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.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I too support this amendment. I took part in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, in January 2020 when it appeared that the then Government were leaning towards adopting the recommendation that now appears from the Sullivan report. All the Back-Bench speakers on that occasion were against that course of action, with the possible exception of the Labour Front Bench, which did not commit itself one way or another. The only speaker who was cautiously in favour was the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who is normally a formidable advocate for the Government or any other cause. On this occasion, she acknowledged all the points that were made against the Government’s suggestion but nevertheless advanced some arguments in its favour. I wonder if her heart was really in it.

I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who we much respect, about the real advantages that will follow from this reorganisation—advantages which are supposed to compensate for the undoubted loss of the various links that have been so eloquently described around the Committee. In particular, I ask him to clarify whether there is any legal requirement to make this change. I suspect his notes will contain words such as “governance”, “accountability”, “assurance”, “transparency” and “public confidence”, but, stripping away the language, I need to be convinced that there is any actual legal requirement for a change of this sort.

I turn to the budget, which I think in the debate in 2020 was said to be £112 million. This is not a trivial sum, but when it is compared with the £333 billion-odd we spend on welfare and social security, it is. Is it felt that there has been some financial failure generally on the part of the organisations, apart from the changes which have been implemented from the Sullivan report? Is it considered better to have paid rather than volunteer participants in the organisation? How much will this increase expenditure? As has been said a number of times, how does this fit in with the devolution agenda? At the moment, although I do not in any way challenge the sincerity of the civil servants who have no doubt advised the Government that the change is for the better, I think the Committee needs persuading that the RFCAs’ unique characteristics are worth sacrificing on the altar of tidying up or centralisation.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I intend to speak to further amendments in this general area later today, and I do not wish to repeat the sensible arguments that noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords have already made as far as this matter is concerned. However, it seems to me that, with this fundamental series of changes, we are taking a pretty large sledgehammer to crack a nut. That nut is the Sullivan report of 2019, which itself has been largely attended to and many of the changes already made—so the sledgehammer is being applied to the wrong nut.

My greatest concern is that if these measures were to be implemented, the local character of our reserve and cadet forces would be changed beyond recognition, and the volunteering ethos on which they currently depend would itself go. Many noble Lords will know that since Covid many of our volunteering organisations have struggled to recruit further volunteers. I believe we would be putting a stake through the heart of our reserve forces and cadets associations, and their local character and volunteering ethos, if these measures were to go through.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this is one of those moments when it would be very easy to remain firmly in my seat. I declare my interest as Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Reserves and Cadets), and I therefore find myself something of a piggy in the middle of this debate, working as I do for the Government in that role. I have sought advice about speaking in this debate, and I do so strictly in a personal capacity. I am slightly worried about the very binary nature of this debate, and I sense that there are things that could perhaps be done to reassure the House. I should also declare specifically that, if this non-departmental public body is created, I will be the Ministry of Defence representative on that body, albeit ex officio, unpaid and with no voting rights.

None the less, this is not a competition for who can be the greatest advocate for the RFCAs. I am certainly in among them, and they have done tremendous work for many years. We must, as the Sullivan, PAC and NAO reports say, do everything we can to maintain that goodness. It cannot be an attack on them. In many ways, I am frustrated that we are focusing on the organisation right now, at the most crucial time, as Article 3 becomes ever more important than homeland defence. Rather than focusing on what future role the RFCAs can play in the defence of our realm and, through their local links, in generating wider awareness in society as to how much more could be done and the vital role that they can play, we are instead getting ourselves wrapped around our handles slightly through a technical change in their approach.

I do not see this as simply wiping away the regional nature of the RFCAs. There are absolutely technical matters that need to be resolved over representation. I understand the calls for voting rights, which will be discussed later, and indeed whether or not members should be paid, and that can all be discussed in detail. However, I recognise that there are elements in the Bill that pose questions which have yet to be answered.

As piggy in the middle and, I hope, someone who can draw the House together, I fully recognise the need now to implement the SDR recommendations to increase the size of the reserves by 20% when financial conditions allow. When it comes to cadets, a key element that our RFCAs deliver but which none the less has not really been mentioned much in this debate is the vital role of continuing to expand the cadets. These are all things that I see RFCAs doing and continuing to be enabled to do in future at a regional level. However, we have to recognise that in successive reports there have been criticisms over governance, recommendations for legal change and challenges about the relationship between those two—criticisms as much of the Ministry of Defence as of the RFCAs, let us be clear about that—particularly when it comes to financial matters.

I think there is a strong argument, but what I have not heard in this debate is what the proposed suggestions are—if we do not go down the NDPB route—for strengthening that financial relationship. It is public money, at the end of the day. What are the suggestions for changing the legal relationship between the MoD and RFCAs? I have not heard alternative suggestions, but perhaps we can explore that in the future.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Dannatt Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, again, I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord De Mauley, and in particular to reinforce everything he said about Amendments 50 and 51. On Amendment 51, I will say no more than that it plays into the issues I was trying to highlight in the previous group—to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, referred to just now—about the need to retain a representative and coherent voice for the individual RFCA memberships. My noble friend argued the case for a national voluntary body very well, and I do not intend to repeat the arguments he put forward.

I will, however, make a couple of points on Amendment 50. I mentioned earlier that my wife has the honour of being His Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of Buckinghamshire. In that role, she is ex officio president of SERFCA. We can easily talk about tradition in the context of supporting the work of the Reserve Forces and cadets. However, while I am a great one for wanting to preserve such traditions, I do not regard tradition on its own as the most important reason for maintaining a statutorily based role for lords-lieutenant in the regional councils.

The main argument is that the involvement of lords-lieutenant as honorary presidents or vice-presidents is highly valued by the RFCAs and by the reservists and cadets. Every year, my wife presents meritorious service awards to reservists in Buckinghamshire who have displayed outstanding achievement and commitment to the volunteer ethos. The significance of these awards to the recipients is without question enhanced by the fact that they are presented by the King’s representative. I would go further by saying that the lord-lieutenant’s role in such presentations plays no small part in maintaining the motivation of our reservists and cadets. Exactly the same point can be made in relation to employer recognition scheme awards and how they are perceived by those in receipt of them. The appointment of lord-lieutenant’s cadets is another example. It is an honour that cadets aspire to.

The Minister has said that there will be nothing to prevent lords-lieutenant fulfilling the same kind of honorary function once the Bill has been enacted. However, I for one do not feel that a loose arrangement of that kind would do justice to the well-defined function that lords-lieutenant fulfil in upholding the dignity of the Crown. It is a function that is born of tradition over many centuries, but, much more importantly, it is one that reflects the direct relationship between the Armed Forces and the Crown. Every time the King’s representative meets a reservist on a public stage to recognise his or her outstanding service, it is a reminder that service men and women across the country owe their loyalty, first and foremost, to the sovereign. It is not satisfactory for a statute of this kind to remain silent on that key constitutional point.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and other noble Lords, which seeks to ensure that lords-lieutenants’ involvement as presidents of regional RFCA councils remains enshrined in primary legislation. I support the comments just made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.

I should declare two interests. First, I was a deputy lieutenant for Greater London and for Norfolk for over 10 years, supporting the lords-lieutenant in those counties. Secondly, my wife is the current Lord-Lieutenant of Norfolk and president of the East Anglia Reserve Forces and Cadets Association.

I do not wish to repeat the arguments already made in support of Amendment 50 nor dwell on the historic links, as important as they are, between the Crown and the Reserve Forces and cadets in each county through the role of the lord-lieutenant, but instead to emphasise the leadership role that the lords-lieutenant play in their respective counties—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just referred to that. In Norfolk recently, as in many other parts of the country, we had a lot of fires during the drought period. Norfolk was particularly affected by that. My wife required a number of her deputy lieutenants to visit all the volunteer fire stations with letters of thanks from the county on behalf of His Majesty for their service. Therefore, it is not just Reserve Forces and cadets but the emergency services in the round.

This role is currently enshrined in primary legislation. That is where it should remain. Reducing it to secondary legislation seems unnecessary. As the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, said, it is perhaps even insulting to the Crown and to lords-lieutenant. I understand that, perhaps not surprisingly, neither Buckingham Palace nor, more worryingly, the Association of Lord-Lieutenants have been formally consulted on this proposed change. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.

At a time of increased threats to our national security, every effort should be made to promote our Reserve Forces and those, such as lords-lieutenant, who support them. That support is, of course, freely given and at no cost to the nation. Moreover, our cadet forces are the largest youth movement in the country and provide great character training and personal development for those involved. That many cadets go on to join our Regular or Reserve Forces is a most welcome by-product, and, as has already been mentioned, initiatives such as the annual appointment of the lord-lieutenant’s cadet is a much-cherished accolade in most counties and an incentive to excellence.

The Bill as it stands serves to weaken the hugely important links between the Crown, through His Majesty’s lords-lieutenants, and communities throughout the nation at a time of great insecurity. I strongly urge His Majesty’s Government to think again. I firmly support Amendment 50.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I too support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord De Mauley. I say from the outset that I do not oppose reform in principle and I did not put my name to the notices to oppose Clause 38 or Schedule 6 standing part, which the Committee discussed earlier. However, there are two further things in this reorganisation that we must not lose, as other noble Lords have already outlined. I am not persuaded that the Bill as drafted protects either of them.

The first is independent reporting, which is the subject of Amendment 52. The associations provide annual advice to defence by two formal means. One of them is the external scrutiny team report on the state of the Reserve Forces. That report is at present the only genuinely independent annual assessment of the reserves that this House receives. If responsibility for it passes to a body sponsored by, funded by and accountable to the Ministry of Defence, we do not merely change who writes it; we lose the thing that made it worth reading. We would be losing it in the very Bill that increases our reliance on the reserves. A department expanding its call on a force that it also grades is not a comfortable arrangement and Parliament will need that independent view more in the coming decade, not less.

The second is the standing of the regional structure, which Amendments 50 and 51 address. These associations were established in 1908 precisely to root the reserve in the county. As other noble Lords have said, the lords-lieutenant have presided over them ever since.

Amendment 51 would provide a national council of the regional chairs, so that the volunteer structure has a collective voice rather than 13 separate ones. This is not just sentiment and ceremony, important though they are; the office of lord-lieutenant is what gives the reserve unit in a market town its standing within the county, and it costs the public purse nothing at all. My concern is that efficiency reforms have a habit of removing precisely the parts that look inefficient on a spreadsheet because they are voluntary and unpaid.

That is also the point behind Amendment 48. Non-executive members who serve without payment serve because they care about the reserves and cadets. I would be sorry to see that ethos priced.

I recognise the governance case that the Ministry of Defence has made, and everything in this group and the previous one is offered as an attempt to improve the new body rather than obstruct it. I ask the Minister to tell the Committee specifically what safeguards will preserve the independence of the external scrutiny team report and how the role of the lords-lieutenant will be maintained under the new body. If those assurances can be given from the Dispatch Box, a good deal of the anxiety expressed in these two groups of amendments would fall away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 55A stands in my name. It is rather a late amendment, and this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for inadvertently gazumping his amendment on Clause 48 standing part of the Bill. I look forward to hearing his contribution on that in a moment. I read with interest his comments on that issue at Second Reading, and I am glad to have the chance to take part in this debate on that issue as well, since I do believe that Clause 48 should be in this Bill.

At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, mentioned the “Gloucester”—not HMS “Gloucester”, for she was built and launched in that dark period of our history when we temporarily cast aside the monarchy. The “Gloucester” was lost off the Norfolk coast on 6 May 1682. On board, and thankfully not lost with her, were James, Duke of York, who went on to become King James II, and John Churchill, who went on to become the first Duke of Marlborough. As the noble Lord rightly said, had they been lost, the course of not just British but global history would have been changed. Such is the power of our maritime heritage.

I had a solemn and more recent reminder of this over the Summer Recess, when I had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands with the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. I found it profoundly moving to see the buoy in San Carlos Water, which marks the resting place of HMS “Antelope”, one of the Royal Navy warships that was lost in that conflict—along with HMS “Ardent”, HMS “Coventry” and HMS “Sheffield”, as well as RFA “Sir Galahad”, SS “Atlantic Conveyor” and the landing craft Foxtrot 4.

The Falklands War and those who gave their lives in waging it were among the spurs for the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, which Clause 48 seeks to amend. I support the ways in which it proposes to do so. While the 1986 Act gave immediate and automatic protection to wrecked aircraft, it requires wrecked ships to be individually designated in order for them to be protected. This means that shipwrecks remain vulnerable to disturbance, souvenir hunting, salvage activity or archaeological interference before formal designation has occurred. That process requires secondary legislation. Noble Lords across the Committee know how long it can take to obtain legislative slots. Indeed, it took 16 years—until 2002—for the first designations under the 1986 Act to come into force. Those who have been lost at sea in the service of our nation should not have to wait for secondary legislation to deliver the protection that they deserve.

Clause 48 also seeks to remove the restrictive time constraints which apply to protected places and controlled sites—broadly since the First World War for the former or within 200 years for the latter—to ensure that historic military shipwrecks from before these rather arbitrary cut-off points can also be protected. There should be no temporal limit to our gratitude to those who have died to preserve the freedoms that we enjoy today.

Clause 48 will not change the system which has been well understood by responsible divers for many years. Diving in protected places will continue to be permitted on a “look but don’t touch” basis and diving in a controlled site will continue to require a licence. However, the changes in Clause 48 will help to deter unauthorised salvage, damage to our shared underwater heritage and the desecration of the final resting places of brave service personnel.

I hope, therefore, that Clause 48 will remain part of the Bill—also because I seek to amend it. My Amendment 55A seeks to add to Clause 48 and clarify a worrying confusion in the law which pertains to military shipwrecks. The UK has long asserted that sunken state vessels enjoy protection through the principle of sovereign immunity. This means that they cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of another state. Crucially, the ships cannot have salvage services conferred on them without the permission of His Majesty’s Government.

As a proud seafaring nation with a history as long as ours, the UK has a considerable number of sunken state vessels—currently estimated to be over 5,000—lying at the bottom of seas and oceans across the globe. The principle of sovereign immunity is used to protect these vessels, their heritage significance and the last known resting place of the sailors who went down with them. Without the principle of sovereign immunity, our underwater cultural heritage would be extremely vulnerable to salvage, since consent to salvage sunken vessels is not required in law except in very limited circumstances.

It ought to be as simple as that, but it may not be. The Crown Proceedings Act first muddied the waters in 1947, modifying the application of sovereign immunity to His Majesty’s vessels by stating that the civil law of salvage would apply to them. In effect, this removed the protection of sovereign immunity from sunken state vessels. This provision was subsequently restated in Section 230(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which brought the 1989 International Convention on Salvage into force in the United Kingdom.

In the decades since, the Ministry of Defence has taken the view that Section 231 of the Merchant Shipping Act applies only in UK territorial waters—out to 12 nautical miles—and that sunken state wrecks beyond our territorial waters remain protected under the principle of sovereign immunity from unauthorised salvage. That is certainly the interpretation reflected in the most recent guidance published in 2014 by the MoD and DCMS. Although it pre-dated my time as Heritage Minister, that was the guidance in place when I served at DCMS in the last Parliament.

Since then, I have been alerted by the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee to legal research conducted by academics at Plymouth University’s law school, which suggests that this interpretation may not be correct. Their finding is that the effect of Section 230(1) of the 1995 Act is to remove the protection of sovereign immunity from all state vessels wherever they are located, leaving sunken ships from the Royal Navy and other state vessels vulnerable to salvage without the permission of the United Kingdom.

The academics who conducted that research are naturally concerned to have reached that conclusion, but they are convinced of it and very keen that action should be taken to remedy it. Even if their conclusions are debatable, as points of law often are, I hope the Minister will agree that this is not the sort of matter where there ought to be any doubt or scope for unseemly legal disputes.

The remedy I have suggested in Amendment 55A is not the perfect one—I am limited somewhat by the scope of the Bill—but I ask the Minister whether he will look into this matter carefully, consider the legal research that has been conducted and see whether there is the possibility of using the Bill to put the matter entirely beyond doubt. I would certainly be very glad to discuss this further with him, in concert with the legal experts who have looked at this in greater detail. I beg to move.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

I oppose Clause 48 standing part of the Bill. There are two issues here. One relates to the wrecks that contain military remains; the other relates to diving activities related to those wrecks, which the Bill will describe as protected places. My contention is that insufficient detail has been provided in relation to the nature and definition of the wrecks themselves, and that there has been a lack of consultation with the diving community, whose hitherto legitimate activities could be constrained or rendered illegal by Clause 48 as it stands.

With regard to the wrecks themselves, which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, spoke about at length, there can be no issue with the principle that warships that contain the human remains of service men and women who lost their lives carrying out their naval duties should remain undisturbed, as is the case with aircraft or bodies recovered from battlefields. However, there is an issue about which wrecks qualify to be covered by Clause 48.

The Minister will be aware, from correspondence that he has received and which I have seen, that many believe there is considerable ambiguity on what is proposed to be covered under Clause 48 and what is not. Many believe the definition of “military service” is too vague. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, has proposed one alternative. There are many other alternatives, one such being, “A commissioned military vessel or vessel under direct Admiralty command at the time of loss”. My point is that there are several definitions that could apply and that the “military service” definition is too vague.

Fortunately, time precludes a detailed scrutiny of the concerns raised, but my request on this aspect is that further consideration is given to the ships to be covered by this clause and that clarification is provided, ideally by Report—or, indeed, that this clause does not stand part of the Bill pending further consideration and fresh legislation proposed on another occasion.

With regard to diving activities in and around designated wrecks, I declare an interest as chair of the Gloucester 1682 Trust, although I am not a diver myself. The Minister knows, as do the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, as former Ministers, that I have been raising the issue of the wreck of the “Gloucester”, lost off Norfolk on 6 May 1682, for several years. I will not detain the Committee now with the otherwise fascinating story of the “Gloucester”—the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred to it and its history is now a matter of interesting public record—but it has drawn me into an understanding of diving and the problems that Clause 48, as drafted, creates for the hobby diving community, which has tens of thousands of participants in this country. I touched on some of those issues at Second Reading.

I will try to be brief. The diving community has a number of concerns. Among the issues is that the prohibition on the use of grapnels, anchors or shots should be removed, as their use is essential on health and safety grounds to protect scuba divers, particularly in the uncertain waters of the North Sea. The grounds for rejection of this objection pose a situation which, in practice, does not really exist. The damage that could be caused by such grapnels and anchors is absolutely minimal and not going to be of a major nature as the Bill rather suggests.