Armed Forces Bill

Lord Morse Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morse (CB)]

I am delighted to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser. I am an Army brat. I am not sure how many of them are in the room, but my father was a serving officer and I was brought up in some 25 different insalubrious married quarters around the world, so I have some feeling for what we speak of. In addition to that, as Comptroller and Auditor-General, I had the pleasure of making quite a lot of reports on both the MoD as a whole and on the Annington Homes “deal”, which is probably the most neutral expression I can use.

I am clear that we owe a massive debt to the Armed Forces, and it is not easy to pay it off, because it requires seeing them integrate into society in a comfortable way, which is often very difficult for them, quite painful, and not always successful to be honest. We need to recognise responsibility for a lot of people who have been deeply embedded in major institutions for long periods, and are coming out of that and trying to live what we would call a normal life. They need help when they are doing that, and if we are not responsible, then I do not know who is.

I respect and support the objectives of this Bill, and I believe the best way I can help is by trying to point out a few areas where we need to be on guard against building disappointment into the legislation. The Bill places a legal obligation on various public bodies that are likely to be providing services to service people before or after retirement to give due consideration to the armed services covenant in making decisions on access to their services. This is positive, but it is important to remember that local authorities have a wide range of services they are legally obligated to provide to their residents, as do health providers. There is a significant difference between a legal obligation to give due consideration, which could be satisfied by having a minuted discussion, and an obligation to provide a service where residents can and frequently do seek judicial review to enforce provision of services. I suspect that many local authorities feel they are under heavy financial pressure already, and struggle to meet their existing statutory obligations, so the obligation to consider the covenant may sometimes produce disappointing results for people who believed that they were walking forward with the Armed Forces covenant in their hand, expecting a fulsome response. It may be very difficult for local authorities to do that.

Local authorities may be able to seek relief under the new burdens rules, but most applications of this relief are intended to provide transitional cover only, so the burden will generally last a lot longer than the relief. Notwithstanding that some service providers support champions to assist forces people to find their way to what may be available, it may be worth while to consider an independent professional advocacy service modelled on the ombudsman, with ombudsman-style authority and the ability to command witnesses. That would provide much more effective and wider enforcement of their rights, or at least make sure that, when we say “due consideration”, it really means something. Having an authoritative voice at the table might help a great deal.

On service accommodation, the record of underachievement is a long one. The Annington Homes example is currently in the press, although it all took place a long time ago. Put briefly, this was a sale and lease back of a large estate of MoD-owned properties in need of extensive repair. The deal provided the MoD with a significant capital payment and a future rental obligation, but the responsibility to keep the estate in repair has been the subject of a long-running dispute. Meanwhile, the estate has become progressively more dilapidated and, in some cases, uninhabitable. The lump sum that the MoD received certainly did not go into keeping the estate in repair. The moral of the story is that assets with no income stream to support maintenance lose value and fail in their primary purpose of providing good-quality accommodation for forces people.

Could this sort of thing happen again under the Bill’s provisions on property? It is obviously not meant to. Let us answer that by looking at the three pillars of The Defence Housing Strategy 2025. The first looks to a renewal of defence family housing stock over a 10-year period and commits £9 billion to support this. The second calls for an independent body for defence housing and the third looks to ensure that defence housing and defence land deliver for the nation. I will come back to that one.

The first two pillars look mutually reinforcing, although it would be helpful to set a standard that housing stock could be brought to and maintained at, rather than just hoping it will be in good condition. As we saw with Annington Homes, maintenance is crucial in sustaining the value and usability of a property. Since lack of maintenance is not necessarily obvious, it is perilously easy to rob Peter to pay Paul elsewhere in the MoD budget. I have seen this happen quite a few times. One suggestion to push back on this would be to set a required enforceable objective, perhaps treating the decent homes code, which is familiar to the MoD, as the basement and then building up from that to the quality of accommodation we want this scheme to deliver. We could and should think about that.

On the third pillar, the objective of delivering for the nation may involve delivering to the nation instead. The objective has a Treasury-ish tone to it. The pressure to generate substantial funding and to assist in the pursuit of national housebuilding targets and other wider policy objectives could become a very powerful driver. However, this need not be irreconcilable with providing excellent accommodation for our armed services, provided this is suitably protected and the defence property budget is specifically ring-fenced and protected so that it is accumulated over the 10-year period specified for renewal and not accessible for other purposes.

The enshrinement of the Armed Forces covenant in law is a significant step forward. The ambitions inherent in it deserve our support and as much reinforcement and stiffening on the delivery front as we can bring to bear. We need our military, now more than for many years, and we owe it our strong engagement in this Bill.

Armed Forces Bill

Lord Morse Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Morse]

12: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Independent review(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent authority to review the operation and effectiveness of section 2 and to receive representations from individuals who are affected by this Act.(2) The review must be completed within three years of the day on which this Act is passed.(3) A copy of the review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that there was an independent review of whether the specified persons have had due regard to the Armed Forces Covenant in taking decisions on specified matters.

[Lord Morse (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name, comprising four new clauses after Clause 2—a little excessive, perhaps. When I last spoke on this subject, I characterised myself as an “Army brat”. I realise that I should perhaps broaden my claim to relevant knowledge on this subject by stating that I have served as chair of the Office for Local Government—I will say a bit about local government —and as defence commercial director in my past life.

My concern is a practical one. Parliament is being asked to create new statutory duties. Whenever Parliament does so, it has a responsibility not merely to express worthy sentiments and aspirations but to satisfy itself that those duties are effective, affordable and capable of proper scrutiny. The amendments therefore address four related questions. First, how will Parliament know when the legislation is working, and how will it measure that effective working? Secondly, what will the impact be on those public authorities expected to implement it? By this I mean the financial and well-being impact on those bodies. Thirdly, who will bear the cost? Finally, who will independently assess whether the intentions of Parliament are actually being achieved?

Amendment 13 would require an annual report to Parliament on the operation and effectiveness of the covenant duty. Under the amendment, that report would examine

“whether members of the armed forces community continue to experience disadvantage arising from service life”,

the outcomes public bodies are achieving in addressing that disadvantage, what expenditure has been incurred, and what improvements have been achieved. In other words, is this going anywhere? But there is a further reason for annual reporting. The Armed Forces covenant reflects an enduring national commitment to those who serve and those who have served. By requiring Parliament to consider an annual report, we ensure that parliamentary attention on these issues is maintained year after year and is not merely a single mechanism for scrutiny. It is also a demonstration of Parliament’s continuing support. The Armed Forces community should know that Parliament’s commitment to its welfare does not end when this Bill receives Royal Assent but will continue into the future.

My next amendment concerns local authorities. A significant proportion of the services affected by the covenant duty are delivered through local government. Councils are responsible for many public services, and many already operate under substantial statutory obligations, particularly in areas such as social work and support for vulnerable families. I know, as do many noble Lords, that many local authorities have faced considerable financial pressures over an extended period. They do not have a lot of resource available for new obligations. It therefore seems prudent that before these new duties come into force, the Government should publish an assessment of their likely impact on local authorities across the United Kingdom. This is the sort of information that, in any case, Parliament ought to have before deciding on something as substantial as this.

My next amendment follows naturally from the previous one. If Parliament imposes new obligations, it should be honest about who pays for them. The amendment therefore applies a straightforward new burdens principle. Where local authorities reasonably incur additional expenditure as a consequence of duties imposed under the Act, funding should be provided by the Secretary of State. Too often, Governments of all colours have found it tempting to create obligations centrally while expecting others to absorb the costs locally. That approach risks disappointing everyone involved: local authorities face additional pressure, services struggle to meet expectations, and beneficiaries do not receive what Parliament intended. If we are serious about supporting the Armed Forces community, we should also be serious about ensuring that the organisations expected to deliver these commitments have the necessary resources to do so.

My final amendment is perhaps the most significant. It would require the appointment of an independent authority to review the operation and effectiveness of the legislation within three years, and to receive representations from individuals affected by it. The review would then be laid before both Houses. This reflects a simple principle of good governance. Government departments should certainly monitor their own performance, but Parliament should have access to independent evidence. An independent review would allow us to assess whether public bodies are genuinely giving regard to the covenant, whether the legislation has improved outcomes, and whether unintended consequences have emerged that could be set right. It would also provide a means for those directly affected to bring forward their experience of how the duty is operating in practice.

Taken together, these amendments are united by a single common theme: accountability. They do not seek to alter or undermine the purpose of the Bill; they merely ask whether we not only support the Armed Forces covenant but are prepared to monitor its success, scrutinise its implementation, provide the resources necessary for delivery and maintain Parliament’s commitment to the Armed Forces community in the years ahead. I beg to move.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I will make a few brief comments on the amendments in this group. I am quite attracted to and interested in them, because the noble Lord indicated that they all amount to accountability; to me, they are more about consistency. Throughout the United Kingdom, there are various ways of implementing the Armed Forces covenant. I declare an interest as a former member of the Northern Ireland security forces and the armed services. This is about consistency, because the UK Government, the devolved institutions and the local administrations have different mechanisms and ways of developing and producing results. Only a few months ago, there was a difficulty in Belfast City Council whereby Sinn Féin attempted to block the signing of the Armed Forces covenant.

We want to ensure—and I see it in these amendments —that we have a process of reporting back to Parliament and the people that this is working effectively and consistently. I want to see that level of consistency throughout the various administrations and governments. For example, in Northern Ireland we have a different way of developing health services from England. That is only one example; there are many more, such as education and local government. All I want is to see that consistency. I hope that a reporting mechanism such as that proposed by the noble Lord would be one way of achieving that. It would be a positive implementation of the Armed Forces covenant. It would almost be a covenant with not only the Armed Forces but between the Armed Forces, the Government and the people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is reflected in the legislation. The Bill says specifically what parts of the covenant apply—if we take Northern Ireland as an example, rather than Scotland or wherever. The Bill lays out the territorial extent and what parts of the extended duties apply in Northern Ireland. I am also saying, in answer to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Morse, that there is a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to give an annual report outlining how the covenant has operated. Officials are working to understand how the new duties will be reflected in that annual report. I hope that offers some reassurance to the noble Lord that it is not just a case of passing it and then forgetting about it. Parliament will be informed about it and then people will be able to understand and decide how well they feel the covenant has been implemented in those areas for which different national bodies within the different parts of the UK are responsible.

Sitting alongside that is independent challenge from service charities and families federations, as well as wider parliamentary scrutiny. That provides an established framework for reviewing the operation and effectiveness of the duty in practice, so I do not consider that either a further statutory reporting duty or a separate independent review is necessary. I hope that what I have said is some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Morse.

Amendments 14 and 15 both concern the impact of the expanded duty on local authorities, including in relation to financial costs. I understand that concern, but a new burdens assessment is being undertaken and will be finalised before the duty takes effect. We consulted widely with local authorities to inform our assessment of any potential administrative and financial impacts. The duty is one of due regard and does not require local authorities to provide specific services or incur particular expenditure. We expect additional costs for local authorities to be limited, as many already have established processes in place to comply with the existing covenant duty. Local authorities will also be supported through additional guidance, training and other resources. I take this opportunity to congratulate all the national bodies, but in this instance local authorities, on the work they have done, are doing and will do to implement the various duties that the covenant outlines. As I say, I hope that I have reassured the Committee and the noble Lord, and that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Morse (CB)]

I thank the Minister very much for that, but does he think it likely that local authorities are going to come forward? Has he had any local authorities coming forward and saying, “No thanks, we can’t afford to do that”, or has he just not had that response? Is he saying he has had nothing but positive responses?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I can honestly say that local authorities coming to me, and the various responsible bodies, have all been positive and have all looked at how they may do their utmost to implement the covenant within their responsibilities. Of course, they recognise that that brings certain demands upon them, but they have been positive about it, accepting their responsibility, and I think it is a great tribute to them and to the local councillors involved. I think it has been a very positive response.

[Lord Morse (CB)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.