12:48
Former Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, Lord Richard Dannatt. Your Excellency, good morning. It's very nice to be here in person. I just told you that the old man had a tie. Tell me again about that tie you're wearing. This is the Army Charitable Fund. This is an army fund to help soldiers, former soldiers, and families who need help if their circumstances are difficult. But it's a pretty nice tie, and it's a great let's talk about why I asked you, which is to get you into this.I'm really struggling, uh, with this Trouble Act. I, uh, think he's disgusting, as Nigel Evans said. I think he is mean. I think if you say to the
men and women, and you know this much better than I do, " Thank you very much for doing what you were told, the orders you were given; " Your superiors were ordered by politicians, but we decided to say in retrospect a few years later that your behavior may not have been ideal in some cases." Er, really, er, if people are threatening to blow you up, er, and then of course real immunity for the IRA. I don't know how anyone, you and the head of the British Army, could ever imagine why anyone would re- enlist in the British Army under this government. This scares me, Richard. This scares me. Well, this issue has been going on for a long time. I mean, this government had a chance to resolve this issue. The previous government made a vigorous attempt
to do this, and that is what new bill seeks to overturn. Um, it's really annoying that after so many years there's still a possibility that there are some pretty old soldiers out there now. I mean, I was there in Belfast in 1971, as a 20-year-old platoon leader. I am now 75. Hmm.On my last day as Chief of the General Staff, 28 August 2009, two investigators from the Police Service of Northern Ireland came to my office by appointment to question me about the events in which my platoon was involved on 7 February 1973. What could I tell them in August 2009 that I couldn't have told them before. The fact is that one of my soldiers died that day. I believe two terrorists were killed that day. So it was a bad day for everyone, but honestly, to come back
in 20-30 years and ask the question.And these things happen too often. I will say what we all always say: the military is not above the law. We must always act within the law, but the law must be fair. There should be a level playing field. And one of the things that was always really annoying was that when any of these investigations start, they start with the police or the army, because we were keeping records. We know what we did on February 7, 1973. Did the IRA execute the UVF? No, of course not. So everything always starts with the soldiers. Now, obviously there are some safeguards in this new bill, but that doesn't stop other people from deciding what constitutes new and compelling evidence that could reopen a case. What is new and
compelling in 2026 that wasn't in 1976? 1986, 1996. I completely agree with you that no one should be above the law, but I think we also had to add another caveat, you would know much more than I do. War is not good. When someone is trying to blow you up, things happen that I don't know about, and you would. I believe that the IRA, as you quite rightly point out, didn't keep records and that they have immunity. And I listened to Chris Bryant yesterday, you know, the families of the victims and the military veterans deserve answers to make it clear that this is about honesty, openness, the pursuit of justice and, most importantly, the truth.
Alistair Carmichael, who served in Northern Ireland in 2003 and is a former defence minister, says he is deeply concerned that the bill does not protect veterans at all levels, warning that it could allow advocates to rewrite history. My opinion is this. Hmm, I don't think it's. I don't know if it's a political mistake or suicide, but to me it's. if you like patting a certain sector on the back because Andy Burnham. I'm not asking you to become a politician, clearing the way for an early general election. To men and women who serve now or in the past, what message does this send? Are you criminals? Well, this, this, this sends a very bad signal.
The fact is that the bill has gone through all stages of consideration in the House of Commons, and this was always supposed to happen because the Labour Party has such a large majority in the House of Commons. But when it reaches the House of Lords, it will be a completely different set of issues. We will make many amendments and discuss them in a committee of the whole house. I mean, yesterday the Armed Forces Bill went through the reporting stage in the House of Lords, and there were two amendments that were passed by a combination of Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs, and these are really important issues. These were issues that the Labour Party passed in the House of Commons, but we passed them in the House of Lords.
Is this a good example of why the House of Lords works? That is what the Its role is to scrutinise government legislation, as there is so much business going on in the House of Commons that they do not have time for the full scrutiny that the House of Lords has time for. We could well spend two, three, four days, or even longer, carefully studying this bill in committee. Hmm, and there are a lot of senior lawyers in the House of Lords too. They will look into this issue in detail, and there are many former military personnel there. Hmm, people of my generation, for whom, I mean, 1977 was the only year in the 70s that I didn't serve in Northern Ireland. It's kind of part of my DNA. Hmm, in many ways one loves Northern Ireland and the Northern Irish,
and it breaks the soul when one sees how bad things are, were back then. And I was actually there last year, giving a talk for another army charity about how much better life is in Belfast now. We are moving on, and in fact we should allow the military to move on and stop this possibility. Now they say we are becoming like that too, which I think is very cruel. Um, absolutely. Hmm, a few years ago we already passed a previous bill on overseas operations and what came up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that provided some level of protection. But I return to my main point. How can you have new and compelling evidence that will stand up in court in 2026 that wasn't there in 2016, 2006, or 1976?
It just doesn't go crazy. And another thing that is worrying is that it can be argued that a certain incident was not properly investigated at the time. So they think they can get back to it. Well, you know, you have to make decisions about what was appropriate to investigate. And you mentioned it. Um, it's not called war, but I can tell you, when people are shooting at you and you're shooting at them, it feels like war. So, um, you'll do an in-depth investigation the next day? No, you fill out your patrol reports, convince the military police that you opened fire according to the yellow card we all had, and we will continue our duty the next day and the day after. I completely agree. I've
asked this question before. Is this bill a betrayal of our troops, Lord Dannatt? Well, that's quite an emotional speech. I hope it will either be rejected or significantly amended when it reaches the House of Lords. I hope this.I mean, this is interesting, right? Because the House of Lords is criticized from many sides by many people. I criticized the fact that Boris Johnson gave the title of pen to a 25- year-old man. But actually, yes, for me, you know, military figures, medics, health workers, lawyers, people who have life experience, certainly is a very relevant, if you will, handbrake to give more time to the House of Commons with everything that's going on. Can I also draw your attention
to something that I'm sure you know? Yesterday in the Telegraph Labour cut 2 billion on frontline army equipment while John Healy tries to plug a black hole in defence spending in his first budget. The irony is that the man who resigned over equipment and money is now the man who controls the wallet. You and I have talked about this many times when we said that the way the military has been cut over a number of years, particularly under the last Tories, is shameful to me. Do you think this will change? Do you think all this rhetoric about 3% will happen or not? This has to happen. Um, now that we have a problem, I mean Andy Burnham has been talking about all the wonderful things he wants to do in the next Parliament, so that's a few years away.
Um, they say they're going to take action and develop a plan to achieve 3% of GDP, starting this process next year. Er, and what we saw is quite right, er, yesterday's report on the removal of £2 billion from the army programme. Frankly, we need to get rid of the real threats to our security. It's not just the war in Ukraine and the threat from Russia, and that's very important, but the wider implications, we've seen that in the Royal Air Force, haven't we? Consequences arising from the Middle East and from Iran. Uh, and there are implications for our own population here, the need to become more resilient, more prepared for when the lights go out. We need to be a little scared as a people to be prepared.
I like this phrase. It's true, they're afraid to tell us about it, and then, you know, they embellish. Just tell us how it is. The army, the army is the Cabinet of Ministers and a number of my colleagues from the National Emergency Fund. We've been working with the Cabinet for the last eight or nine months, and the plan was for the Prime Minister to make a statement this month to tell people the truth about the real threats to this country from hybrid attacks, cyberattacks and all that. But they back away from that. The Prince of Wales and the National Emergency Fund launched an initiative called "Ready Together" on the 6th of this month.
This should not be done by the charitable sector. This should be done by the central government. And I will say it again that we, as a population, should be a little scared to prepare. I completely agree. And finally, you know, I'm old, right? When I think of Thatcher telling us how it was, love her or hate her, this is what happens, this is reality, this is the medicine you are going to take or the action that will be taken. I will keep you updated daily. I don't care if not everyone thinks I am like that. Leadership is about conviction, and the British are genuinely ready to hear that, are n't they? The British people suffer from not understanding, not being told the truth and being
suppressed, so to speak, and I think the silent majority can easily cope with this. They just want to know what the hell is going on I mean, if you're not warned about something and then something happens, you 're in a state of shock. If someone says to you, "Well, actually, there might be a cyberattack that will turn off the lights for four days in your city," then you've expected it and probably stocked up on cans of baked beans and soup; Do you have spare batteries? You know, you say, "Oh, they said this would happen and now it's happening, but I'm ready, I'm ready. We'll just see it through in a typically British way." But back to Margaret Thatcher, when she decided that the Falklands Islands needed to be returned, she formed a war cabinet, and
you know who was missing - the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She said that was what needed to be done and the Chancellor would find the money. I don't want him in the military cabinet. I love this kind of leadership. It's nice to have you here, and thank you. I know you're in town. In any case, I am pleased to meet you and the former Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, Lord Richard Dannatt. Thank you very much
