Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)]

My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, because I too have been trying to understand defence, both personally and professionally, over the last year. I declare three interests that have helped me. Like her, I am taking part in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who is in his place, but as part of the Navy. In parallel, I have become the proud sponsor of HMS “Achilles”, the last of the new Astute class nuclear submarines being built in Barrow. Finally, I am an adviser to the Lakestar resilience fund, which invests in defence and societal resilience technologies.

Therefore, I am lucky enough to have spent time on bases and in ships, in classrooms and in boats, and in service accommodation. I feel as though I have met hundreds of servicepeople, but I have also been thinking about the technologies that sit beside our national resilience. The two experiences are different, but they reinforce the same thought: when we talk about defence, we often talk about platforms, procurement and capability, yet much of our resilience depends on more practical questions. Can we recruit and retain talented people? Can they build a stable family life? Are they learning quickly enough to keep pace with technology? What happens when they take the uniform off?

Until recently, perhaps like many people in this country, my understanding of what our Armed Forces actually do was embarrassingly shallow. I could not have explained what we ask a submariner to endure on a nuclear deterrent patrol or what it means for a Royal Marine to operate in the High North, where a minor mistake can become life threatening. That has changed through my time with the Royal Navy: it has put faces and human cost behind phrases that I once skimmed over. It is with these perspectives that I approach the Bill. I will focus on two areas—housing and skills.

The contrast in housing between what is often expected at entry and what some individuals still experience is striking. I have seen good accommodation, but I have also seen damp, broken heating and long waits for basic repairs—and heaven forbid there should ever be any wifi. The creation of the defence housing service is one of the Bill’s biggest changes. The real test is simple: will life improve for the families living in those homes? I would like to understand how Parliament will know whether these arrangements have worked three or five years from now. What standards will the new service meet? How quickly will repairs be fixed? Will performance be published? How will servicepeople influence the system if it is not delivering? Poor housing affects morale, retention and families. If we ask people to serve their country, we must ensure that they have a decent place to live.

The second area is the Armed Forces covenant. As we have heard, every five years, it allows us to ask whether we are keeping our side of the bargain with our armed services. I welcome the Bill’s decision to strengthen the covenant and extend the statutory duty more widely, but it raises a wider question: what does “no disadvantage” really mean in 2026? The world of work has changed irrevocably. AI technology is reshaping recruitment, jobs and skills. Every year, thousands leave the Armed Forces and enter the labour market. The Armed Forces are exceptionally good at teaching people how to learn under pressure. In a world of constant technological change, that ability may be one of the most valuable things that our servicepeople leave with. Judgment, teamwork, adaptability and leadership are becoming more valuable, not less, and are qualities that the Armed Forces develop every day. Perhaps the Minister could say how the Government see the covenant evolving alongside these changes. If the labour market is shifting, should “no disadvantage” include helping people to develop their skills more during service, making it easier for employers to recognise them?

The Bill also updates arrangements for reserves and recall, recognising that the skills of former personnel remain valuable long after full-time service. If we value those skills enough to maintain that relationship, are we also doing enough to help people keep them up to date—especially as we face the hybrid world which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about earlier? To me, that is part of what conditions of service now means. They still include pay, housing and family support, but they could also include the chance to keep learning and moving confidently into civilian life. I do not suggest that the Bill should become a workforce strategy, but it is reasonable to ask whether the covenant, transition support and reserve policy reflect the world that people who leave the Armed Forces now go into, including the impact of AI and automation. One of the privileges of spending time with serving personnel has been seeing the skill and determination across the forces. We invest heavily in developing those qualities while people are in uniform; we should be just as determined to ensure they continue to benefit after they leave.

We should all welcome and support the Bill, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said, make sure it is widely supported outside this House and part of a national conversation. If, in a few years’ time, we can look servicepeople in the eye and say that they are living in better homes, that veterans are finding it easier to build good civilian careers and that people feel better supported to keep learning throughout their careers and beyond, the Bill will have done something significant alongside its constitutional importance.