Armed Forces Bill

My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right, and I think the Government have recognised that need. One of my report's recommendations was that we should be more proactive in addressing our veteran population, and I am pleased that it has been accepted. Ministers recognise that we need to do more for veterans. Having just been nice to my Front-Bench colleagues, perhaps I might say that I disagree with them in one respect. Clause 2 is entitled ““Armed forces covenant report”” and I take exception to the term ““armed forces”” in that context. May I gently suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that it would be more appropriate simply to use the term ““military covenant””? I say that because I think that term has had a certain amount of purchase. It is now understood by the general public. It is in the public domain, and the media understand it, and I think they would be somewhat confused if we were now to make this rather semantic change of using the term ““armed forces”” instead. To argue against myself, the word ““military”” excludes naval of course, but I think that in the public's mind ““military”” refers to the entirety of our armed forces. I do not want the value of the concept of the military covenant to be degraded in any way by a confusion over this title. That point might, perhaps, be considered in Committee, of which I hope very much my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) is successful in becoming a member—I wish him the best of luck in his endeavours in that respect. As he says, it will be fascinating to serve on the Committee, and I hope to talk a little more about that shortly.