Armed Forces Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

I declare my interest as an honorary officer in the Royal Naval Reserve and as chair of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust. At this stage of the debate, after such a wide-ranging and thoughtful set of contributions, I will make just three brief points.

The first is in respect of Clause 2 of the Bill, on the Armed Forces covenant, which, as a number of other speakers rightly pointed out, builds on the progress that has been made in recent years. In fact, it was five years ago that I, in my former role, together with the Minister for Veterans and People, launched what was called Op COURAGE. It provides specialist mental health services for veterans. It has been great to see its progress since then. The Bill is now expanding beyond health, education and housing to bring in scope a wider range of public services for the Armed Forces covenant.

I will just raise two questions for the Minister on Clause 2. The first is a very detailed one: new Section 343AZB appears to exclude GP practices individually from obligations under the Armed Forces covenant. Instead, it talks about integrated care boards as health bodies, but not GP practices. He will also be aware that the Royal British Legion has argued that the Bill does not explicitly list non-departmental public bodies, such as HMRC or HM Prison and Probation Service. Can the Minister say whether he regards those as in scope of the provisions of the Bill or whether that is a lacuna, as the Royal British Legion appears to believe?

As well as scope, can we hear a little more about practical impact? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Morse, all raised the bite that the “due regard” requirement will actually have. I suspect that, in practice, it will only be when the Government issue new guidance, as they intend to do, to identify the practical steps that this wide range of public services should take that we will see whether the inclusion of “due regard” has any impact. Can the Minister tell us when that guidance will emerge and how granular it will be? That was the first point on Clause 2.

Secondly, on Clause 4, the Bill contains new powers to prevent and respond to drone attacks on defence. On their own terms, these provisions make great sense, but I wonder whether the powers are perhaps too circumscribed and hemmed in. Is there, for example, an opportunity to use the Bill to create a more permissive and expansive maritime statutory framework for the testing and training of military uncrewed vehicles above and beyond the specific cases that are identified here? How will the measures be synced up with the Government’s regulating for growth Bill with its proposed regulatory sandbox for maritime autonomy? How do the Government think about the interface between the defence and civilian aspects of drone testing and training in UK territorial waters?

Equally, rather than confining the scope of the Clause 4 provisions to defence property and areas, I wonder whether consideration has been given, for example, to expanding the scope to include critical national infrastructure in UK territorial waters. If not, can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s view that no new legal authority will be required to do that, or are they instead waiting for the defence readiness Bill to provide the statutory vehicle for that set of measures? The defence investment plan has £330 million of investment earmarked for critical underwater infrastructure protection. Are the statutory provisions needed to give effect to that in place? Could they be covered by the Bill, or will they emerge through the defence readiness Bill?

Thirdly, as a number of other speakers have said, there is obviously a read-across between the Armed Forces Bill and the defence investment plan. Like other speakers, I note the concerns around the funding of the DIP and that, nevertheless, many of the commitments that the DIP makes are to be welcomed, such as confirmation of support for major capabilities, including Defence Nuclear, AUKUS and GCAP. It has to be said that far and away the boldest and most radical aspect of the DIP is the rapid move to a hybrid Navy and increasing integration with other northern navies from JEF nations.

The biggest bet is on a networked mix of sensors, effectors and deciders as a radical new force design for maritime air defence systems, intended, by 2035, to replace the Type 45s and in lieu of the previously proposed Type 83s. The risk with this big bold bet is if the funding does not stack up, the hybrid Navy cannot cohere, because it will work only if you have all the components in place. For example, the Type 94 uncrewed radar platforms need to co-exist alongside the Type 91 uncrewed missile platforms, which, in turn, need to co-exist alongside the common combat vessels—underpinned by the comms and information systems that will sync up the entire network. If the components are not all in place at the relevant time, the hybrid Navy will struggle to succeed. That implies that we need to get going on the procurement for many of those key components, including the CCVs, if they are going to be in place for the early to mid-2030s. Can the Minister tell us when the procurement for that aspect of the hybrid Navy will begin?

Looking at the financial environment facing defence over the next three to four years, I think the pressures are real. The RDEL uplift for defence is only £2.9 billion in total by 2029-30 compared with 2026-27, which is a miserly real-terms increase. People in defence talk about the fact that the revenue position will be something of a bloodbath over the next several years, which will have a big impact on current operations and other capabilities. In any event, the revenue uplift will be more than offset by the so-called lower-maturity—that is, unidentified—efficiency gaps that will outweigh that funding between now and the end of this Parliament.

Most depressingly of all, for noble Lords who got to the end of the otherwise excellent DIP, on the very last page of text, page 78, they will have seen that, no doubt at the behest of the Treasury, a big asterisk has been inserted to say that terms and conditions apply. I will just quote some of those:

“The investments described in this document … do not constitute binding commitments and are subject to … affordability considerations … They may be reprioritised, deferred, re-scoped, or cancelled”.


If the DIP is not fully and expeditiously implemented, all the good of this Armed Forces Bill will be for naught.