Armed Forces Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who, as he said in his declaration of interests, is currently chair of trustees of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, which runs the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. I am currently a trustee, having attended all parts of the scheme, starting off in 2015, when the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, and I were the only Members of the Lords who participated in the scheme. People were not quite sure what to do with Members of the House of Lords on the scheme. They did not quite know how the arrangements would work. Everything was thought through for Members of the House of Commons. So I am absolutely delighted today that we have heard from so many Members of your Lordships’ House who have participated or are participating in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. That means that we have heard a range of different voices today.

The right reverend Prelate pointed out that all that seems to have happened since the last Armed Forces Bill in 2021 is that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, have swapped places. I and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, have not moved, yet some of what I am hearing from the Opposition Benches sounds quite similar to what I was hearing in 2021, and the responses that I suspect we will hear from the Minister this evening may sound quite similar as well. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, called for us to look again at the costs for those from services families applying for indefinite leave to remain.

So there are perennial questions that some of us have been debating for several years. I hope the change of Government might allow the Minister to give some slightly more positive answers, at least on some issues, even if he will have to go back and persuade his colleagues in the Home Office to support those families—I assume we are talking primarily about the Nepalese Gurkhas who are here. We owe them a duty as well.

We are here primarily to talk about the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill. Every year, we have to renew our endorsement of having Armed Forces. At times we have been doing that in the Moses Room as a statutory instrument with four Members of your Lordships’ House present—the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and I—plus some officials. For the five-year Armed Forces Bill, it is really important that we are hearing so many voices from across your Lordships’ House engaging with issues that matter so fundamentally at this time, precisely for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, pointed out. In 2026, the position we are in is fundamentally different from when we debated the Bill five years ago.

We could have all sorts of debates about whose fault it is that the Armed Forces are not sufficiently well funded, but the point is that, in 2026, we all know that we need to invest more fully in the Armed Forces. That is a national concern, and the national conversation is beginning but does not go far enough. If every one of your Lordships who has spoken in this debate, particularly if they do not come from a services background, goes out and talks to their family and friends about what they have been doing when they have been out on the Armed Forces scheme, that would begin to raise conversations beyond the echo chamber where we normally are. As we have heard from many noble Lords today, it is vital that we have a conversation that looks to how we strengthen resilience.

The particularly welcome aspect of the Bill this year, as far as I am concerned, is the expansion of the Armed Forces covenant. I have called on His Majesty’s Government on many occasions for its extension. In the past, when the Conservatives were in government, there was very much a sense of, “Yes, yes, we’re committed to the covenant. It’s really important that health, education and other people deliver the covenant”. The response on these Benches was, “No, it is vital that the whole country understands the covenant, but particularly that His Majesty’s Government take on that responsibility”.

The expansion of the scope of the covenant is clearly welcome, yet, as we heard from the noble Lords, Lord Morse and Lord Hay of Ballyore, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, we need to look carefully at some of the aspects of how the Armed Forces covenant can and will be expanded to local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Morse, is right that, if we appear to put something on the statute book that is unaffordable, or if we give further duties to local authorities that they cannot afford to deliver or that some councils will deliver and others will not, that will create a whole set of unintended consequences.

During my time in local government—under a very different Government in very different financial times—the Lib Dems had control of Cambridge City Council during the new Labour Government. We did not really need to worry about funding. A lot of questions were very easy, but there was still a bit of a sense that it was too easy for central government to tell local authorities what to do without giving commensurate funding. Times have changed financially for local authorities, so we need to be very careful that if we are asking local authorities to do more things, we try to work out how they will be able to deliver them. But the principle of extending the covenant is hugely welcome.

One issue that many noble Lords have talked about today is the defence housing service and the moves towards spending the £9 billion on service accommodation. It is clearly an area where we need to hold the Government to account in the most appropriate way. This is not a criticism of Governments of any complexion, but it is a reality that a decade ago, when we were debating the Armed Forces Bill in 2016, I raised questions about the standard of forces accommodation. At the time I was a newbie on the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, and it was pointed out to me by service personnel and their spouses that there were a couple of Facebook groups. At the time, one was “Victims of CarillionAmey”. Carillion went bankrupt and it became “Victims of Amey”. This afternoon I double-checked and there is still a Facebook page. It is now called “Victims of Pinnacle”.

When she was a Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, congratulated me on one occasion. She said, “We’ve been listening to you. The new arrangements now mean that the telephone will be answered much more quickly. People will get the responses they need”. Yet criticisms remained. The defence housing service and the defence housing strategy are very welcome, but it will be an area where close monitoring and accountability are hugely important.

The Armed Forces Bill and the annual renewal are very often about service justice, and that is an area I always hand over to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who knows far more about service justice questions than I do. I very much hope that in Committee he and my noble friend Lady Brinton will table amendments. As we have heard today, there are a range of very technical issues. It would be helpful to have a sense from the Minister of whether he will be open to some amendments of a technical nature that are needed for service justice.

There has been discussion about the gap in funding of the defence investment plan. This is the final point from these Benches; my colleagues on defence would expect me to say it. There is a proposal from the Liberal Democrats perhaps to support defence funding with defence bonds. Has the Minister had a chance to think about that as a way of enhancing the provisions? I conclude by saying that in principle we welcome the Bill, and we look forward to debating it in Committee.