there is not just a threat to our security in Europe but a proven aggressor in Europe. In 1935, we spent 3% of our GDP on defence. In 1939, when we had realised our mistake, the figure rose to 18%, and by 1940, when we were fighting for our very survival, it was 46%. Today, we spend less than 2.4% on defence. Are we doomed to let history repeat itself?