Renewing the Nation's Contract: Why the Armed Forces Bill Matters for Service Families
Armed Forces Bill 2026: Second Reading
On Monday, 6 July, a debate was held in the House of Lords, covering the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill, following it’s passage in the House of Commons on 22 June.
I am proud to support this Bill, which carries a particular constitutional weight. The primary purpose of which is to renew the Armed Forces Act (AFA) 2006 and continue the primary legal framework governing the military. They renew, every five years, the legal basis on which we maintain a standing army, and this year's Bill also does a good deal more for British service families, which I welcome, updating the covenant, our defence housing, and the service justice system. As an adviser to the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security and someone with a longstanding commitment to the lives of women and families around the world, I want to focus on what this Bill means for service families and for victims within the system, and to say a word about the wider security context in which we are legislating.
First, the covenant. Clause 2 extends the statutory duty of "due regard" from three specified matters to twelve, including, for the first time, childcare and employment, which matters enormously. A life of service still frequently causes uneven and unequal access to quality livelihoods for families, and it is often the spouse, usually a woman, who absorbs the disruption of relocation and the gaps in childcare provision. This provision, alongside the £9 billion committed over the coming decade to defence housing, is a significant step towards ensuring stability and security at the most basic level of need, and ensuring that service children are especially cared for in their early years, which, as we know, is the most critical period of development.
As the Bill now moves to Committee stage, I hope Ministers will ensure that local authorities and health bodies are given the guidance and resources they need to make "due regard" a lived reality rather than a legal formality.
Secondly, I would like to discuss the reforms to the service justice system. The new protective orders and the provision for service courts to order the deletion of intimate images are welcome and are explicitly linked to the Government's commitment to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. We know that image-based violence has devastating consequences, and I am pleased to see this problem get the due recognition it deserves to protect victims against the severe psychological trauma, reputational damage, and social isolation that it is known to cause. Of course, the commitment will only be as strong as its delivery, and training and resourcing must be provided to service police and service courts, to ensure these new orders are used consistently and that victims have confidence in how their cases are handled.
Importantly, I would note the Bill's wider purpose. In a more dangerous world, extending the recall liability for reservists to age sixty-five, and the Government's recent commitment of a further £15 billion in defence investment, taking annual spending towards £80 billion by 2029, reflect a proper recognition that our forces must be ready as well as fairly treated. Readiness and welfare are not competing priorities and reinforce one another.
This is a practical and considered Bill. As it moves into Committee, I'll keep pressing for these commitments on housing, on protection for victims, and on fair treatment for reservists and their families, to be delivered in practice, not just in principle. Those who serve, and the families who serve alongside them, deserve nothing less.
