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?

Armed Forces

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Soames, on securing this important and timely debate. I thank him for concentrating his remarks on the commitment and excellence of our soldiers, sailors, Air Force personnel and marines. As the war in Ukraine has demonstrated so starkly, it is the morale and determination of those in military uniform which results in success or failure on the battlefield.

However, we need to place what our excellent service people do on a daily basis in the context of the real world which is around us. The refresh of the integrated review earlier this year confirmed the tilt towards the Indo-Pacific and the need to support our allies and friends in that region in the face of an expansionist China. There is the unfinished business of confronting Islamist militancy in the Middle East and increasingly in Africa. Dominating across all environments is our support for Ukraine in defeating Russian aggression. This broadens out to our vital participation in NATO and other multinational commitments and the need for sustained deterrent deployments, such as in Estonia and Poland.

All this comes at a cost, especially in the land environment, which remains so poorly underinvested. In this month’s edition of the Army’s in-house magazine, Soldier, I was not surprised to read this:

“Talk to personnel in any section of the British Army at the moment and there is one piece of feedback you 'll hear over and over again; everyone is being asked to do more with less”.


Some will say it was ever thus, but I disagree. There have been times in the recent past when there was a balance between commitments and resources. Eventually this came right, at the height of the two campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that was with an Army of over 100,000 regular soldiers and an Army Reserve near its recruited strength of 30,000. Today, we are not engaged in major combat operations ourselves but the criticism is still there: everyone is being asked to do more with less.

Is it any wonder that there is this imbalance when the Regular Army is on course to reduce to 73,000 soldiers and the Army Reserve is down to around 26,000? The ultimate illustration of “more with less” must surely be the situation in 1st Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, a close-support artillery regiment in 3rd Division—supposedly our one deployable war-fighting division. That regiment has no operational guns. An artillery regiment with no guns is truly reminiscent of the inter-war years, when football rattles replaced machine guns in training.

I exaggerate somewhat to make my point. We have gifted 32-tracked AS90 self-propelled artillery guns to Ukraine, but what about the replacement capability? That is what the commanding officer of 1st RHA needs to tell his soldiers about. It is a Swedish system called Archer. We have bought 14 of these wheeled vehicles and, all being well, they will be in service next November. What about our tracked Warrior infantry fighting vehicles? There was no money for a mid-life upgrade, so they are to be retired and a wheeled alternative introduced instead. Is the plan to upgrade only 148 of our Challenger 2 main battle tanks to Challenger 3 capability enough? Frankly, I mind less about the reduction in our manpower than I do about the reduction in our equipment.

Of course, there are those who would say that armoured fighting vehicles are oh-so 20th century and that the future is with hi-tech drones, clever imagery and high-speed communications, and of course they are right. However, the sad and expensive fact of life that Chancellors and Defence Secretaries must confront is that, as the conflict in Ukraine is showing, the new ways of warfare are not replacing the old ways of warfare but complementing them. A blending of the old chin-to-chin slugging match is as important today as the hi-tech developments of the 21st century. Satellite-informed button-pressing long-range firepower is in lockstep today in Ukraine with brutal gutter-fighting with bayonet, grenade and short-range drones. There are no revolutionary silver bullets. We are told that there is to be an investment in Army programmes—the Future Soldier programme— but largely towards the end of the decade. Is that good enough or soon enough? In any event, that programme must not be subject to further cuts when the squeeze comes.

In the 1930s, there was the threat of a dictator rising in Europe. We chose to appease him. Too late, we began to re-arm. Mercifully, just in time, we produced enough fighter aircraft to win the Battle of Britain. However, the British Army, undermanned, undertrained, underequipped and transported in wheeled lorries, faced an armoured enemy that had embraced the then new technology of the main battle tank. In May and June 1940, our Army was defeated in France and escaped annihilation via Dunkirk. Today, there is a new dictator in Europe—not just a threat but a proven aggressor. Are we re-arming? Are we increasing our defence expenditure? Are we taking our defence responsibilities seriously? In 1935, we spent 3% of GDP on defence. Today, it is not even 2.5%. By 1939 we were spending 18%, and in 1940 it was 46%. Does history have to repeat itself? I sincerely hope not.

Ukraine

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Friday 25th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I join the near-universal condemnation of current operations by Russia against Ukraine. Frankly, the return of violent war in Europe is an obscenity, and a return to state-on-state war is not acceptable in the 21st century. Putin and Putin’s Russia must pay the price for what they are currently carrying out. However, many of us will have seen that many Russians do not support what President Putin is doing. They see this as Putin’s war and the Kremlin’s war; it is not their fight and we need to recognise that.

In condemning what the Russians are doing, I commend the Ukrainians for the spirit with which they are resisting. They may be outgunned and out-tanked, but they are certainly not out-spirited, and we need to support that spirit. Our response must be unified, intense and sustained. The unity of the West is one of our strongest weapons. The sanctions being mooted must be the widest and deepest imaginable and, moreover, the isolation of Russia from all international fora must be complete. All this must be sustained for the long term.

If Putin’s operational aim is to effect regime change in Kyiv in order to bring Ukraine into the wider Russian sphere, I suggest that our strategic aim should be regime change in Moscow to bring Russia back into the family of civilised nations. Closer to home, I welcomed last year’s announcement by the Government of an increase in defence spending, but the quantum of that remains insufficient and the balance within it remains incorrect. Our land warfare capability has become a shadow of our other capabilities. Frankly, we need to see an investment in our main battle tanks, in our infantry fighting vehicles, our artillery and our air defence. We may aspire to put an armoured division into the field, but we cannot: at the most, we might be able to field a weak armoured brigade. That is completely unacceptable.

Theodore Roosevelt, speaking about international relations, said:

“Speak softly and carry a big stick”.


With regard to Ukraine, we have been speaking softly, but I ask: where is our big stick?

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

My Lords, I support these amendments, in particular Amendment 4, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I have special reasons for doing so. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said that, when he was in office, it took a long time to persuade local councils and devolved powers to agree to implement the covenant. I dispute the fact that he got them all to agree; I come from Northern Ireland and there is a particular problem there. For that reason, Amendment 4 is even more important.

In Northern Ireland, the devolved Government and many of the councils do not support the covenant. Therefore, where do we go for support? The only place we can go, without, if you like, disfranchising our veterans, is to a Secretary of State. I am sure the Minister will say that this amendment comes in the part of the Bill that affects England and that it therefore does not affect the other nations and cannot stand on its own. However, it would take just a stroke of a pen to add this for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Northern Ireland issue is colossal. We do not have more veterans than anywhere else but, because of our Troubles and the local security forces, we have an awful lot more in relation to our size. Of course, we have veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well. The number is significant, and these people have nobody at all to be their champion as far as the covenant goes.

At the moment—one does not need to go into the detail—the covenant is actually being administered quite well at a different level, below the radar, and we do not want to bring that up as a subject. However, on the idea of having a final place or person that people can go to, I support Amendment 4 because it brings a Secretary of State into this. It should therefore be written throughout that the Secretaries of State in the devolved areas have responsibility for this and are just quietly overseeing it. It is not necessarily a devolved issue and can be retained through the Secretary of State. He would have an influence on our veterans being supported as they should be. I certainly support these amendments.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I also support Amendment 4. I ask your Lordships to reflect on the origin of the Armed Forces covenant, which we find in the Armed Forces Acts, going back to 2011. It was not a new idea dreamed up by the Government of the day but the beginnings of the codification of something that had existed for quite some time as an informal covenant or agreement between those who serve and the Government who require them to carry out certain operations.

The covenant is effective when the balance between the requirements placed on the Armed Forces community and veterans is itself in balance. In the days and years leading up to 2011, when the Armed Forces covenant went into law, and particularly during the most difficult period when operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were being conducted together, the balance was definitely out of kilter and we were out of balance as far as the informal aspect of the covenant was concerned.

Who could better personify and embody the government side of the balance between the Government who require the Armed Forces to carry out operations and the servicepeople who conduct those operations than the Secretary of State? I fully support Amendment 4. I support the further codification of the covenant and any moves to increase its scope, but particularly the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which would make the Secretary of State a pinnacle and personification of the Government’s side of the covenant. That is absolutely critical.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I too support Amendments 4 and 17. What brings me to this conviction is a case in which the widows of four soldiers from the Royal Marines were asked to leave their houses within three months of their deaths. They had nowhere to go. Another soldier who survived the same battle came to see me in Bishopthorpe, together with four other members of the Royal Marines, to say that we had to protest about the way widows were treated. There was talk about the covenant, but it had not yet come through. To raise the profile of this issue, they wanted me to join them in a parachute jump. At my age, this is quite serious business, but I thought that yes, I would join them. We were up there, at 14,500 feet, and, thank God, I survived; there was no real trouble, and I landed properly. Do you know what happened? People who saw this and learned what had been done donated a lot of money, and those four widows were housed in new builds, supported by a landowner who gave them a place to build houses.

That is what the covenant is about in the end: that we should look after anybody who has done their duty for the service of the Crown and the nation. The Bill is right to require local authorities and other places to have due regard to the covenant, but I would have thought that the Government should be first in line to have due regard to it, because the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament, unlike local authorities. We could have some junior Minister reporting on what is happening and what is not happening, but the issue of democracy at the heart of this is that members of the Government are answerable to Parliament and can therefore be asked questions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is right to include the Secretary of State in Amendments 4 and 17. If they were agreed, the covenant would no longer be given to people of good will to try to do whatever they want—the Government would actually be answerable, and we could ask them questions.

This amendment is timely. I hope we will all support it and that the Government will see it as an improvement, not an attempt to create more jobs and work for the Secretary of State. In the end, our soldiers ultimately look to them for a voice, for help and for support.

I did that parachute jump and was very glad to see the covenant a few years later, but it still did not quite do what this amendment is trying to do. I say to the Government: do not come back to this again—include the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 26, in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker. We have retabled this amendment from Committee due to the strength of feeling on this issue across the House. Commonwealth service personnel and other non-UK personnel have contributed an enormous amount to our national defence, and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

Extortionate visa fees have left non-UK veterans facing financial ruin and feeling abandoned by the country they served with courage and distinction. I was shocked when the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said in Committee that Hong Kong veterans feel that

“they are being treated as aliens, not veterans of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.”

I remember how the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said that the welcome approach to former Afghan staff means that government policy towards

“foreign and Commonwealth soldiers who have stood shoulder to shoulder with us and fought in many campaigns … is an anomaly and it is bizarre.”

I also remember how the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said that the MoD policy change that now allows Gurkhas to apply some 18 weeks before leaving service

“does not address the issue of cost”.

The Minister stated:

“We recognise that settlement fees place a financial burden on non-UK serving personnel wishing to remain in the UK after their discharge”.


So why is action on this issue so slow? I am grateful that the Minister told the House that 6,398 responses were received in the Government’s consultation, but we are still not further forward when the Minister says only that

“the Government will publish their response in due course.”—[Official Report, 2/11/21; cols. GC 337-41.]

This answer is no longer acceptable. We need to know when and how the Government will act, and they should not hide behind the usual ministerial lines to kick the can down the road.

I remind the Minister of the large sums involved. Under current rules, Commonwealth personnel face a fee of £2,389 per person to continue to live in the UK, after having served for at least four years. This means that someone with a partner and two children could face a bill of £10,000 to stay in Britain. I will listen very closely to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

I will make two points, a broader one and a narrower one that is particularly germane to this amendment. My broader point picks up the discussion in your Lordships’ House about the wider duty of care standard, which we debated in the context of the overseas operations Bill, introduced at Second Reading of this Bill and discussed and debated in Committee. I am encouraged by the Minister’s various responses at the various stages of these two Bills. The Ministry of Defence appears to be going very much in the right direction, which is why an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to put in place a duty of care standard has not featured on Report of this Bill.

My narrower point still relates to duty of care and duty of care standards, with particular regard to former service men and women who served in Hong Kong, Gurkhas, and foreign and Commonwealth individuals. The latter make up a large proportion of the British Armed Forces today. I come back to the very narrow point I made in Committee: it is an anomaly that among those withdrawn from Afghanistan in Operation Pitting in August were former members of the Afghan national army, who have now been given right of residence in this country and are in a better position than foreign and Commonwealth soldiers, and Gurkha soldiers who have served shoulder to shoulder with us for at least four years, and in many cases for much longer.