Contribution
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.