Lords Intensify Armed Forces Bill Scrutiny; Budget Brought Forward

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords held oral questions on electoral finance enforcement, data centres’ water use, mobile phone policies in schools, and childbirth‑related PTSD. Peers then opened detailed Committee scrutiny of the Armed Forces Bill, debating the Armed Forces Covenant’s scope, provisions affecting reservists, creation of a Defence Housing Service, and service justice reforms (including stalking protections, domestic‑abuse handling, pre‑charge custody and court martial practice). A ministerial session on the Prime Minister’s policy direction covered growth, devolution, welfare timing and defence spending trajectories. Later, a regret motion on a Windsor Framework plant‑health regulation was debated and withdrawn before Committee on the Armed Forces Bill resumed.

Detailed Summary

Electoral Commission Investigations – Question

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage reiterated that the Government will not comment on suspicious activity reports (SARs) due to operational independence and confidentiality: “breaching that confidentiality risks committing a tipping off offence”. She cited concluded Electoral Commission investigations of 17 (2023‑24), 14 (2024‑25) and nine (2025‑26), adding, “We cannot release how many of these come from SARs”. She announced a complete ban on crypto‑asset donations, retrospective to 25 March, “until such point that Parliament and the Electoral Commission are satisfied that there is sufficient regulation”, and said the Government had accepted all Philip Rycroft’s recommendations, with a Bill beginning in the Lords on 14 September. She highlighted undue‑influence protections and voter‑information work, said a forthcoming Bill will focus enforcement on criminality rather than minor administrative breaches, and pointed to stronger powers over illicit crypto assets alongside “know your donor” provisions.

Data Centres: Water Resources – Question

Baroness Hayman of Ullock said existing data centres account for “just 0.2% of current non‑household demand” in England, but growth could add pressure, so the Government is engaging with regulators and industry. She prioritised better evidence and efficiency, including work with Ofwat’s Smart Water Metering Delivery Group “due to be completed over the next 12 months”, and referenced a Water Delivery Taskforce while noting comparative uses (e.g., “Golf courses use an enormous amount more water than data centres”). She stressed trade‑offs between water and electricity for cooling, confirmed large sites go through the NSIP regime with consultation, said recommendations from the Cunliffe report were being worked on and that a water Bill would provide wider debate, and told peers that drought prioritisation details could not yet be provided though the issue is taken “very seriously”.

Schools: Mobile Phone Policy – Question

Baroness Smith of Malvern confirmed statutory guidance from 1 September that schools should be “mobile phone‑free environments by default”, permitting “not seen, not heard” policies with strong enforcement, with a review by September 2027. She noted survey evidence that “41% of secondary schools” plan policy changes this year, and said the review would commence in January 2027 using the behaviour survey and stakeholder engagement, with revisions in place for September 2027. Parents should be involved and effective policies can improve the “calmness of the classroom”. Support will come via attendance and behaviour hubs, and Ofsted will inspect implementation, potentially affecting behaviour/attendance judgments. On wider online safety, she said the Government will ban social‑media services for under‑16s, laying regulations by end‑2026 with restrictions in force in spring 2027.

Childbirth‑related Post‑traumatic Stress Disorder – Question

Baroness Merron said the Government takes the study seriously and relies on postnatal appointments for identification, with specialist perinatal services nationwide; the national maternity and neonatal action plan will provide further support and is due by year‑end. She emphasised prevention and early identification—women should be “routinely asked about their mental health and birth experiences” and training supports this. She will write with access‑rate details for minority‑ethnic women, noting “66,500 women last year” accessed specialist services. She backed parental involvement in NICU and cited £187 million invested in the maternity and neonatal estate since April last year. She acknowledged variability at the 6–8 week check and said improving early identification is a focus, with the CQC maternity survey showing 90% of respondents “were offered” mental‑health support.

Armed Forces Bill (Committee): Armed Forces Covenant scope and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie proposed including Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) personnel within the statutory covenant duty. The Minister replied, “The Government do not support that extension” because RFA personnel are civilian seafarers and the legal duty targets disadvantage arising from Armed Forces service; however, RFA personnel are covered by the Armed Forces Commissioner under Clause 31 and Schedule 4. On amendments broadening the duty from “national authority” to all public authorities, the Minister said it is aimed at those “responsible for setting strategic direction”, adding that bodies such as HMRC “would not be covered” and that inclusion could sweep in unrelated bodies (e.g., the Met Office). He noted that the Bill enables future extension by secondary legislation “should evidence emerge”. He also offered a meeting on veterans’ pension overpayment issues raised by Lord Davies of Brixton.

Armed Forces Bill (Committee): Reservists’ identification and medical/dental readiness

Lord Harlech proposed that specified bodies be required to ask and record Armed Forces community status and that health bodies use reservist mobilisation needs as a tie‑break where patients are of equal clinical priority. The Minister argued against a statutory duty to ask/record since it “may not always be necessary” and could impose “additional administrative burden”, noting updated statutory guidance already stresses identification. On dental and medical readiness, he cautioned that NHS care is determined by “clinical priority”, warning against creating new statutory factors, and pointed to the Bill’s broader due‑regard duty on health bodies. Lord Harlech withdrew the amendments while indicating the issue may return on Report.

Armed Forces Bill (Committee): Accountability, local authority impacts and review of the covenant duty

Lord Morse sought an independent review, annual reports and assessments of local‑authority impacts/funding. The Minister said the Secretary of State is “legally required to lay an annual Armed Forces covenant report before Parliament”, and officials are enhancing it to strengthen scrutiny. He added that a new‑burdens assessment will be finalised before the duty takes effect and that many councils already have processes in place, with guidance, training and other support to follow. Baroness Goldie suggested that if a review is needed, the Armed Forces Commissioner could perform it rather than creating a new body. The amendments were withdrawn.

Armed Forces Bill (Committee): Defence Housing Service and accommodation standards

Baroness Goldie proposed adding a satisfaction objective for the new Defence Housing Service (DHS), requiring direct reporting to the Minister for the Armed Forces, and creating a board with service‑family representation. The Minister said a service ethos and family voice are built in—naming a new customer committee—and reported improving metrics: “Satisfaction with defence homes has risen to 52% … [and] repairs has increased … up to 66% by the end of 2025”. He stated the DHS will report directly to Ministers via a framework agreement, and described multiple forums embedding Armed Forces Families Federation input. On structure and funding, he confirmed “a record £9.2 billion investment over a decade” to upgrade or renew 90% of military homes, and explained why a dedicated public body is preferred to a housing association. On single living accommodation, he said it is not comparable to civilian decent homes standards and is subject to an independent review launched in January 2026. The amendments were withdrawn.

Direction of Government – Statement (Q&A)

Answering questions on the new Prime Minister’s direction, Baroness Smith of Basildon said differences were of style not values and highlighted the timing of major reviews. To reduce speculation, “the Government have brought the Budget forward to 28 October”. On climate diplomacy, she said the Prime Minister’s COP attendance had been signalled early. On Brexit, she reiterated red lines on the single market and customs union while seeking a better EU relationship. On defence, she said the Budget and spending review “will set out how we get to 3.5% by 2035, and also establish the path to 3%”, and she encouraged cross‑party work on social‑care reform.

Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) Regulations 2026 – Motion to Regret

Lord Frost argued that the SI aligns GB with EU requirements to operate the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, noting the text itself: “These regulations implement the Windsor Framework”. Baroness Hayman of Ullock described it as a “minor, pragmatic change” that “does not amend or extend the Windsor Framework”, but updates biosecurity requirements so eligible goods can continue to use simplified processes. She cited minimal industry cost—estimated net direct cost of about £10,000—and said talks on an SPS agreement were “at an advanced stage”. The Motion to Regret was withdrawn.

Armed Forces Bill (Committee): Stalking protections in the service justice system

Baroness Brinton sought (i) service stalking protection notices, (ii) mandatory specialist training, and (iii) seamless continuity of protection orders on leaving service. The Minister pointed out that the Bill already provides for “interim service stalking protection orders” to secure urgent protection before final orders, committed to refreshed and repeat training with clear guidance and leadership expectations, and highlighted amendments ensuring service orders convert to civilian ones when personnel leave. Baroness Brinton welcomed a meeting and withdrew the amendments.

Armed Forces Bill (Committee): Domestic‑abuse cases, victims’ code and production orders

An amendment to bar commanding officers from summarily hearing ABH where there is domestic abuse was met with a commitment that, after Royal Assent, the Government will review the lists of summary and serious offences and make changes via secondary legislation, consistent with policy that such cases be referred to police. The Minister confirmed equivalence between the civilian and service victims’ codes and assured continued access to service welfare support even in civilian prosecutions. On production orders, he said any procedural changes can be made by secondary legislation and outlined current notice and representation provisions, with exemptions where notice risks “serious harm”. Amendments were withdrawn.

Armed Forces Bill (Committee): Pre‑charge custody authorisations

The Lord Bishop of Norwich proposed allowing the provost marshal to authorise pre‑charge custody in all offences. The Minister said Clause 16 creates “a focused power for the provost marshals, and their suitably trained delegated officers” to authorise custody for defined serious offences, reflecting the Defence Serious Crime Command’s needs, while commanding officers retain roles in routine cases and must be notified within six hours; in exceptional cases they can still authorise custody. He undertook to consider concerns about commanding‑officer availability. The amendment was withdrawn.

Armed Forces Bill (Committee): Court martial membership and sentencing

Baroness Goldie suggested adding retired officers to court martial panels; the Minister said there has been “no difficulty in constituting boards” and agreed to check specific issues when the defendant is a senior officer. On a proposal for judge‑alone sentencing, the Minister defended joint sentencing, calling it “one of the strengths of the court martial to have service members and the Judge Advocate deciding on sentences together”, with the judge directing the legal framework and an appeal route if guidelines are not followed.

Armed Forces Bill (Committee): Presumption of suspended sentences

Baroness Goldie sought to remove the presumption of suspended sentence orders from the service justice system. The Minister defended alignment with civilian policy following the Independent Sentencing Review, stressing that “courts retain the discretion … to impose immediate custody”, particularly to maintain service discipline, and that breach can activate the custodial term. The amendment was withdrawn.