Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Earl of Minto and Lord Beamish

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his engagement with me and my noble friend Lady Goldie on the measures in the Bill. I extend my thanks to the officials for their professional and insightful briefing on the Bill. I reiterate at the outset that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition fully support the Bill. We recognise the legal requirement for the renewal of the Armed Forces Act 2006 for the continuation of our Armed Forces, and so I share with the Minister the desire to see the Bill reach the statute book promptly.

Before I turn to the substance of the Bill, I put on record our deep admiration for the men and women of our Armed Forces. Whether deployed on operations overseas, protecting NATO’s eastern flank or supporting the civil authorities at home, they continue to do an exemplary job. They do so at a time when resources, manpower and equipment are all being stretched to the very limit. Recruitment and retention remain a challenge, but time and again our gallant service personnel rise to meet the task they face. Whatever disagreements I may have with the Government about resource, I hope the Minister will accept that these take nothing away from our sincere respect for all those who serve.

However, I cannot ignore the elephant in the room: this Government’s continuing unwillingness to properly fund our Armed Forces. The Government have spoken of making tough choices, but they have not—or at least not yet. Perhaps our NATO allies in Ankara will change minds. The defence investment plan is effectively unfunded. One-third of the extra money is to be allocated in the Autumn Budget, meaning it is not available now, and the rest of it is to be financed by as yet unknown efficiency savings.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I concur—and I am on the record as saying—that the defence investment plan needs the money: we need to get to 3% as quickly as possible. But does the noble Earl also agree that the coalition and Conservative Governments between 2010 and 2017 in fact cut the defence budget by 22% and made people compulsorily redundant? At least this action will increase the defence budget over the next seven years by 27%.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, we are dealing with a very different situation globally from what we were dealing with then. There was not a country in the western world that was not making savings on defence at that time.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

Crimea?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

Well, yes.

I was saying that the money is not available now and the rest of it is to be financed by as yet unknown efficiency savings. The departments that have apparently been required to reduce their capital spending have not yet identified what they will cut, and the Government have not yet told us what asset sales they will follow through with. It is all rather unconvincing and unsatisfactory.

There are of course ways to increase defence spending without more tax rises and more borrowing. The required funds could be found by a sensible and sustainable reduction in the welfare budget, scrapping the now discredited Chagos deal, appropriately reducing the size of the Civil Service or reprioritising some of the more extreme and costly net-zero projects. The depressing reality appears to be that this Government have not been willing to grasp the nettle and make the genuine hard choices to give our Armed Forces the funding they so desperately need—and are pleading for—to keep us safe.

I now turn to the Bill. This side of the House welcomes the further incorporation of the Armed Forces covenant into law. It was a Conservative Government, through the Armed Forces Act 2021 that my noble friend Lady Goldie took through your Lordships’ House, who first placed the covenant on a statutory footing, requiring specified bodies to have due regard to its principles in the fields of housing, education and healthcare. That was a significant and hard-won step, and I am glad the Government are building on it.

However, support in principle does not exempt the Government from scrutiny in practice, and I must ask the Minister a straightforward question: what assessment has been made of the impact on those bodies newly brought into scope, and what extra costs will this impose on national authorities, local authorities, education bodies and health bodies up and down the country? I have been assured that the cost implications of extending this legal duty are expected to be minimal. Although I am grateful for that reassurance, the House will forgive me for wanting it tested more rigorously as the Bill proceeds through Committee, particularly given the number of new bodies being brought within the statutory duty and the breadth of new subject matter involved. What financial consequences, if any, does the Ministry anticipate falling on the Ministry of Defence itself as a result of this expansion? Has Treasury sign-off been secured for any downstream costs that may arise?

I think—in fact, I know—that we are united across the House in our belief that those who serve our country should never have to live in substandard accommodation, regardless of their familial status. I think we can also all agree that the current state of much service housing ranges from below standard to abysmal and exposes the immediate need for significant structural expenditure and reforms to bring all forces housing up to the expected standard for the 2020s. It was my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, James Cartlidge, who initiated the buyback of the housing estate from Annington Homes, as the noble Lord has referred to. It is welcome that this Government have now completed that purchase, but I believe that there must be an acknowledgement of who started it.

Clause 3 and Schedule l give legislative effect to the second pillar of the Government’s defence housing strategy, published last November, by establishing a new body corporate: the defence housing service. I understand why the Government wish to create a dedicated body with the supply, availability and quality of defence housing at its heart, and a “forces first” approach to its work is one that these Benches can readily and fully endorse. But the creation of a new statutory body inevitably raises questions about what happens to the old arrangements. What precisely is happening to the Defence Infrastructure Organisation? What functions will be transferred to the new defence housing service? Will there be an overlap in responsibility during a transition period? If so, for how long and at what cost to the taxpayer? Clear accountability will be critical to the success of both organisations in the future.

Can the Minister also set out clearly how this new body differs in practice from the alternative that my party has proposed, which is the establishment of an armed forces housing association? This would be a private, independent but, crucially, not-for-profit organisation that would reinvest all revenues back into maintaining properties and building new homes. It would have an oversight board allowing for representation of those living in service family accommodation. It would allow service men and women to benefit from different property ownership models—for example, part-ownership—allowing those of all ranks to realise their dream of owning their own home. It would allow us to reduce the reliance of the MoD on private sector renting, which costs it £80 million a year. Before I leave this point, there is a widely circulated rumour that, to fund the DIP, investment in service housing is to be deferred. This matters. Can the Minister clarify the position?

I turn to a matter that does not appear in the Bill, but that this side believes to be fundamental to the war-fighting capabilities of our Armed Forces. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has expanded the application of the European Convention on Human Rights so that it now applies extraterritorially, as this House will recall from the judgment in Al-Skeini v United Kingdom. There is absolutely no question that British troops must abide by the Geneva conventions and the law of armed conflict; that is not, and never has been, in dispute. We are not arguing for complete prospective immunity from legal accountability. However, we need to ensure that our troops feel confident in taking necessary action and must be clear on the limitations of that action in law. They must be on a level playing field with the enemy they face. To be in doubt, or at a disadvantage, could, in extremis, be fatal at the critical moment.

While the preference of my party is to leave the European Convention on Human Rights entirely, that is not within the bounds of the Bill, so we will be bringing an amendment in Committee to place a duty on the Secretary of State to derogate from the convention during armed conflict—a switch from “may” to “must”. I hope that the Minister will engage constructively with that amendment in the spirit in which it is offered: not as an attack on the rule of law, far from it, but as a recognition that our troops must be able to fight for and defend this country without the fear of endless retrospective litigation on decisions taken in the heat of combat.

I turn now to the provisions on the Reserve Forces, which these Benches broadly welcome. Clause 32 removes the requirement for a service person to formally leave the Regular Forces and re-enlist in the Volunteer Reserve, or vice versa, in order to move between the two. We are pleased about the greater flexibility that this clause allows for movement between the regulars and the reserves, and we hope that it will remove a genuine source of friction for service personnel who wish to serve in different ways at different points during their career.

The strategic defence review, published last year, sets out the aim of increasing the Active Reserve by 20% when funding allows. That is a laudable aim; nobody on this side of the House would quarrel with the ambition to build a larger, more resilient reserve capability at a time of growing geopolitical uncertainty. But an aim is not a plan, and I must press the Minister on the timeline. By when does the Ministry of Defence expect to achieve that 20% increase? What recruitment targets have been set year on year to get there? Crucially, given the funding caveat built into the review’s own language, how do the Government intend to fund it, given everything I have already said about the state of the defence investment plan?

I suggest one way of doing this to the Minister: incentivise more people to join the reserves by introducing a tax-free reserve service, whereby the first 30 days of reserve service in any one year would be completely free of income tax. Such a measure would cost the Exchequer relatively little, it would send a clear signal that this country values the commitment reservists make alongside their civilian careers, and it might do more to improve recruitment. I hope that the Minister will take that suggestion back to his department, even if he cannot commit to it from the Dispatch Box today.

I have covered a good deal of ground this afternoon, and there is more in the Bill that we will wish to probe in Committee, not least the reforms to the service justice system. We support the principle of aligning the powers available to service police and service courts with those already available in the civilian criminal justice system, but there are questions to be asked about how these provisions will operate in practice, and my noble friend Lady Goldie will address those in more detail in closing.

I simply say this in conclusion. This is a Bill these Benches support, because the renewal of the Armed Forces Act is a constitutional necessity, and because much of what sits alongside that renewal—the covenant, the housing reforms, the modernisation of the service justice system and the flexibility of our reserves—represents sensible and positive progress. But support for the Bill is not the same as satisfaction with the Government’s record on defence. Our Armed Forces deserve a Government willing to match warm words with hard funding decisions. Until this happens, this House will continue to ask the difficult questions the Government would rather not answer, and I look forward to the Minister’s response and to the scrutiny that lies ahead in Committee.