Armed Forces Bill

Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for bringing forward this series of amendments. They are important for accountability and the role of Parliament, and they will have implications for local government. I am not declaring an interest because it was a long time ago, but I was a city councillor in Cambridge for 12 years. The first seven years were under a Labour Government, and the last five years were under a Coalition Government. One of the things that was very clear in local government was that central government would have many bright ideas: things that they would suggest could be done by local authorities—for example, free bus passes. That had asymmetric implications for local authorities. It was very difficult for local authorities to kick back. There was no opportunity for them to say, “We cannot do this”. It was not a matter of a government of one particular colour or another; it was central government versus local authorities.

We now have a new Prime Minister, and seemingly a new enthusiasm from the Government to think again about devolution and the relationship between central government and local government. Until we have clarity on that, it is important for us to be aware of the implications of extending the Armed Forces covenant to local authorities. Here, I might sound as though I am caught on the road to Damascus: I had seen the light, and thought that the Armed Forces covenant should be extended to central government—which I still believe—but am I now saying that we do not need to extend it to local government?

Of course, local authorities need to be there, but we need to be clear what the requirements are, and the funding arrangements, if we are imposing new duties on local authorities. Clarity from the Government about some of the implications—looking at Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morse—is very important. I also ask the Minister to give us clarity on how this legislation stands in relation to the devolved nations; the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, raised the question of consistency. It is one thing to look at local authorities within England, but it is another to look at Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Obviously, defence is a retained power—it is a national, United Kingdom-wide policy—but in terms of devolution, how does this fit with what the Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern Ireland Executive have the power to do? What is the opportunity for ensuring that we have the consistency that the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, is rightly saying that we need? This should not be a question of where you are from in the United Kingdom; that should not impact how well you are able to access the roles and responsibilities of the Armed Forces covenant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I feel like sitting down after that, rather than carrying on. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for his views on the Bill. I acknowledge his concerns about ensuring that the expanded covenant duty is properly monitored, understood and supported in practice.

On Amendments 12 and 13, I recognise the noble Lord’s intention to ensure proper scrutiny, but the covenant already has a clear oversight framework. The Secretary of State is legally required to lay an annual Armed Forces covenant report before Parliament, and that will include the areas brought into scope by the extended duty. I hope that is of some reassurance. It will be brought before Parliament, and Members of both Houses will then be able to scrutinise that and ask questions, should they choose to do so. Officials are working to enhance the annual report, strengthening its role as a tool for assessing progress and for holding the Government and local bodies to account.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also alluded to, about the scope of the covenant and Northern Ireland, the noble Lord will know that page 3 lists what parts of the extended duties will apply in different parts of the United Kingdom. That varies not only between England and Wales and Scotland; there are differences between England and Wales and Northern Ireland. So that is obviously part of that. New Section 343AZB(2)(d) refers to

“the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland acting jointly, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department”.

That is part of the definition of a “national authority”. So in the reporting that will have to take place, part of that is included.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness will also know that the territorial extent at the end makes it clear that some of the provisions apply in Northern Ireland. So, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, it certainly tries to make clear what particular parts of the covenant are relevant, given the devolved arrangements within the UK, not only in England and Wales but in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

Will the Minister accept that it is always good to have it in the legislation, but that is not always reflected in what actually takes place on the ground? That is what I am trying to ensure.

[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.