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.