Oral question asked in the House of Lords, by Lord Razzall (Liberal Democrat). It was answered on Tuesday, 3 November 2009.

Armed Forces: Political Activity

Question: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, I am sure that the House will appreciate that my Question has been provoked by the announcement that General Dannatt is to become a Tory adviser on defence. First, does the noble Baroness think it appropriate for a senior officer who is still being paid to be paraded in this way by a political party? Secondly, does she agree that, to ensure that senior officers are not seen as party political, it would be better for there to be a significant gap before the Chief of the General Staff, after his resignation, joins a political party? Thirdly, does she agree that in the event of a change of Government, were that to happen, General Dannatt’s replacement as CGS will be placed in an impossible position if his advice to the Prime Minister is countermanded by his immediate predecessor?

Answer: My Lords, the noble Lord raises some interesting speculation about what might happen on some future hypothetical occasion should there be a change of Government. Queen’s Regulations give very clear guidance on what should happen when members of the Armed Forces seek to participate in politics. As I mentioned, it is possible to be a member of a party but not to be active in it. There are also rules about gaps between leaving service and taking paid employment. As for who should sit on the current Opposition Front Bench, or on any future Government Front Bench that is not from my political party, I would not dream of speculating.

Secondary information